text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Policy gradient methods ignore the potential value of adjusting *environment variables*: unobservable state features that are randomly determined by the environment in a physical setting, but are controllable in a simulator. This can lead to slow learning, or convergence to suboptimal policies, if the environment variable has a large impact on the transition dynamics. In this paper, we present *fingerprint policy optimisation* (FPO), which finds a policy that is optimal in expectation across the distribution of environment variables. The central idea is to use Bayesian optimisation (BO) to actively select the distribution of the environment variable that maximises the improvement generated by each iteration of the policy gradient method. To make this BO practical, we contribute two easy-to-compute low-dimensional *fingerprints* of the current policy. Our experiments show that FPO can efficiently learn policies that are robust to significant rare events, which are unlikely to be observable under random sampling, but are key to learning good policies.'
bibliography:
- 'FPO\_bib.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Policy gradient methods have demonstrated remarkable success in learning policies for various continuous control tasks [@DDPG; @Mordatch; @GAE]. However, the expense of running physical trials, coupled with the high sample complexity of these methods, pose significant challenges in directly applying them to a physical setting, e.g., to learn a locomotion policy for a robot. Another problem is evaluating the robustness of a learned policy; it is difficult to ensure that the policy performs as expected, as it is usually infeasible to test it across all possible settings. Fortunately, policies can often be trained and tested in a simulator that exposes key *environment variables* – state features that are unobservable to the agent and randomly determined by the environment in a physical setting, but that are controllable in the simulator.
Environment variables are ubiquitous in real-world settings. For example, localisation errors may mean that a robot is much nearer to an obstacle than expected, increasing the risk of a collision. While an actual robot cannot directly trigger such errors, they are trivial to introduce in simulation. Similarly, if we want to train a helicopter to fly robustly, we can easily simulate different wind conditions, even though we cannot control weather in the real world.
A naïve application of a policy gradient method updates a policy at each iteration by using a batch of trajectories sampled from the original distribution over environment variables irrespective of the current policy or the training iteration. Thus, it does not explicitly take into account how environment variables affect learning for different policies. Furthermore, this approach is not robust to *significant rare events* (SREs), i.e., it fails any time there are rare events that have significantly different rewards thereby affecting expected performance.
For example, even if robot localisation errors are rare, coping with them properly may still be key to maximising expected performance, since the collisions they can trigger are so catastrophic. Similarly, handling certain wind conditions properly may be essential to robustly flying a helicopter, even if those conditions are rare, since doing so may avoid a crash. In such cases, the naïve approach will not see such rare events often enough to learn an appropriate response.
These problems can be avoided by learning *off environment* [@frank2008; @OFFER; @ALOQ], i.e., exploiting the ability to adjust environment variables in simulation to trigger SREs more often and thereby improve the efficiency and robustness of learning. However, existing off environment approaches have significant disadvantages. They either require substantial prior knowledge about the environment and/or dynamics [@frank2008; @OFFER], can only be applied to low dimensional policies [@ALOQ], or are highly sample inefficient [@EPOpt].
In this paper, we propose a new off environment approach called *fingerprint policy optimisation* (FPO) that aims to learn policies that are robust to rare events while addressing the disadvantages mentioned above. At its core, FPO uses a policy gradient method as the policy optimiser. However, unlike the naïve approach, FPO explicitly models the effect of the environment variable on the policy updates, as a function of the policy. Using *Bayesian optimisation* (BO), FPO actively selects the environment distribution at each iteration of the policy gradient method in order to maximise the improvement that one policy gradient update step generates. While this can yield biased gradient estimates, FPO implicitly optimises the bias-variance tradeoff in order to maximise its one-step improvement objective.
A key design challenge in FPO is how to represent the current policy, in cases where the policy is a large neural network with thousands of parameters. To this end, we propose two low-dimensional policy *fingerprints* that act as proxies for the policy. The first approximates the stationary distribution over states induced by the policy, with a size equal to the dimensionality of the state space. The second approximates the policy’s marginal distribution over actions, with a size equal to the dimensionality of the action space.
We apply FPO to different continuous control tasks and show that it can outperform existing methods, including those for learning in environments with SREs. We show that both fingerprints work equally well in practice, which implies that, for a given problem, the lower dimensional fingerprint can be chosen without sacrificing performance.
Problem Setting and Background {#sec:background}
==============================
A *Markov decision process* (MDP) is a tuple $\langle \mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{P}_\theta, r_\theta, s_0, \gamma \rangle$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the state space, $\mathcal{A}$ the set of actions, $\mathcal{P}$ the transition probabilities, $r$ the reward function, $s_0$ the probability distribution over the initial state, and $\gamma \in [0,1)$ the discount factor. We assume that the transition and reward functions depend on some environmental variables $\theta$. At the beginning of each episode, the environment randomly samples $\theta$ from some (known) distribution $p(\theta)$. The agent’s goal is to learn a policy $\pi(a|s)$ mapping states $s \in \mathcal{S}$ to actions $a \in \mathcal{A}$ that maximises the expected return $J(\pi) = \mathbb{E}_{\theta}[R(\theta, \pi)] = \mathbb{E}_{\theta \sim p(\theta), a_t\sim\pi,s_t \sim\mathcal{P} }[\sum_t \gamma^t r_\theta(s_t,a_t)]$. Note that $\pi$ does not condition on $\theta$ at any point. With a slight abuse of notation, we use $\pi$ to denote both the policy and its parameters. We consider environments characterised by significant rare events (SREs), i.e., there exist some low probability values of $\theta$ that generate large magnitude returns (positive or negative), yielding a significant impact on $J(\pi)$.
We assume that learning is undertaken in a simulator, or under laboratory conditions where $\theta$ can be actively set. Simulators are typically imperfect, which can lead to a *reality gap* that inhibits transfer to the real environment. Nonetheless, in most practical settings, e.g., autonomous vehicles and drones, training in the real environment is prohibitively expensive and dangerous, and simulators play an indispensable role.
Policy Gradient Methods {#sec:pol_grad_methods}
-----------------------
Starting with some policy $\pi_n$ at iteration $n$, gradient based batch policy optimisation methods like REINFORCE [@Reinforce], NPG [@NPG], and TRPO [@TRPO] compute an estimate of the gradient $\nabla J(\pi_n)$ by sampling a batch of trajectories from the environment while following $\pi_n$, and then use this estimate to approximate gradient ascent in $J$, yielding an updated policy $\pi_{n+1}$. REINFORCE uses a fixed learning rate to update the policy; NPG and TRPO use the Fisher information matrix to scale the gradient and constrain the KL divergence between consecutive policies, which makes the updates independent of the policy parametrisation.
A major problem for such methods is that the estimate of $\nabla J(\pi)$ can have high variance due to stochasticity in the policy and environment, yielding slow learning [@Reinforce; @Glynn:1990; @PetersRoboticsPG]. In settings with SREs, this problem is compounded by the variance due to $\theta$, which the environment samples for each trajectory in the batch. Furthermore, the SREs may not be observed during learning since the environment samples $\theta \sim p(\theta)$, which can cause convergence to a highly suboptimal policy. Since these methods do not explicitly consider the environment variable’s effect on learning, we call them *naïve* approaches.
Bayesian Optimisation {#sec:BO}
---------------------
A *Gaussian process* (GP) [@GPML] is a distribution over functions. It is fully specified by its mean $m(\mathbf{x})$ (often assumed to be 0 for convenience) and covariance functions $k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x'})$ which encode any prior belief about the function. A posterior distribution is generated by using observed values to update the belief about the function in a Bayesian way. The squared exponential kernel is a popular choice for the covariance function, and has the form $k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x'}) = \sigma_0^2 \exp[-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x'})^T\Sigma^{-1} (\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x'})]$, where $\Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal gives lengthscales corresponding to each dimension of $\mathbf{x}$. By conditioning on the observed data, predictions for any new points can be computed analytically as a Gaussian $\mathcal{N}\bigl(f(\mathbf{x}); \mu(\mathbf{x}), \sigma^2(\mathbf{x})\bigr)$:
\[eq:GP\_predictions\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\bigl(\mathbf{x}\bigr) &= k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X})(\mathbf{K}+\sigma^2_{\text{noise}} \mathbf{I})^{-1}f(\mathbf{X}) \\
\sigma^2\bigl( \mathbf{x} \bigr) &= k(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}) - k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X})(\mathbf{K}+\sigma^2_{\text{noise}} \mathbf{I})^{-1}k(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{x}),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{X}$ is the design matrix, $f(\mathbf{X})$ is the corresponding function values, and $\mathbf{K}$ is the covariance matrix with elements $k(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{x_j})$. Probabilistic modelling of the predictions makes GPs well suited for optimising $f(\mathbf{x})$ using BO. Given a set of observations, the next point for evaluation is chosen as the $\mathbf{x}$ that maximises an *acquisition function*, which uses the posterior mean and variance to balance exploitation and exploration. The choice of acquisition function can significantly impact performance and numerous acquisition functions have been suggested in the literature, ranging from confidence or expectation based methods to entropy based methods. We consider two acquisition functions: *upper confidence bound* (UCB) [@cox92sdo; @cox97sdo], and *fast information-theoretic Bayesian optimisation* (FITBO) [@FITBO].
Given a dataset $\mathcal{D}_{1:n} = \{(\mathbf{x}_i, f(\mathbf{x}_i))\}_{i=1}^n$, UCB directly incorporates the prediction uncertainty by defining an upper bound: $\alpha_{\text{UCB}}(\mathbf{x}\mid \mathcal{D}_{1:n}) = \mu(f(\mathbf{x})\mid \mathcal{D}_{1:n}) + \kappa\, \sigma(f(\mathbf{x})\mid \mathcal{D}_{1:n})$, where $\kappa$ controls the exploration-exploitation tradeoff. By contrast, FITBO aims to reduce the uncertainty about the global optimum $f(\mathbf{x}^*)$ by selecting the $\mathbf{x}$ that minimises the entropy of the distribution $p(f(\mathbf{x}^*)\mid \mathbf{x}, \mathcal{D}_{1:n})$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \alpha_{\text{FITBO}}(\mathbf{x}\mid \mathcal{D}_{1:n}) = H[p(f(\mathbf{x})\mid \mathbf{x}, \mathcal{D}_{1:n})] \nonumber \\
& - \mathbb{E}_{p(f(\mathbf{x}^*)\mid \mathcal{D}_{1:n})} \bigl[H[p(f(\mathbf{x})\mid f(\mathbf{x}^*), \mathbf{x}, \mathcal{D}_{1:n})]\bigr] \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ which cannot be computed analytically, but can be approximated efficiently following @FITBO.
BO mainly minimises simple regret: The acquisition function suggests the next point $\mathbf{x}_i$ for evaluation at each timestep, but then the algorithm suggests what it believes to be the optimal point $\hat{\mathbf{x}}^*_i$, and the regret is defined as $\sum_{i=1}^N f(\mathbf{x}^*) - f(\hat{\mathbf{x}}^*_i)$. This is different from a bandit setting where the cumulative regret is defined as $\sum_{i=1}^N f(\mathbf{x}^*) - f(\mathbf{x}_i)$. @krause2011contextual show that the UCB acquisition function is also a viable strategy to minimise cumulative regret in a contextual GP bandit setting, where selection of $\mathbf{x}_i$ conditions on some observed context.
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Fingerprint Policy Optimisation {#sec:FPO}
===============================
To address the challenges posed by environments with SREs, we introduce *fingerprint policy optimisation* (FPO). The main idea is to sample $\theta$ from a parametrised distribution $q_{\psi_n}(\theta)$ where the parameters $\psi_n$ are conditioned on a fingerprint of the current policy, such that it helps the policy optimisation routine learn a policy that takes into account any SREs. Concretely, FPO executes the following steps at each iteration $n$. First, it selects $\psi_n$ by approximately solving an optimisation problem defined below. Second, it samples trajectories from the environment using the current policy $\pi_n$, where each trajectory uses a value for $\theta$ sampled from a distribution parameterised by $\psi_n$: $\theta \sim q_{\psi_n}(\theta)$. Third, these trajectories are fed to a policy optimisation routine, e.g., a policy gradient algorithm, which uses them to compute an updated policy, $\pi_{n+1} = {\text{\scshape{PolOpt}}\xspace}(\psi, \pi_n)$. Fourth, new, independent trajectories are generated from the environment with $\pi_{n+1}$ and used to estimate $J(\pi_{n+1})$. Fifth, a new point is added to a dataset $\mathcal{D}_{1:n} = \{\bigl((\psi_{i-1}, \pi_{i-1}), J(\pi_i)\bigr)\}_{i=1}^n$, which is input to a GP. The process then repeats, with BO using the GP to select the next $\psi$.
The key insight behind FPO is that at each iteration $n$, FPO should select the $\psi_n$ that it expects will maximise the performance of the *next* policy, $\pi_{n+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:obj_psi}
\psi_n|\pi_n &= \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_\psi J(\pi_{n+1}) \nonumber \\
&= \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_\psi J \bigl({\text{\scshape{PolOpt}}\xspace}(\psi, \pi_n)\bigr).\end{aligned}$$
In other words, FPO chooses the $\psi_n$ that it thinks will help maximise the improvement to $\pi_n$ that can be made in a single policy update. By modelling the relationship between $\psi_n$, $\pi_n$, and $J(\pi_{n+1})$ with a GP, FPO can learn from experience how to select an appropriate $\psi$ for the current $\pi$. Modelling $J(\pi_{n+1})$ directly also bypasses the issue of modelling $\pi_{n+1}$ and its relationship to $J(\pi_{n+1})$, which is infeasible when $\pi_{n+1}$ is high dimensional. Note that while has inputs $(\psi,\pi_n)$, the optimisation is performed over $\psi$ only, with $\pi_n$ fixed. FPO is summarised in Algorithm \[algo:CB-PolOpt\] and illustrated in Figure \[fig:FPO\]. The remainder of this section describes in more detail elements of FPO that are essential to make it work in practice.
Selecting $\psi_n$
------------------
The optimisation problem in is difficult for two reasons. First, solving it requires calling , which is expensive in both computation and samples. Second, the observed $J(\pi)$ can be noisy due to the inherent stochasticity in the policy and the environment.
BO is particularly suited to such settings as it is sample efficient, gradient free, and can work with noisy observations. In this paper, we consider both the UCB and FITBO acquisition functions to select $\psi_n|\pi_n$ in , and compare their performance. Formally, we model the returns $J(\pi_n)$ as a GP with inputs $(\psi_{n-1}, \pi_{n-1})$. Given a dataset $\mathcal{D}_{1:n} = \{((\psi_{i-1}, \pi_{i-1}), J(\pi_i))\}_{i=1}^n$, $\psi_n$ is selected by maximising the UCB or FITBO acquisition function: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ucb_acqfn}
&\alpha_{\text{UCB}}(\psi_n|\pi_n) = \mu(J(\pi_{n+1})|\pi_n) + \kappa \sigma(J(\pi_{n+1})|\pi_n)\\
\label{eq:fitbo_acqfn}
&\alpha_{\text{FITBO}}(\psi_n|\pi_n) = H[p(J(\pi_{n+1})|\psi, \pi_n)] \nonumber \\
&- \mathbb{E}_{p(J(\pi_{n+1}^*)|\pi_n)} [H[p(J(\pi_{n+1})|\psi, \pi_n, J(\pi_{n+1}^*))]],\end{aligned}$$ where we drop conditioning on $\mathcal{D}_{1:n}$ for ease of notation. See Figure \[fig:FPO\_b\] for an illustration.
Estimating the gradient using trajectories sampled from the environment with $\theta \sim q_\psi(\theta)$ introduces bias. While importance sampling methods [@frank2008; @OFFER] could correct for this bias, FPO does not explicitly do so. Instead FPO lets BO implicitly optimise a bias-variance tradeoff by selecting $\psi$ to maximise the one-step improvement objective.
Initial policy $\pi_0$, original distribution $p(\theta)$, randomly initialised $q_{\psi_0}(\theta)$, policy optimisation method , number of policy iterations $N$, dataset $\mathcal{D}_0 = \{\}$ Sample $\theta_{1:k}$ from $q_{\psi_{n-1}}(\theta)$, and with $\pi_{n-1}$ sample trajectories $\tau_{1:k}$ corresponding to each $\theta_{1:k}$ Compute $\pi_n = {\text{\scshape{PolOpt}}\xspace}(\tau_{1:k}) = {\text{\scshape{PolOpt}}\xspace}(\psi_{n-1}, \pi_{n-1})$ Compute $J(\pi_n)$ using numerical quadrature as described in Section \[sec:estimate\_pol\_val\]. Use the sampled trajectories to compute the policy fingerprint as described in Section \[sec:pol\_fingerprint\]. Set $\mathcal{D}_n = \mathcal{D}_{n-1} \cup \{((\psi_{n-1}, \pi_{n-1}), J(\pi_n)) \}$ and update the GP to condition on $\mathcal{D}_n$ Use either the UCB or FITBO acquisition functions to select $\psi_n$.
Estimating $J(\pi_n)$ {#sec:estimate_pol_val}
---------------------
Estimating $J(\pi_n)$ accurately in the presence of SREs can be challenging. A Monte Carlo estimate using samples of trajectories from the original environment requires prohibitively many samples. One alternative would be to apply an IS correction to the trajectories generated from $q_{\psi_n}(\theta)$ for the policy optimisation routine. However, this is not feasible since it would require computing the IS weights $\frac{p(\tau|\theta)}{q_\psi(\tau|\theta)}$, which depend on the unknown transition function. Furthermore, even if the transition function is known, there is no reason why $\psi_n$ should yield a good IS distribution since it is selected with the objective of maximising $J(\pi_{n+1})$.
Instead, FPO applies exhaustive summation for discrete $\theta$ and numerical quadrature for continuous $\theta$ to estimate $J(\pi_n)$. That is, if the support of $\theta$ is discrete, FPO simply samples a trajectory from each environment defined by $\theta$ and estimates $J(\pi_n) = \sum_{l=1}^{L} p(\theta=\theta_l)R(\theta_l, \pi_n)$. To reduce the variance due to stochasticity in the policy and the environment, we can sample multiple trajectories from each $\theta_l$. For continuous $\theta$, we apply an adaptive Gauss-Kronrod quadrature rule to estimate $J(\pi_n)$. While numerical quadrature may not scale to high dimensions, in practice $\theta$ is usually low dimensional, making this a practical design choice.
Since for discrete $\theta$ we evaluate $J(\pi_n)$ through exhaustive summation, it is natural to consider a variation of the naïve approach, wherein $\nabla J(\pi_n)$ is also evaluated in the same manner during training, i.e., $\nabla J(\pi_n) = \sum_{l=1}^{L} p(\theta=\theta_l)\nabla J(\theta_l, \pi_n)$. We call this the ‘Enum’ baseline since the gradient is estimated by enumerating over all possible values of $\theta$. Our experiments in Section \[sec:experiments\] show that this baseline is unable to match the performance of FPO.
Policy Fingerprints {#sec:pol_fingerprint}
-------------------
True global optimisation is limited by the curse of dimensionality to low-dimensional inputs, and BO has had only rare successes in problems with more than twenty dimensions [@wang_bayesian_2013]. In FPO, many of the inputs to the GP are policy parameters and in practice, the policy may be a neural network with thousands of parameters. While @linear_policies show that linear and radial basis function policies can perform as well as neural networks in some simulated continuous control tasks, even these policies have hundreds of parameters, far too many for a GP.
Thus, we need to develop a policy *fingerprint*, i.e., a representation that is low dimensional enough to be treated as an input to the GP but expressive enough to distinguish the policy from others. @StabExpReplay showed that a surprisingly simple fingerprint, consisting only of the training iteration, suffices to stabilise multi-agent $Q$-learning. Such a fingerprint is insufficient for FPO, as the GP fails to model the response surface and treats all observed $J(\pi)$ as noise. However, the principle still applies: a simplistic fingerprint that discards much information about the policy can still be sufficient for decision making, in this case to select $\psi_n$.
In this spirit, we propose two fingerprints. The first, the *state fingerprint*, augments the training iteration with an estimate of the stationary state distribution induced by the policy. In particular, we fit an anisotropic Gaussian to the set of states visited in the trajectories sampled while estimating $J(\pi)$ (see Section \[sec:estimate\_pol\_val\]). The size of this fingerprint grows linearly with the dimensionality of the state space, instead of the number of parameters in the policy.
In many settings, the state space is high dimensional, but the action space is low dimensional. Therefore, our second fingerprint, the *action fingerprint*, is a Gaussian approximation of the marginal distribution over actions induced by the policy: $a(\pi) = \int \pi(a|s)s(\pi)ds$ (here $s(\pi)$ is the stationary state distribution induced by $\pi$), sampled from trajectories as with the state fingerprint.
Of course, neither the stationary state distribution nor the marginal action distribution are likely to be Gaussian and could in fact be multimodal. Furthermore, the state distribution is estimated from samples used to estimate $J(\pi)$, and not from $p(\theta)$. However, as our results show, these representations are nonetheless effective, as they do not need to accurately describe each policy, but instead just serve as low dimensional fingerprints on which FPO conditions.
Covariance Function
-------------------
Our choice of policy fingerprints means that one of the inputs to the GP is a probability distribution. Thus for our GP prior we use a covariance that is the product of three terms, $k_1(\psi, \psi'), k_2(n,n')$ and $k_3\bigl(\textsc{fgp}(\pi), \textsc{fgp}(\pi')\bigr)$, where each of $k_1, k_2$, and $k_3$ is a squared exponential covariance function and $\textsc{fgp}(\pi)$ is the state or action fingerprint of $\pi$. Similar to @Hellinger_kernel, we use the Hellinger distance to replace the Euclidean in $k_3$: this covariance remains positive-semi-definite as the Hellinger is effectively a modified Euclidean.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Various methods have been proposed for learning in the presence of SREs. These are usually off environment and either based on learning a good IS distribution from which to sample the environment variable [@frank2008; @OFFER], or Bayesian active selection of the environment variable during learning [@ALOQ].
@frank2008 propose a temporal difference based method that uses IS to efficiently evaluate policies whose expected value may be substantially affected by rare events. However, their method assumes prior knowledge of the SREs, such that they can directly alter the probability of such events during policy evaluation. By contrast, FPO does not require any such prior knowledge about SREs, or the environment variable settings that might trigger them. It only assumes that the original distribution of the environment variable is known, and that the environment variable is controllable during learning.
OFFER [@OFFER] is a policy gradient method that uses observed trials to gradually change the IS distribution over the environment variable. Like FPO, it makes no prior assumptions about SREs. However, at each iteration it updates the environment distribution with the objective of minimising the variance of the gradient estimate, which may not lead to the distribution that optimises the learning of the policy. Furthermore, OFFER requires a full transition model of the environment to compute the IS weights. It can also lead to unstable IS estimates if the environment variable affects any transitions besides the initial state.
ALOQ [@ALOQ] is a Bayesian optimisation and quadrature method that models the return as a GP with the policy parameters and environment variable as inputs. At each iteration it actively selects the policy and then the environment variable in an alternating fashion and, as such, performs the policy search in the parameter space. As a BO based method, it does not assume the observations are Markov and is highly sample efficient. However, it can only be applied to settings with low dimensional policies. Furthermore, its computational cost scales cubically with the number of iterations, and is thus limited to settings where a good policy can be found within relatively few iterations. By contrast, FPO uses policy gradients to perform policy optimisation while the BO component generates trajectories, which when used by the policy optimiser are expected to lead to a larger improvement in the policy.
In the wider BO literature, @williams_santner suggested a method for settings where the objective is to optimise expensive integrands. However, their method does not specifically consider the impact of SREs and, as shown by @ALOQ, is unsuitable for such settings. @BO_expensive_integrands suggest BQO, another BO based method for expensive integrands. Their method also does not explicitly consider SREs. Finally, both these methods suffer from all the disadvantages of BO based methods mentioned earlier.
EPOpt($\epsilon$) [@EPOpt] is a different off-environment approach that learns robust policies by maximising the $\epsilon$-percentile conditional value at risk (CVaR) of the policy. First, it randomly samples a set of simulator settings; then trajectories are sampled for each of these settings. A policy optimisation routine (e.g., TRPO [@TRPO]) then updates the policy based on only those trajectories with returns lower than the $\epsilon$ percentile in the batch. A fundamental difference to FPO is that it finds a risk-averse solution based on CVaR, while FPO finds a risk neutral policy. Also, while FPO actively changes the distribution for sampling the environment variable at each iteration, EPOpt samples them from the original distribution, and is thus unlikely to be suitable for settings with SREs, since it will not generate SREs often enough to to learn an appropriate response. Finally, EPOpt discards all sampled trajectories in the batch with returns greater than $\epsilon$ percentile for use by the policy optimisation routine, making it highly sample inefficient, especially for low values of $\epsilon$.
RARL [@RARL] learns robust policies by training in a simulator where an adversary applies destabilising forces, with both the agent and the adversary trained simultaneously. RARL requires significant prior knowledge in setting up the adversary to ensure that the environment is easy enough to be learnable but difficult enough that the learned policy will be robust. Like EPOpt, it does not consider settings with SREs.
By learning an optimal distribution for the environment variable conditioned on the policy fingerprint, FPO also has some parallels with meta-learning. Methods like MAML [@MAML], and Reptile [@Reptile] seek to find a good policy representation that can be adapted quickly to a specified task. @learn_by_grad [@learn_without_grad] seek to optimise neural networks by learning an automatic update rule based on transferring knowledge from similar optimisation problems. To maximise the performance of a neural network across a set of discrete tasks, @Graves propose a method for automatically selecting a curriculum during learning. Their method treats the problem as a multi-armed bandit and uses Exp3 [@Exp3] to find the optimal curriculum. Unlike these methods, which seek to quickly adapt to a new task after training on some related task, FPO seeks to maximise the expected return across a family of tasks characterised by different settings of the environment variable.
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
To evaluate the empirical performance of FPO, we start by applying it to a simple problem: a modified version of the cliff walker task , with one dimensional state and action spaces. We then move on to simulated robotics problems based on the MuJoCo simulator [@OpenAIGym] with much higher dimensionalities. These were modified to include SREs. We aim to answer two questions: (1) How do the different versions of FPO (UCB vs. FITBO acquisition functions, state (S) vs. action (A) fingerprints) compare with each other? (2) How does FPO compare to existing methods (Naïve, Enum, OFFER, EPOpt, ALOQ), and ablated versions of FPO. We use TRPO as the policy optimisation method combined with neural net policies. We also include $\theta$ as an input to the baseline (but not to the policy) since it is observable during training.
We repeat all our experiments across 10 random starts. For ease of viewing we present only the median of the expected returns in the plots. Further experimental details are provided in Appendix \[app:hyper\_settings\], and information about the variation due to the random starts is presented in Appendix \[app:quartiles\].
Due to the disadvantages of ALOQ mentioned in Section \[sec:related\_work\], we were able to apply it only on the cliff walker problem. The policy dimensionality and the total number of iterations for the simulated robotic tasks were far too high. Note also that, while we compare FPO to EPOpt, these methods optimise for different objectives.
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Cliff Walker {#sec:exp_cliff_walker}
------------
We start with a modified version of the cliff walker problem where instead of a gridworld we consider an agent moving in a continuous state space $\mathbb{R}$; the agent starts randomly near the state 0, and at each timestep can take an action $a \in \mathbb{R}$. The environment then transitions the agent to a new location $s' = s + 0.025\text{sign}(a) + 0.005\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is standard Gaussian noise. The location of the cliff is given by $1+\theta$, where $p(\theta) \sim \textit{Beta}(2,1)$. If the agent’s current state is lower than the cliff location, it gets a reward equal to its state; otherwise it falls off the cliff and gets a reward of -5000, terminating the episode. Thus the objective is to learn to walk as close to the cliff edge as possible without falling over.
Figure \[fig:cliff\_q1\] shows that all versions of FPO do equally well on the task. Figure \[fig:cliff\_q2\] shows that FPO-UCB(S) learns a policy with a higher expected return than all other baselines. This is not surprising since, as discussed in Section \[sec:pol\_grad\_methods\], the gradient estimates without active selection of $\psi$ are likely to have high variance due to the presence of SREs. For EPOpt we set $\epsilon=0.2$ and perform rejection sampling after 50 iterations. The poor performance of ALOQ is expected since even in this simple problem, the policy dimensionality of 47 is high for BO. We could not run OFFER since an analytical solution of $\nabla_\psi q_\psi(\theta)$ does not exist.
Figure \[fig:cliff\_mean\_theta\] compares the mean of sampling distribution for the cliff location chosen by FPO-UCB(S), i.e., $\mathbb{E}_{q_{\psi_n}} [\theta]$, against the mean of true distribution of the cliff location ($\mathbb{E}_{p}[\theta]$). FPO-UCB(S) selects sampling distributions for the cliff location that are more conservative than the true distribution. This is expected as falling off the cliff has a significant cost and closer cliff locations need to be sampled more frequently to learn a policy that avoids the low probability events where the cliff location is close under the true distribution.
The large negative reward for falling off the cliff acts like an SRE in this setting, so we can modify it to have no SRE by setting the reward to 0, but retain the randomised location of the cliff as an environment variable that affects the dynamics. In Appendix \[app:no\_sre\_cliff\] we show that the active selection of the environment variable enables FPO to outperform the naïve approach in this setting as well.
Half Cheetah
------------
Next we consider simulated robotic locomotion tasks using the Mujoco simulator. In the original OpenAI Gym HalfCheetah task, the objective is to maximise forward velocity. We modify the original problem such that in 98% of the cases the objective is to achieve a target velocity of 2, with rewards decreasing linearly with the distance from the target. In the remaining 2%, the target velocity is set to 4, with a large bonus reward, which acts as an SRE.
Figure \[fig:cheetah\_q1\] shows that FPO with UCB outperforms FPO with FITBO. We suspect that this is because FITBO tends to over-explore. Also, as mentioned in Section \[sec:BO\], it was developed with the aim of minimising simple regret and it is not known how efficient it is at minimising cumulative regret. As in cliff walker, both the action and state fingerprints perform equally well with UCB.
Figure \[fig:cheetah\_q2\] shows that the Naïve method and OFFER converge to a locally optimal policy that completely ignores the SRE, while the random selection of $\psi$ does slightly better. The Enum baseline performs better than random, but is still far worse than FPO. This shows that the key to learning a good policy is the active selection of $\psi_n$, which also includes the implicit bias-variance tradeoff performed by FPO. We set $\epsilon=0.8$ for EPOpt, but in this case we use the trajectories with returns exceeding the threshold for the policy optimisation since the SRE has a large positive return. Although its performance increases after iteration 4,000, it is extremely sample inefficient, requiring about five times the samples of FPO. We did not run ALOQ as it is entirely infeasible given the policy dimensionality ($>20,000$).
Finally, Figure \[fig:cheetah\_psi\] presents the schedule of $\psi$, (i.e., the probability of the target velocity being 4) as selected by FPO-UCB(S) across different iterations. FPO learns to vary $\psi$, starting with 0.5 initially, to hovering around 0.6 once the cheetah can consistently reach velocities greater than 2. Further assessments of the learnt policy is presented in Appendix \[app:more\_experiments\].
Ant
---
The ant environment is much more difficult than half cheetah since the agent moves in 3D, and the state space has 111 dimensions compared to 17 for half cheetah. The larger state space also makes learning difficult due to the higher variance in the gradient estimates. We modify the original problem such that velocities greater than 2 carry a 5% chance of damage to the ant. On incurring damage, which we treat as the SRE, the agent receives a large negative reward, and the episode terminates.
Figure \[fig:ant\_q1\] compares the performance of the UCB versions of FPO. There is no significant difference between the performance of the state or action fingerprint, or between the UCB and FITBO acquisition functions. Thus, the lower dimensional fingerprint (in this case the action fingerprint) can be chosen without compromising performance.
Figure \[fig:ant\_q2\] shows that for the Naïve method and EPOpt, performances drops significantly after about 750 iterations. This is because the learned policies generate velocities beyond 2, which after factoring in the effect of the SRE, yield much lower expected returns. Since the SREs are not seen often enough, these methods do not learn that higher velocities actually yield lower expected returns. The Enum baseline once again performs better than the naïve approach, but still worse than FPO. The random baseline performs better, and eventually matches the performance of FPO. We could not run OFFER in this setting as computing the IS weights would require knowledge of the transition model.
Figure \[fig:ant\_psi\] shows that the optimal schedule for $\psi$, the probability of damage for velocities greater than 2, as learnt by FPO-UCB(S), hovers around 0.5. This helps explain the relatively good performance of the random baseline: since the baseline samples $\psi \sim U(0,1)$ at each iteration, the expected value of $\psi$ is 0.5, and thus we can expect it to find a good policy eventually. Of course, active selection of $\psi$ still matters, as evidenced by FPO outperforming it initially.
A natural question that arises based on the above result, is whether the schedule learnt by FPO-UCB(S) is better than a fixed schedule wherein the probability of breakage is fixed to some value throughout training. We investigate this by running another set of baselines wherein the probability of breakage is fixed to each of $\{0.3,0,4,0.5,0.6,0.7\}$ throughout training. The learning curves are presented in Figure \[fig:ant\_bl\], with ‘Fixed$(x)$’ referring to the baseline with the probability of breakage fixed at $x$. While all of the baselines finally converge to a policy that performs on par with FPO-UCB(S), they learn much slower initially. This goes to show that learning a schedule that takes into account the current policy is key to faster learning. Further assessments of the learnt policy is presented in Appendix \[app:more\_experiments\].
![Comparison of FPO-UCB(S) against the Fixed baselines[]{data-label="fig:ant_bl"}](ant_fixed){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Conclusions & Future Work
=========================
Environment variables can have a significant impact on the performance of a policy and are pervasive in real-world settings. This paper presented FPO, a method based on the insight that active selection of environment variables during learning can lead to policies that take into account the effect of SREs. We introduced novel state and action fingerprints that can be used by BO with a one-step improvement objective to make FPO scalable to high dimensional tasks irrespective of the policy dimensionality. We applied FPO to a number of continuous control tasks of varying difficulty and showed that FPO can efficiently learn policies that are robust to significant rare events, which are unlikely to be observable under random sampling but are key to learning good policies. In the future we would like to develop fingerprints for discrete state and action spaces, and explore using a multi-step improvement objective for the BO component.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Binxin Ru for sharing the code for FITBO, and Yarin Gal for the helpful discussions. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement \#637713). The experiments were made possible by a generous equipment grant from NVIDIA.
Appendices
==========
Hyperparameter Settings {#app:hyper_settings}
-----------------------
Our implementation is based on rllab [@rllab] and as such most of the hyperparameter settings were kept to their default settings. The details are provided in Table \[tab:exp\_details\].
Cliff Walker HalfCheetah Ant
------------------ -------------- ------------- -----------
TRPO TRPO TRPO
KL constraint 0.01 0.01 0.01
Discount rate 0.99 0.99 0.99
GAE $\lambda$ 1.0 1.0 1.0
Batch size 10,000 12,500 12,500
Policy layers (5,5) (100,100) (100,100)
Policy units Tanh ReLU ReLU
FPO-UCB $\kappa$ 2 2 2
: Experimental details
\[tab:exp\_details\]
Detailed Experimental Results {#app:quartiles}
-----------------------------
In Table \[tab:quartiles\] we present the quartiles of the expected return of the final learnt policy for each method across the 10 random starts.
[1]{}
Q1 Median Q2
-------------- --------- -------- -------
FPO-UCB(S) 427.1 441.5 450.0
FPO-UCB(A) 335.2 432.6 440.4
FPO-FITBO(S) 428.1 443.6 453.1
FPO-FITBO(A) 372.2 438.2 451.5
Naïve -1478.7 -135.5 243
EPOpt -44.4 282.1 354.4
ALOQ 33.5 57.2 77.2
Random 345.8 358.9 373.4
: Ant[]{data-label="tab:ant_results"}
[1]{}
Q1 Median Q2
-------------- -------- -------- --------
FPO-UCB(S) 3913.7 5464.0 5905.5
FPO-UCB(A) 4435.6 5231.8 5897.6
FPO-FITBO(S) 2973.9 3187.2 3923.7
FPO-FITBO(A) 3686.2 4091.1 7247.3
Naïve 1059.9 1071.1 1086.0
EPOpt 803.6 4066.0 4421.0
OFFER 1093.9 1097.4 1111.2
Random 1722.3 2132.6 2645.5
Enum 2442.8 2796.0 3428.4
: Ant[]{data-label="tab:ant_results"}
[1]{}
Q1 Median Q2
-------------- --------- --------- ---------
FPO-UCB(S) 490.6 674.2 713.3
FPO-UCB(A) 408.1 519.4 629.7
FPO-FITBO(S) 626.8 704.2 770.0
FPO-FITBO(A) 455.7 533.1 707.0
Naïve -1746.9 -1669.4 -1585.2
EPOpt -1732.3 -1606.6 -1454.5
Random 460.3 575.6 640.4
Enum 255.7 273.4 285.6
: Ant[]{data-label="tab:ant_results"}
\[tab:quartiles\]
Further Examination of the Learnt Policies {#app:more_experiments}
------------------------------------------
As explained in the Experiments section, the SREs for the HalfCheetah and Ant experiments are based on the velocities achieved by the agent; for HalfCheetah the SRE is defined as the velocity target being 4 (and carrying a large bonus reward) instead of 2 with a 2% probability of occurrence, while for Ant velocities greater than 2 has a 5% probability of incurring a large cost. Here we compare the performance of FPO-UCB(S) against the next best baseline (Enum for HalfCheetah and Random for Ant) and the Naïve baseline by visualising the velocity profiles of the final learnt policy. For each random start for each method we sampled 10 trajectories (for a total of 100 trajectories per method) and plot the histogram of the velocity at each timestep. This is presented in Figure \[fig:vels\].
[0.45]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
For the HalfCheetah task, from Figure \[fig:cheetah\_vel\] we can see that the velocity profile for the Naïve approach is highly concentrated around 2. This goes to show that the Naïve approach learns a policy that does not take into account the SRE at all. On the other hand, both Enum and FPO-UCB(S) have velocity profiles with much higher variance with a lot of mass spread between 2 and 4. This goes to show that both of them take into account the effect of SREs. However, FPO-UCB(S) manages to better balance the SRE/non-SRE rewards and has slightly higher mass concentrated on 4, which in turn leads to it significantly outperforming Enum.
For the Ant task, unsurprisingly once again the Naïve approach completely ignores the SREs, and exhibits a velocity profile that is greater than 2 roughly 50% of the time. The velocity profiles of the Random baseline and FPO-UCB(S) are almost exactly the same. This is unexpected as there is no significant difference between the expected return of the final policies learnt by these two methods, as shown in Section \[sec:experiments\]. As noted earlier, the good performance of Random is not unsurprising since the schedule for $\psi$ chosen by FPO-UCB(S) is close to 0.5, which is also the mean of $\psi$ under the random baseline as $\psi \sim U(0,1)$.
Performance in settings without SREs {#app:no_sre_cliff}
------------------------------------
FPO considers the setting where environments are characterised by SREs. A natural question to ask is how does its performance compare to the naïve method in settings where there are no SREs. To investigate this we applied FPO-UCB(S), and the naïve baseline, to the cliff walker problem presented in Section \[sec:exp\_cliff\_walker\], with the modification that falling off the cliff now carries 0 reward instead of -5000. This removes the SRE, but the environment variable (the location of the cliff) is still relevant since it has a significant effect on the dynamics. The results are presented in Figure \[fig:no\_sre\_cliff\_walker\]. Note that the performance of the Naïve method is far more stable than in the setting with SRE. However, while it is able to learn a good policy, FPO-UCB(S) still performs better since it takes into account the effect of the environment variable.
![Results for the Cliff Walker environment without any SRE. Solid line shows the median and the shaded region the quartiles across 10 random starts.[]{data-label="fig:no_sre_cliff_walker"}](no_sre_cliff_walker){width="0.9\linewidth"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use vector flavor symmetry to relate form factors of isospin changing operators to isovector form factors. Flavor twisted boundary conditions in lattice QCD thus allow isovector form factors of twist-two operators, e.g, to be computed at continuous values of the momentum transfer. These twisted boundary conditions, moreover, are implemented only in the valence sector. Effects of the finite volume must be addressed to extract isovector moments and radii at zero lattice momentum. As an example, we use chiral perturbation theory to assess the volume effects in extracting the isovector magnetic moment of the nucleon from simulations with twisted boundary conditions.'
author:
- 'Brian C. Tiburzi'
bibliography:
- 'hb.bib'
title: Flavor Twisted Boundary Conditions and Isovector Form Factors
---
ł Ł ø Ø §
\#1
\#1[[(\[\#1\])]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Numerically simulating quantum chromodynamics (QCD) on a spacetime lattice enables the study of hadrons from first principles. Hadronic properties computed from lattice QCD, however, suffer from a number of artifacts due to the approximations involved in solving the theory numerically. These artifacts include volume effects, lattice spacing errors, the use of unphysically large quark masses, and the partially quenched approximation. There has been considerable recent effort to address the reduction of these systematic errors using effective field theory (EFT) methods, see, e.g. [@Bernard:2002yk]. With improved numerical algorithms and enlarged computing resources, we are entering a period where lattice data in conjunction with EFTs will provide physical predictions for QCD.
Another restriction in lattice simulations is the available momentum. With periodic boundary conditions, the momentum and hence momentum transfers are quantized. On current dynamical lattices the lowest non-zero momentum mode is $\sim 500 \, \texttt{MeV}$. Chiral EFTs predict the momentum transfer dependence of form factors. With current lattice sizes, however, the applicability of these theories to describe the momentum dependence is questionable. The restriction to quantized momentum transfer leads to a further impediment: the extraction of radii and moments that are only accessible in the near-forward limit is severely limited without *ad hoc* models for the momentum dependence. For a lattice of uniform spatial size $L$, periodic boundary conditions yield momentum modes $\bm{q} = 2 \pi \bm{n} / L$, for $\bm{n} \in \mathbb{Z}^3$. To reduce the momentum granularity one must increase the lattice volume and thus generate new gauge configurations—an extremely costly solution.[^1]
The use of periodic boundary conditions is one of simplicity not necessity. The quark fields need to periodic only up to some transformation which is a symmetry of the action. Thus if $U$ is a symmetry of the action and $U^\dagger U = 1$, we can choose a twisted boundary condition for the generic field $\phi$ of the form $$\notag
\phi(x_i + L) = U \phi(x_i)
,$$ while maintaining the single valuedness of the action. Twisted boundary conditions are by no means new [@Gross:1982at; @Roberge:1986mm; @Wiese:1991ku; @Luscher:1996sc; @Bucarelli:1998mu; @Guagnelli:2003hw; @Kiskis:2002gr; @Kiskis:2003rd; @Kim:2002np; @Kim:2003xt], and there has been renewed interest in their utility at producing continuous hadron momentum [@Bedaque:2004kc; @deDivitiis:2004kq; @Sachrajda:2004mi; @Bedaque:2004ax; @Tiburzi:2005hg; @Flynn:2005in; @Guadagnoli:2005be; @Aarts:2006wt].
Obtaining hadronic states at continuous values of momentum does not solve the problem of coarse grained sampling of form factors, as the momentum transfer will still be quantized. In [@Tiburzi:2005hg] it was shown that matrix elements of flavor changing operators, however, can be accessed at continuous values of the momentum transfer $\bm{q}$, of the form $\bm{q} = 2 \pi \bm{n} / L + \delta \bm{\theta}/L$, where $\delta \bm{\theta}$ is a continuous parameter and is equal to the difference of twist angles of the flavors changed. As such flavor-changing operators have no self-contractions, the difference of twists is implemented only in the valence quark sector to produce momentum transfer. These so-called partially twisted boundary conditions eliminate the need to regenerate gauge configurations for each value of the twisting parameters, and allow moments and radii of flavor changing operators to be extracted at zero lattice momentum (up to volume corrections [@Sachrajda:2004mi]). This procedure has been studied in numerical simulations: for extracting $f_\pi$ [@Flynn:2005in], and for determining $K \to \pi$ matrix elements [@Guadagnoli:2005be].
In this work, we point out that the vector flavor symmetry $SU(2)_V$ of QCD relates matrix elements of isospin changing operators to matrix elements of isovector operators. Thus the form factors of the latter can be accessed at continuous momentum transfer by calculating flavor changing matrix elements on the lattice. This result holds for quark bilinear operators of arbitrary spin and Lorentz structure. Our discussion is organized as follows. In Sect. \[s:SU(2)\_V\], we derive the relations between matrix elements related by an isospin rotation. Next in Sect. \[s:extension\], we detail how these relations can be utilized on the lattice with partially twisted boundary conditions. The dynamical effects of the boundary conditions are discussed in Sect. \[s:example\], where the volume effects for the nucleon isovector magnetic moment are presented. We end with a brief summary in Sect. \[summy\].
Vector Current Conservation {#s:SU(2)_V}
===========================
The Lagrangian of two flavor QCD,[^2] the quark part of which is $$\mathcal{L}
= \sum_{j,k=1}^2 \ol{Q}{}^{\hskip 0.2em j} \left(
\Dslash + m_Q \right)_j^{\hskip 0.3em k} Q_k
,$$ with $Q = ( u, d )^T$ and $m = \diag (m_u, m_d)$, has an exact $SU(2)_V$ symmetry in the isospin limit, $m_u = m_d$, that cannot be spontaneously broken. We shall work exclusively in the isospin limit. Let us denote the generators of $SU(2)_V$ by $T^a$. Noether’s theorem yields the current $$J^{a}_\mu(x) = \ol Q (x) T^a \gamma_\mu Q(x)
,$$ with conserved charges $$\cQ^a = \int d\bm{x} \, J^{a0} (x)
,$$ that are the generators of isospin rotations.
Now consider a quark bilinear operator $\mathcal{O}^a$ of the form $$\label{eq:bilinear}
\mathcal{O}^a (x) = \ol Q(x) \, T^a \, \Gamma \, Q(x)
.$$ The $\Gamma$ represents any Dirac matrix and any Lorentz tensor. For example, the twist-two operator $$A^a_{\mu \mu_1 \ldots \mu_n} (x) = \ol Q (x) \, T^a \, \gamma_5 \gamma_{\{ \mu}
D_{\mu_1} \cdots D_{\mu_n \}} Q (x),$$ is such an $\mathcal{O}^a(x)$, *etc*. We leave $\Gamma$ unspecified because only the flavor structure is relevant for our discussion. It is straightforward to show that $$[ \cQ^a, \mathcal{O}^b(x) ] = i \varepsilon^{abc} \mathcal{O}^c(x)
.$$ Defining the usual isospin raising and lowering operators $T^\pm = T^1 \pm i T^2$, we have $$\label{eq:key}
\mathcal{O}^\pm (x) = \mp [ \cQ^\pm, \mathcal{O}^3(x)]
.$$ These relations enable us to relate isospin changing matrix elements to isovector ones.
As an example, consider the neutron to proton matrix element of $\mathcal{O}^+$. We have $$\label{eq:protonkey}
\langle p \, | \, \mathcal{O}^+ | \, n \rangle
=
\langle p \, | \, \mathcal{O}^3 | \, p \rangle
-
\langle n \, | \, \mathcal{O}^3 | \, n \rangle
,$$ by virtue of Eq. . This result can be rewritten in various forms using the isoscalar combination $$\mathcal{O}^I(x) = \ol Q(x) \mathbbm{1} \, \Gamma \, Q(x)
,$$ and the fact that $$\langle p \, | \, \mathcal{O}^I | \, p \rangle
-
\langle n \, | \, \mathcal{O}^I | \, n \rangle
=
0
.$$ For example, $\langle p \, | \, \mathcal{O}^+ | \, n \rangle
= 2 \langle p \, | \, \mathcal{O}^3 | \, p \rangle
= \langle p \, | \, \ol u \, \Gamma \, u | \, p \rangle - \langle n \, | \, \ol u \, \Gamma \, u | \, n \rangle$. There is a particularly useful way to rewrite the above relation in Eq. for the case of the electromagnetic current operator $$J_\mu^{\text{em}} (x) = \ol Q(x) \, \cQ \, \gamma_\mu Q(x)
,$$ with $\cQ = \diag ( 2/3, - 1/3 )$. This form is $$\label{eq:protonEMkey}
\langle p \, | \, \ol u \, \gamma_\mu \, d | \, n \rangle
=
\langle p \, | \, J_\mu^{\text{em}} | \, p \rangle
-
\langle n \, | \, J_\mu^{\text{em}} | \, n \rangle
.$$
Of course one is not limited to baryonic matrix elements. Below we shall largely highlight the calculation of nucleon electromagnetic form factors as an example of how to utilize twisted boundary conditions. Our results, however, apply to the arbitrary quark bilinear operators in Eq. , using the relation in Eq. between the desired states.
Implementation on the Lattice {#s:extension}
=============================
The above operator relations can be utilized to study isovector form factors at continuous values of the momentum transfer. In this Sect., we describe how to utilize partially twisted boundary conditions for this purpose. Here we focus on the kinematical effects; while in Sect. \[s:example\], we take up the dynamical effects at finite volume.
To see that the relations implied by Eq. \[or for a specific example, the relation in Eq. \] allow lattice matrix elements to be accessed at continuous momentum transfer, first observe that there are no operator self contractions, thus, the momentum injection occurs in the valence sector alone. To separate the valence and sea sectors, we use the partially quenched Lagrangian $$\cL = \sum_{j,k=1}^6 \ol{Q}{}^{\hskip 0.2em j} \left(
\Dslash + m_Q \right)_j^{\hskip 0.3em k} Q_k
.\label{eq:pqqcdlag}$$ The six quark fields transform in the fundamental representation of the graded $SU(4|2)$ group and appear in the vector $Q = (u, d, j, l, \mathfrak{u}, \mathfrak{d})^{\text{T}}$ that, in addition to the $u$ and $d$ quarks, has ghost quarks $\mathfrak{u}$ and $\mathfrak{d}$, which cancel the closed valence loops, and two sea quarks $j$ and $l$. In the isospin limit, the quark mass matrix of $SU(4|2)$ reads $m_Q = \diag(m_u, m_u, m_j, m_j, m_u, m_u)$.
In a finite box, the quark fields must satisfy boundary conditions that preserve the single valuedness of the action. Such a choice is afforded by twisted boundary conditions of the form $$Q(x + L \hat{\bm{e}}_r) = \exp \left( i \bm{\theta}^a \cdot \hat{\bm{e}}_r \, \ol T {}^a_C \right) Q(x)
,$$ where $\hat{\bm{e}}_r$ is a unit vector in the $r^{\text{th}}$ spatial direction and the block diagonal form of the supermatrices $\ol T {}^a_C$ is $$\label{eq:qtwist}
\ol T {}^a_C
=
\diag
\left( T^a_C, 0, T^a_C \right)
.$$ Here $T^a_C$ are the elements of the Cartan subalgebra of $U(2)$.[^3] As a consequence of Eq. , the sea quarks are periodic, and hence the twist angles $\bm{\theta}^a$ can be altered without generating new gauge configurations.
Defining new quark fields as $\Qt(x) = V^\dagger(x) Q(x)$, where $V(x) = \exp ( i \bm{\th}^a \cdot \bm{x} \, \ol T {}^a_C / L )$, we can write the partially quenched Lagrangian as $$\label{eq:Ltwist}
\cL
=
\sum_{j,k=1}^6 \ol{\Qt}{}^{\hskip 0.2em j}
\left(
\Dtslash + m_Q \right)_j^{\hskip 0.3em k}
\Qt_k
,$$ where all $\Qt$ fields satisfy periodic boundary conditions, and the effect of twisting has the form of a $U(1)$ gauge field: $\Dt_\mu = D_\mu + i B_\mu$, with $B_\mu = (0, \bm{\th}^a \, \ol T {}^a_C / L)$. For convenience we treat the twisting in the flavor basis: $\bm{\th}^a \, \ol T {}^a_C = \diag (\bm{\th}^u, \bm{\th}^d, \bm{0}, \bm{0}, \bm{\th}^u, \bm{\th}^d )$, and similarly for $B_\mu = \diag (B^u_\mu, B^d_\mu, 0, 0, B^u_\mu, B^d_\mu )$. The constant field $B_\mu$ acts as flavor-dependent field momentum. Meson and baryon fields formed from these $\Qt$ quark fields also acquire flavor-dependent momentum via the background $U(1)$ field namely, $$\label{eq:mmom}
\Dt_\mu \St = \partial_\mu \St + i [ B_\mu, \St ]
,$$ for the mesons [@Sachrajda:2004mi], and $$\label{eq:bmom}
[\cDt_\mu \cBt (x)]^{ijk} = \partial_\mu \cBt^{ijk} (x) + i (B_\mu^i + B_\mu^j + B_\mu^k) \cBt^{ijk}(x)
,$$ for the baryons [@Tiburzi:2005hg].
In analogy with QCD, we assume that the infinite volume theory described by Eq. will undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking of the form $SU(4|2)_L \otimes SU(4|2)_R \to SU(4|2)_V$. The remaining vector symmetry is explicitly broken by the quark mass difference $m_j \neq m_u$ from $SU(4|2)_V \to SU(2|2)_V \otimes SU(2)_V$. The valence generators of the graded $SU(2|2)_V$ symmetry again lead to the operator relations in Eq. . Furthermore matrix element relations, e.g. that in Eq. , remain valid because the external states contain only valence quarks.
![Contraction encountered in the neutron-to-proton correlation function Eq. . The source and sink are denoted by filled circles, the operator insertion by an open circle. Single lines represent the propagators of twisted $d$-quark fields, while double lines represent the propagators of twisted $u$-quark fields. []{data-label="f:latcor"}](latcor.eps){width="25.00000%"}
Having related isovector matrix elements to isospin changing matrix elements in partially twisted QCD, we briefly recall how the latter can be determined at continuous momentum transfer from lattice correlators. To implement the twisted boundary conditions one uses interpolating fields for the hadrons built of the $\Qt$ fields that are periodic but coupled to the background field $B_\mu$. For example, let us denote neutron and proton interpolating fields constructed in this way as $\tilde{\cN} (\bm{x},t)$ and $\tilde{\cP}(\bm{x},t)$. One then calculates the correlation function $$\label{eq:corr}
C(t,t')
=
\sum_{\bm{x}, \bm{x'}}
e^{-i \bm{P}\cdot \bm{x'}}
\langle 0 | \cPt(\bm{x},t) \cOt^+ (\bm{x'},t') \ol \cNt (\bm{0},0) | 0 \rangle
,$$ where $\cOt^+$ is the valence isospin raising operator $$\cOt^+ (\bm{x},t) = \overline{\tilde{u}} (\bm{x},t) \, \tilde{\Gamma} \, \tilde{d} (\bm{x},t)
,$$ and the Dirac and Lorentz structure $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is arbitrary. The tilde represents that any derivatives $D_\mu$ in $\Gamma$ appear as $\Dt_\mu$ in $\tilde{\Gamma}$. A typical contraction contributing to this correlation function is depicted in Fig. \[f:latcor\]. The kinematic effect due to twisting is uncovered by expressing the correlation function calculated on the lattice in terms of operators $\cN$ and $\cP$ built from the twisted quark fields $Q$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
C(t,t') &=&
\langle \cPt (\bm{0}, t) \cOt_\mu(t') \ol \cNt (\bm{P},0) \rangle
\notag \\
&=&
\langle \cP (\bm{B}_\cP, t) \cO_\mu(t') \ol \cN (\bm{P} + \bm{B}_{\cN},0) \rangle
,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{P} = 2 \pi \bm{n} / L$ is the lattice momentum of the neutron, $\bm{B}_\cN = ( \bm{\th}^u + 2 \bm{\th}^d ) / L$, and $\bm{B}_\cP = ( 2 \bm{\th}^u + \bm{\th}^d ) / L$ are the field momenta of the neutron and proton, respectively. Notice the momentum transfer $\bm{q} = (\bm{\th}^u - \bm{\th}^d - 2 \pi \bm{n}) / L $ can be varied continuously.
Some final points are in order. Firstly, isoscalar quantities (which are notoriously difficult to calculate on the lattice) of course cannot be deduced from these techniques. Next, the results trivially extend to the $SU(3)$ and $SU(6|3)$ flavor groups because they contain the valence $SU(2)_V$ isospin subgroup. There are additional matrix element relations in the limit of an exact valence $SU(3)_V$ symmetry; but because this symmetry is badly broken by the light-quark mass difference, we shall not investigate these relations. Finally, at finite volume, the presence of the $B_\mu$ field in the Lagrangian breaks the $SU(2|2)_V$ symmetry and leads to modification of our results. These modifications can be addressed systematically in chiral perturbation theory ().
Nucleon Isovector Magnetic Moment {#s:example}
=================================
In this Sect., we consider specifically the isovector magnetic form factor of the nucleon. We first show the limitations in extracting the magnetic moment from lattice data at the smallest available lattice momentum transfer. To show this is remedied by twisted boundary conditions, we calculate the isovector magnetic form factor in heavy-baryon at finite volume with partially twisted boundary conditions.
Momentum Extrapolation {#s:momext}
----------------------
In principle the momentum dependence of the nucleon form factors predicted from heavy baryon [@Jenkins:1990jv; @Jenkins:1991es; @Bernard:1992qa; @Bernard:1995dp] can be used to extrapolate lattice data down to zero momentum transfer in a model-independent way. In , the isovector magnetic form factor has the one-loop behavior [@Bernard:1992qa; @Jenkins:1993pi; @Bernard:1995dp; @Bernard:1998gv] $$\label{eq:ffinfvol}
F_2(q^2) =
2 \mu_1
-
\frac{g_A^2 M}{2 \pi f^2} \int_0^1 dx \, m_\pi P_\pi(x,q^2)
-
\frac{g_{\D N}^2 M}{9 \pi^2 f^2}
\int_0^1 dx \, F[m_\pi P_\pi(x,q^2), \D]
,$$ where $P_\pi(x,q^2) = \sqrt{ 1 + x (1-x) q^2 / m_\pi^2}$, and the non-analytic function $F(m,\d)$ is given by $$F(m,\d)
=
- \d \log \frac{m^2}{4 \d^2}
+
\sqrt{\d^2 - m^2} \log
\left(
\frac{\d - \sqrt{\d^2 - m^2} + i \varepsilon}{\d + \sqrt{\d^2 - m^2}+ i \varepsilon}
\right)
.$$
![Plot of the isovector magnetic form factor’s deviation from linear $q^2$ behavior. []{data-label="f:mom"}](mom.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Using estimates of the low-energy constants: $g_A = 1.25, |g_{\D N}| = 1.5$, $M = 0.94 \, \texttt{GeV}$, $\Delta = 0.29 \, \texttt{GeV}$, and $\mu_1 = 3.38$; we plot the deviation from linearity of the one-loop result for the $F_2$ form factor in Fig. \[f:mom\] for various values of the pion mass. This is done using the function $\D F_2(q^2)$ defined by $$\D F_2(q^2) = \frac{F_2(q^2) - F_2(0)}{q^2 F'_2(0)}
.$$ The plot shows considerable deviation from linearity at the physical pion mass. For lattice pion masses around $0.25$ to $0.35 \, \texttt{GeV}$, there is a $\sim 5 - 10 \%$ deviation from linear behavior. As the lattice pion masses are brought down at fixed lattice spacing (so that the minimal $q^2$ remains fixed), there is a clear trend toward non-linear behavior in $q^2$.
We must keep in mind that the results plotted in the Figure receive $\sim 30 \%$ corrections for pion masses around $0.35 \, \texttt{GeV}$ due to higher-order terms in the chiral expansion that scale as $m_\pi / \Lambda_\chi$ [@Meissner:1997hn; @Puglia:1999th]. Such corrections are independent of $q^2$. Beyond $q^2 \sim 0.1 \, \texttt{GeV} \, {}^2$ there are $\sim 30 \%$ corrections from recoil $q^2 / M^2$ terms in loop graphs that contribute to the deviation from linearity [@Kubis:2000aa]. The Figure shows that non-linear $q^2$ behavior is to be expected from the magnetic form factor for moderate pion masses. The EFT, however, is at a loss to describe the lattice data at the minimal lattice momentum transfer available on current dynamical lattices: $q^2 = 0.25 \, \texttt{GeV} \, {}^2$ lies far off the axis in the plot, certainly too far to utilize the EFT.
Twisted Boundary Conditions and Finite Volume Modifications {#s:finvol}
-----------------------------------------------------------
From our discussion in Sect. \[s:extension\], we know that the restriction to discrete lattice momentum can be circumvented by using partially twisted boundary conditions and calculating matrix elements of the isospin raising operator, see Eq. . We demonstrate that this is the case by calculating the isovector magnetic form factor using partially twisted baryon . Additionally by using this theory at finite volume, we can deduce the dynamical effects due to the boundary conditions. These effects are systematic errors that must be removed to determine the form factor.
### Partially Twisted and Partially Quenched
In the meson sector of partially quenched () [@Bernard:1994sv; @Sharpe:1997by; @Golterman:1998st; @Sharpe:2000bc; @Sharpe:2001fh], the coset field $\Sigma$, which satisfies twisted boundary conditions, can be traded in for the field $\St$ defined by $\St (x) = V^\dagger(x) \S (x) V(x)$, which is periodic at the boundary [@Sachrajda:2004mi]. In terms of this field, the Lagrangian of appears as $$\cL =
\frac{f^2}{8} \str \left( \Dt_\mu \St \Dt_\mu \St^\dagger \right)
-
\l \, \str \left( m_Q^\dagger \St + \St^\dagger m_Q \right)
.$$ The action of the covariant derivative $\Dt^\mu$ is specified in Eq. .
To include baryons into , one uses rank three flavor tensors [@Labrenz:1996jy]. The spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ baryons are described by the $\bm{70}$-dimensional supermultiplet $\cB^{ijk}$, while the spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ baryons are described by the $\bm{44}$-dimensional supermultiplet $\cT_\mu^{ijk}$ [@Beane:2002vq]. The baryon flavor tensors we use, however, are twisted at the boundary of the lattice. Thus we define new tensors $\cBt^{ijk}$ and $\cTt_\mu^{ijk}$ both having the form [@Tiburzi:2005hg] $$\cBt_{ijk}(x) = V^\dagger_{ii}(x) V^\dagger_{jj}(x) V^\dagger_{kk}(x) \cB_{ijk}(x)
.$$ These baryon fields satisfy periodic boundary conditions and their free and leading-order interaction Lagrangian has been given in [@Tiburzi:2005hg].
In partially quenched QCD, the isovector vector current is defined by $J_\mu^{a}(x) = \ol Q(x) \, \ol T {}^a \gamma_\mu Q(x)$. The choice of supermatrices $\ol T {}^a$ is not unique [@Golterman:2001qj], even when one imposes the condition $\str \, \ol T {}^a = 0$. One should choose a form of the supermatrices that maintains the cancellation of valence and ghost quark loops with an operator insertion [@Tiburzi:2004mv; @Detmold:2005pt]. For the flavor changing contributions we consider below, however, these operator self-contractions automatically vanish. For our calculation we require the action of $J_\mu^{a}$ in only the valence sector, and specify the upper $2 \times 2$ block of $\ol T {}^{a}$ to be the usual isospin generators $T^a$. Henceforth we restrict our attention to the operator $J_\mu^{+} \equiv J_\mu^{1} + i J_\mu^{2}$.
In calculating the isovector magnetic moment of the nucleon at next-to-leading order in the chiral expansion, there are local operators that contribute at tree level. In , the leading isovector current operator is $$\d J_\mu^+
=
\frac{\mu_1}{M} \partial_\nu
\left(
\ol N \sigma_{\mu \nu} T^+ N
\right)
.$$ In partially twisted , there are two terms in the leading isovector current operator $$\d J_\mu^+
=
\frac{1}{M} \Dt_\nu
\left[
\mu_\a \left(\ol \cBt \, \sigma_{\mu \nu} \cBt \, \ol T {}^+ \right)
+
\mu_\b \left(\ol \cBt \, \sigma_{\mu \nu} \ol T {}^+ \cBt \right)
\right]
.$$ The contribution of these operators at tree level is proportional to the linear combination $\frac{1}{3} \mu_\a - \frac{1}{6} \mu_\b$, which is identical to the low-energy constant $\mu_1$ as can be demonstrated by matching [@Beane:2002vq].
### Partially Twisted Isovector Magnetic Form Factor
In the infinite volume limit, the isovector magnetic moment can be extracted from the matrix element $$\langle p(\bm{q}) \downarrow | J_3^+ | n(\bm{0}) \uparrow \rangle
=
\frac{- i q }{2 M} F_2(q^2)
,$$ in the case where $\bm{q} = (0,q,0)$. On the lattice, we can take both the source and sink to be at zero momentum, so that $\bm{q} = \bm{0}$. Momentum transfer can then be induced by giving the valence up and down quarks different twist angles. For simplicity we choose $\bm{B}^d = \bm{0}$ and $\bm{B}^u = (0,B,0)$. Calculation of the infinite volume isovector form factor then proceeds similarly to that above in Sect. \[s:momext\]. In partially twisted baryon , there are additional diagrams that contribute involving the hairpin interaction. These diagrams are shown in Fig. \[f:Nvecff\]. The sum of all hairpin diagrams, however, vanishes. With $m_j = m_u$,[^4] the infinite volume contributions from the diagrams in the Figure are identical to $F_2(q^2)$ in Eq. under the simple replacement $q \to B$. This is the kinematic effect we expect from raising isospin with a twisted $u$-quark.
![One-loop contributions to the isospin transition matrix elements in partially twisted heavy baryon . Nucleons (deltas) are represented by single (double) lines, while mesons are represented by dashed lines. The cross is the hairpin interaction, and the wiggly line shows the insertion of the isospin raising operator. []{data-label="f:Nvecff"}](Nvecff.eps){width="35.00000%"}
Dynamical effects due to twisted boundary conditions arise from the propagation of the light Goldstone modes to the boundary. The sensitivity of these modes to the boundary conditions must be taken into account and can be done so in a model-independent way using baryon in finite volume. The modification to the effective theory is straightforward. In effect, we replace the integrals over loop momenta with sums over the allowed[^5] modes $\bm{k} = 2 \pi \bm{n}/ L$. The twisting is already taken into account in the effective theory by the $U(1)$ gauge covariant derivative $\Dt_\mu$ above. The Poisson re-summation formula then allows us to cast these sums into the infinite volume result plus the finite volume modification.
There are, however, further contributions from using the partially twisted chiral theory in a box.[^6] Diagrams that ordinarily vanish in infinite volume can now make contributions in a finite volume. This is the case for the diagrams depicted in Fig. \[f:moreNvecff\]. Quite interestingly these diagrams are only non-vanishing in a finite volume with twisted boundary conditions. When the twisting parameters vanish, so too does this finite volume effect. This can easily be explained. In infinite volume the diagrams in Fig. \[f:moreNvecff\] vanish due to $SO(4)$ rotational invariance, while in a periodic finite volume they vanish due to invariance under lattice rotations. Lattice rotational invariance is broken in the direction of the twisted boundary conditions, hence the diagrams make non-vanishing contributions. Notice that the hairpin diagrams each vanish because the flavor-neutral mesons are additionally neutral under $B_\mu$.
![Additional one-loop contributions to the isospin transition matrix elements. Diagram elements are the same as in Fig. \[f:Nvecff\]. These diagrams vanish for periodic fields in a finite volume. []{data-label="f:moreNvecff"}](moreNvecff.eps){width="65.00000%"}
Combining the infinite volume and finite volume results with a twisted valence $u$-quark and specifying the case $m_j = m_u$, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:twistedanswer}
\langle p(\bm{0}) \downarrow | J_3^+ | n(\bm{0}) \uparrow \rangle
&=&
\frac{- i B }{2 M} \Bigg(
F_2(B^2)
-
\frac{g_A^2 M}{ 4 \pi^2 f^2 B} \cK_2(m_\pi, B \hat{y}, 0)
-
\frac{g_{\D N}^2 M}{36 \pi^2 f^2 B}
\cK_2(m_\pi, B \hat{y}, \D)
\notag\\
&&
+
\frac{3 M }{4 \pi^2 f^2}
\int_0^1 dx \,
\Big\{
g_A^2 \cL_{33}[m_\pi P_{\pi}(x,B^2), x B \hat{y},0]
\notag \\
&& \phantom{bigspacererer} +
\frac{2}{9} g_{\D N}^2
\cL_{33}[m_\pi P_{\pi}(x,B^2), x B \hat{y},\D]
\Big\}
\Bigg)
,\end{aligned}$$ where $F_2(B^2)$ is given in Eq. . The effects of the finite volume are encoded in the functions $
\cK_2(m,\bm{B},\D)$ and $\cL_{33}(m,\bm{B},\D)$, which are defined in the Appendix. In the limit that $B \to 0$, the result above accordingly vanishes: $B$ functions as a momentum transfer which is necessary for the magnetic form factor to be visible. Taking the derivative $$\lim_{B \to 0}
\frac{2 M i}{B}
\langle p(\bm{0}) \downarrow | J_3^+ | n(\bm{0}) \uparrow \rangle
\notag
,$$ we can extract the magnetic moment $F_2(0)$ up to additive volume corrections. The corrections at $B = 0$ involving the $\cL_{33}(m_\pi, \bm{0}, \D)$ function are identical to the finite volume results in [@Beane:2004tw].[^7] Those results, however, were derived under the assumption that a momentum extrapolation to zero had been performed, or alternately that one had employed a background magnetic field. Devoid of these assumptions, the current insertion method produces a second finite volume correction to the magnetic moment involving $$\frac{ \partial \cK_2(m_\pi, B \hat{y}, \D)}{\partial B} \Big|_{B= 0}
\notag
.$$
To investigate the effect of the finite volume on the extraction of the isovector magnetic moment using twisted boundary conditions, we define the relative difference $$\label{eq:reldiff}
\d_L [F_2(B^2)]
=
\frac{\frac{2 M i }{B} \langle p(\bm{0}) \downarrow | J_3^+ | n(\bm{0}) \uparrow \rangle - F_2(B^2)}{F_2(B^2)}
.$$ In the limit $B \to 0$, the difference is just $\d_L [F_2(0)] = \d_L [\mu]$, the relative difference in the magnetic moment. In Fig. \[f:compare\], we plot $\d_L [\mu]$ as a function of $L$ for various values of the pion mass to contrast our results with those of Ref. [@Beane:2004tw].
![Comparison of finite volume effects for the isovector magnetic moment. Plotted versus $L$ is the relative difference $\d_L [\mu]$ for a few values of the pion mass. The total finite volume effect is denoted by $K + L$, while the contribution to $\d_L [\mu]$ from $\partial \cK_2 / \partial B$ alone is denoted by $K$. []{data-label="f:compare"}](compare.eps){width="55.00000%"}
We plot the total contribution to $\d_L[\mu]$ which arises from both the $\partial \cK_2 /\partial B$, and $\cL_{33}$ functions in Eq. , as well as just the contribution from $\partial \cK_2 /\partial B$. The latter is the dominant finite volume effect. Of course, to extract the magnetic moment, we require $\th \neq 0$ and thus we investigate $\d_L [F_2(B^2)]$ in Eq. . In Fig. \[f:theta\], we fix the lattice volume at $2.5 \, \texttt{fm}$ and plot the relative difference $\d_L [F_2(B^2)]$ as a function of $\th$ for a few values of the pion mass. We see that the effect of the finite volume decreases with $\th$. Generally the volume effects with momentum transfer (here the momentum transfer $q = B = \th / L$) are smaller than those at zero momentum transfer.[^8] In [@Detmold:2005pt] this was anticipated due to the loop pion mass appearing as $m_\pi^2 + x(1-x) q^2 > m_\pi^2$. There is also a simple physical interpretation for this effect: with a space-like momentum transfer the correlation function is being probed on distances of order $\sim 1/ \sqrt{q^2}$. As $q^2$ increases, the resolving power of the virtual probe diminishes the volume effect.
![Finite volume effects for extracting the isovector magnetic moment. Plotted versus $\th$ is the relative difference $\d_L [F_2(B^2)]$ for a few values of the pion mass. The momentum transfer from twisting is $B = \th \times 0.079 \, \texttt{GeV}$ []{data-label="f:theta"}](theta.eps){width="55.00000%"}
While twisted boundary conditions have introduced systematic error into the determination of the isovector moment, we stress that this is a controlled error. In a fixed box size, we need only know the low-energy constants $g_A$, $g_{\D N}$, $\D$, and $f_\pi$ to remove this effect. Without twisting, one must rely on phenomenological or other fitting functions which introduce uncontrolled error. With twisting, however, the lattice practitioner can approach the calculation of the isovector magnetic moment from various ways in conjunction with the EFT. For example, one can choose values of $\th \sim 0.1$ to eliminate the need for a momentum extrapolation, *cf* Fig. \[f:mom\]. One must then use the EFT to remove the $\sim 25\%$ volume effects. Alternately one could choose $\th \lesssim \pi$ to minimize the effect of the finite volume. For these values of $\th$ one then uses the momentum dependence predicted by the EFT, *cf* Eq. , to obtain the magnetic moment. Another virtue to the EFT approach is that higher-order corrections to the quark mass, volume, and momentum-transfer dependence can be calculated to aid in the extrapolation. Although we have focused on the magnetic moment, the expressions we have derived here are also relevant for the isovector magnetic radius.
As a final point, an assumption inherent in our discussion is that no multi-particle thresholds are reached. For large enough momenta, multi-particle thresholds are inevitably reached. Volume corrections are no longer exponentially suppressed in asymptotic volumes; they become power law and will likely dwarf any signal. For the extraction of moments and radii of stable particles near zero momentum transfer, however, we are safely away from the multi-particle continuum.
Summary {#summy}
=======
We have related matrix elements of arbitrary quark bilinear operators that change isospin to isovector combinations of those that do not change isospin. Using flavor twisted boundary conditions on the valence quark fields, form factors of these isovector matrix elements can then be deduced from the lattice at continuous values of the momentum transfer. Isovector moments and radii can thus be determined from simulations at zero lattice momentum. Using twisted boundary conditions on the quark fields dramatically modifies the effect of the finite volume, even away from multi-particle cuts. This systematic effect can be handled with EFTs. The determination of isovector moments and radii without any model-dependent assumptions about the momentum dependence is thus well within reach of current resources.
We thank W. Detmold for discussions, and acknowledge the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and partial support during the course of this investigation. This work is supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG02-05ER41368-0.
Finite Volume Functions {#finite-volume-functions .unnumbered}
=======================
In this Appendix, we define and evaluate the finite volume functions contributing to the isovector magnetic form factor. These functions can be related to a more basic sum that is ubiquitously encountered in these calculations $$\cI_\a(\bm{B},\b^2)
=
\frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{1}{[(\bm{k} + \bm{B})^2 + \b^2]^\a}
-
\int \frac{d\bm{k}}{(2 \pi)^3}
\frac{1}{[(\bm{k} + \bm{B})^2 + \b^2]^\a}
,$$ which can be cast into an exponentially convergent form involving elliptic theta functions [@Sachrajda:2004mi]. In the text, the function $\cK_2(m, \bm{B}, \D)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\cK_2 (m , \bm{B},\D)
&=&
\frac{8 \pi^2}{L^3} \int_0^\infty d\l \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{k_2 + B_2}{[(\bm{k} + \bm{B})^2 + \b_\D^2]^{3/2}}
,\end{aligned}$$ with $\b_\D^2 = \l^2 + 2 \D \l + m^2$. Using the expression for $\cI_{1/2}$ in terms of elliptic theta functions, the integral over $\l$ can then be expressed in terms of the $\operatorname{Erfc}(x)$ function [@Arndt:2004bg]. The final result appears as the one-dimensional integral $$\cK_2 (m , B \hat{y} ,\D)
=
- \frac{ \sqrt{\pi} L}{4} \int_0^\infty d\tau \,
\tau^{-5/2} e^{\tau (\D^2 - m^2)} \operatorname{Erfc}(\D \sqrt{\tau})
\vartheta'_3 \left( \frac{B L }{2} , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)
\vartheta_3 \left( 0 , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)^2
,$$ with $\vartheta_3(q,z)$ as the Jacobi elliptic theta function of the third kind. Lastly the function $\cL_{33}(m,\bm{B},\D)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\cL_{33}(m, B \hat{y},\D)
&=&
8 \pi^2 \int_0^\infty d\l
\left[
\frac{1}{L^3}
\sum_{\bm{k}}
\frac{(k_3)^2}{[(\bm{k} + \bm{B})^2 + \b_\D^2]^{5/2}}
- \int \frac{d \bm{k}}{(2 \pi)^3}
\frac{(k_3)^2}{[(\bm{k} + \bm{B})^2 + \b_\D^2]^{5/2}}
\right]
\notag \\
&=&
\frac{ \sqrt{\pi}}{3} \int_0^\infty d\tau \,
\tau^{-3/2} e^{\tau (\D^2 - m^2)} \operatorname{Erfc}(\D \sqrt{\tau})
\Bigg[
\vartheta_3 \left( 0 , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)^2
\vartheta_3 \left( \frac{B L }{2} , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)
\notag \\
&& \phantom{spacererer}
+ \frac{L^2}{8 \tau}
\vartheta''_3 \left( 0 , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)
\vartheta_3 \left( 0 , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)
\vartheta_3 \left( \frac{B L }{2} , e^{-\frac{L^2}{4 \tau}}\right)
- 1
\Bigg]
.\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: One might reason that continuum moment equations could be employed to deduce moments and radii, e.g., using $\bm{x} \times \bm{J}(x)$ to determine magnetic dipole moments, or $\bm{x}^2 J_4(x)$ for charge radii. On the lattice, however, these operators do not circumvent the restriction to quantized momentum [@Wilcox:2002zt].
[^2]: In this Sect., we limit our discussion to the two flavor theory for simplicity. We will explain below how the result generalizes to the relevant subgroup of the partially quenched theory and analogous three-flavor theories.
[^3]: Any generator of the $U(2)$ algebra can actually be chosen for the twists because we work in the isospin limit. In this case, the boundary can change $u$-quarks into $d$-quarks and vice versa. Electric charge conservation requires that the electromagnetic current couple to the background field $B_\mu$. Additionally the valence quark propagators become flavor non-diagonal, but these flavor rotations could be used to inject momentum transfer. For ease of applicability in lattice simulations, however, we have chosen to work in the Cartan subalgebra, where flavors do not rotate at the boundary, but isospin symmetry implies operator relations between flavor diagonal and flavor rotated currents.
[^4]: When $m_j \neq m_u$, the results are identical to the partially quenched version of $F_2(q^2)$, the form of which can be inferred from expressions in [@Beane:2002vq].
[^5]: As is customary we treat the length of the time direction $T \gg L$, so that for $k_\mu = (k_0, \bm{k})$, we can take $k_0$ to be continuous and $\bm{k}$ quantized as above.
[^6]: As with the pions [@Sachrajda:2004mi], the proton and neutron are no longer degenerate due to finite volume effects. The volume induced isospin splittings are largest for small pion masses and grow with $\th$. In a $2.5 \, \texttt{fm}$ box at $\th = \pi$, and at the physical pion mass, the splittings are $\sim 15 \%$ for the pions and $\sim 5 \%$ for the nucleons. When the pion mass is twice as big, the splittings are $\sim 1 \%$ for both and are hence neglected.
[^7]: For comparison, we have $\cL_{33}(m,\bm{B} = \bm{0},\D) = \frac{4}{9} \mathcal{Y}(\D)$ of Ref. [@Beane:2004tw].
[^8]: The actual behavior with respect to momentum transfer is damped oscillatory. The oscillations arise from the kinetic term $(\bm{k} + x \bm{q})^2$; but, in an $L = 2.5 \, \texttt{fm}$ box, they set in beyond the reach of the effective theory.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a general strategy to derive null-homotopy operators for differential complexes based on the Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand (BGG) construction and properties of the de Rham complex. Focusing on the elasticity complex, we derive path integral operators $\mathscr{P}$ for elasticity satisfying $\mathscr{D}\mathscr{P}+\mathscr{P}\mathscr{D}=\mathrm{id}$ and $\mathscr{P}^{2}=0$, where the differential operators $\mathscr{D}$ correspond to the linearized strain, the linearized curvature and the divergence, respectively. [In general we derive path integral formulas in the presence of defects.]{} As a special case, this gives the classical Cesàro-Volterra path integral for strain tensors satisfying the Saint-Venant compatibility condition.'
author:
- 'Snorre H. Christiansen[^1]'
- 'Kaibo Hu[^2]'
- 'Espen Sande[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'poincare.bib'
title: Poincaré path integrals for elasticity
---
Keyworlds: homotopy operator, Cesàro-Volterra path integral, Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand resolution, elasticity, defect
Introduction
============
Let $\Lambda^{k}(\Omega)$ be the space of smooth differential $k$-forms on an open domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$. The de Rham complex then reads $$\label{sequence:deRham}
\begin{diagram}
0& \rTo &\mathbb{R} & \rTo & \Lambda^{0}(\Omega) & \rTo^{d_{0}} & \Lambda^{1}(\Omega) & \rTo^{d_{1}} & \cdots & \rTo^{d_{n-1}} & \Lambda^{n}(\Omega) & \rTo & 0,
\end{diagram}$$ where $d_{k}$, the $k$th exterior derivative, satisfies $d_kd_{k-1}=0$. In three space dimensions, $d_0$ corresponds to the gradient operator, $d_1$ corresponds to the curl and $d_2$ corresponds to the divergence. It is well known that for the de Rham complex on a contractible domain, there exist null-homotopies, or Poincaré operators $\mathfrak{p}_k:\Lambda^{k}(\Omega)\to\Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega)$, which satisfy $$\label{eq:nullhom}
\mathfrak{p}_{k+1}d_{k}+d_{k-1}\mathfrak{p}_k=\mathrm{id}_{\Lambda^{k}(\Omega)}.$$ When it is clear from context it is common to drop the indices on both the exterior derivatives $d$ and the Poincaré operators $\mathfrak{p}$. The existence of the Poincaré operators implies the Poincaré lemma, i.e., that for any $k$-form $\omega$ satisfying $d_{k}\omega=0$, there exists, locally, a $(k-1)$-form $\phi$ such that $d_{k-1}\phi=\omega$. Using we see that a choice of $\phi$ is $\phi=\mathfrak{p}_{k}\omega$. In addition to being null-homotopies, the Poincaré operators also satisfy
- the complex property: $\mathfrak{p}^2=\mathfrak{p}_{k}\mathfrak{p}_{k+1}=0$;
- the polynomial preserving property: if $\omega$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $r$, then $\mathfrak{p}_k\omega$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $r+1$.
The polynomial preserving property reflects the fact that the differential operators in the de Rham complexes are homogeneous first order operators.
Due to the complex property, $\mathfrak{p}\phi=0$ provides a gauge condition for a potential $\phi$ in the following sense. For any $\omega\in \Lambda^{k}(\Omega)$ with $d_{k}\omega=0$, a potential $\phi\in \Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega)$ satisfying both $\mathfrak{p}_{k-1}\phi=0$ and $d_{k-1}\phi=\omega$, is uniquely determined and given by $\phi=\mathfrak{p}_{k}\omega$.
Furthermore the operators $\mathfrak{p}$ can be given an explicit representation in terms of path integrals, which has been important for many applications. Using these path integrals one can obtain the Koszul operators, a main tool in the construction of finite elements for scalar and vector field problems [@Arnold.D;Falk.R;Winther.R.2006a; @hiptmair1999canonical]. By averaging the base point of the Poincaré operators, Costabel and McIntosh [@costabel2010bogovskiui] constructed [Bogovskiĭ]{} type operators which they used to prove regularity results for the de Rham complex in Sobolev spaces. This leads to some very useful inequalities with applications in the analysis of electromagnetic problems and finite element methods (see, e.g., [@boffi2011discrete; @bonito2013regularity]). The homotopy identity, polynomial-preserving property and the complex property are important in these applications.
Let $\mathbb{V}$ and $\mathbb{S}$ be the linear space of vectors and symmetric matrices in three space dimensions and let $C^{\infty} (\Omega; \mathbb{V})$ and $C^{\infty} (\Omega; \mathbb{S})$ denote, respectively, the spaces of smooth vector- and symmetric-matrix-valued functions. The linear elasticity complex in three space dimensions reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sequence:3Delasticity}
\begin{diagram}
\mathrm{0} & \rTo^{} &\mathrm{RM} & \rTo^{{\subseteq}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}) & \rTo^{{\operatorname{def}}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \rTo^{{\operatorname{inc}}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \rTo^{{\operatorname{div}}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}) & \rTo & 0,
\end{diagram}\end{aligned}$$ with the differential operators in the vector form and index form $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{def}}{u}&:=\frac{1}{2}\left ( \nabla {u}+ {u}\nabla\right ),
&&({\operatorname{def}}{u})_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left (\partial_{i}{u}_{j}+\partial_{j}{u}_{i}\right ),
&&&{u}\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}),
\\
{\operatorname{inc}}E &:= \nabla\times E\times \nabla,
&&({\operatorname{inc}}E)_{ij}=\epsilon_{ist}\epsilon_{jlm}\partial^{s}\partial^{l}E^{tm},
&&&E\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}),
\\
{\operatorname{div}}V&:=\nabla\cdot V,
&&({\operatorname{div}}V)_{i}=\partial^{j}V_{ij},
&&&V\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}).
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\epsilon$ is the permutation tensor. The kernel of the linearized deformation operator ${\operatorname{def}}$, i.e., $\mathrm{RM}:=\{{u}={a}+{b}\wedge {x}: {a}, {b}\in \mathbb{V}\}$, is called the space of rigid body motions. Given ${u}\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})$, ${\operatorname{def}}{u}$ is the symmetric gradient or (linearized) deformation [@Taylor2010 p. 149]. Given $E\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) $, ${\operatorname{inc}}E := \nabla\times E\times \nabla$ is called the incompatibility of the strain (metric) tensor $E$, where $\nabla\times$ and $\times \nabla$ denote, respectively, the column-wise curl and the row-wise curl of a matrix field.
Kröner is one of the pioneers of relating the incompatibility of the strain tensor with defect densities of the material [@kroner1963dislocation; @kroner1981continuum; @van2010non], and therefore is also referred to as the Kröner complex in the literature. We also refer to [@amstutz2016analysis; @amstutz2017incompatibility] for the analysis and modeling of defects with the ${\operatorname{inc}}$ operator and to [@angoshtari2015differential; @hackl1988existence; @khavkine2017calabi] for applications of differential complexes in elasticity and geometry. The elasticity complex has also been used to construct stable finite elements for the Hellinger-Reissner formulation of elasticity [@Arnold.D;Falk.R;Winther.R.2006a p. 121].
Comparing the two complexes and there are now two natural questions to ask:
- Does there exist Poincaré operators for the elasticity complex that satisfy a null-homotopy relation (analogous to ), the complex property and a polynomial preserving property?
- If so, what are the explicit formulas, as path integrals, for them?
The main result of this paper is to provide a positive answer to both of these questions. Our approach is to use the Poincaré path integrals for the de Rham complex together with the Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand (BGG) resolution, a general construction that can be used to derive the elasticity complex from the de Rham complex [@arnold2006defferential; @eastwood2000complex; @falk2008finite]. We then obtain Poincaré path integrals for the elasticity complex.
We remark that of the three Poincaré path integrals for the elasticity complex, the first is already known: this is a result in the classical theory of linear elasticity that dates back to the work of Cesàro in 1906 and Volterra in 1907 [@cesaro1906sulle; @volterra1907equilibre]. The two other Poincaré path integrals we derive, and that together provide the full sequence of null-homotopies, appear to be new. Recall that the symmetric strain tensor $E$ in elasticity satisfies the Saint Venant compatibility condition ${\operatorname{inc}}E = 0$ and one can then show that on a contractible domain $\Omega$, $E$ is the deformation of some displacement vector field ${u}$, i.e. $E={\operatorname{def}}{u}$. Moreover, the displacement field can be recovered from the Cesàro-Volterra formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cesaro-volterra}
{u}_{i}({x})=\int_{{\gamma}({x})}\left ( E_{ij}(y)+\left ( \partial_{k}E_{ij}(y) - \partial_{i} E_{kj}(y)\right )\left ({x}_{k}-{y}_{k}\right ) \right ) \cdot d{y}_{j},\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently in the vector form $$\begin{aligned}
{u}({x})=\int_{{\gamma}({x})} E({y})+({x}-{y})\wedge \left ( \nabla\times E({y})\right )\cdot d{y},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\gamma}({x})$ is any smooth path connecting ${x}$ to a fixed point ${x}_{0}$. The derivative term $\nabla\times E$ appearing in the Cesàro-Volterra path integral is called the Frank tensor (c.f. [@van2012distributional; @van2016frank]). On simply connected domains, the integral does not depend on the chosen path between fixed end points.
We note that there has been a lot of recent progress and applications of the Cesàro-Volterra path integral. Non-simply-connected bodies are considered in [@yavari2013compatibility]. A generalization to weaker regularity is given in [@ciarlet2010cesaro] and a generalization to surfaces is given in [@ciarlet2009cesaro]. Geometric reductions for plate models are derived in [@geymonat2007kinematics] based on asymptotic expansions of the Cesàro-Volterra integral. A compatible-incompatible decomposition of symmetric tensors in $L^p$ is proved in [@maggiani2015comp]. The intrinsic elasticity models use the strain tensor as the major variable, and the displacement can be recovered by the Cesàro-Volterra path integral [@ciarlet2007characterization; @ciarlet2009intrinsic]. The Frank tensor appearing in can be used as a boundary term [@van2016frank; @ciarlet2009intrinsic].
The rest of the paper will be organized as follows. In Section \[sec:preliminary\] we define the notation and recall the Poincaré path integrals for the de Rham complex. In Section \[sec:results\] we present the new Poincaré and Koszul operators for the elasticity complex. In Section \[sec:BGG\] we review the derivation of the elasticity complex from the de Rham complex via the BGG construction. In Section \[sec:derivation\] we propose a new methodology to derive Poincaré operators based on the BGG construction and derive the operators for the elasticity complex. In Section \[sec:2D\] we present results for the 2D elasticity complex. Concluding remarks are given in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Notation and Preliminaries {#sec:preliminary}
==========================
Let $\mathbb{V}:=\mathbb{R}^n$ denote the space of vectors in ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$, $\mathbb{M}$ denote the space of $n\times n$ matrices and $\mathbb{S}$, $\mathbb{K}$ for the subspaces of symmetric and skew-symmetric matrices respectively. We further define the product space $\mathbb{W}:=\mathbb{K}\times \mathbb{V}$. Let $\Lambda^{k}(\Omega)$ be the space of smooth $k$-forms on $\Omega$, and $\Lambda^{k}( \Omega; \mathbb{E})$ be the space of smooth $\mathbb{E}$-valued $k$-forms, where $\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{V}, \mathbb{M}, \mathbb{S}, \mathbb{K}$ or $\mathbb{W}$. Similar notations $C^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and $C^{\infty}(\Omega, \mathbb{E})$ are used to denote smooth functions and $\mathbb{E}$-valued smooth functions on $\Omega$ respectively. When it is clear from the context, we also omit $\Omega$ and simply write $\Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{E})$ or $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{E})$. We use lower case Latin letters for vector valued functions and upper case Latin letters for matrix valued functions. Greek letters are used for forms.
We define $\mathcal{P}_{r}(\mathbb{M})$ to be the space of matrix valued polynomials of degree at most $r$, and define $\mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{M})$ to be the subspace of homogeneous polynomials of degree $r$, i.e. $Q\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{M})$ implies $Q(tx)=t^{r}Q(x)$ for any $t\in \mathbb{R}$. We also define similar spaces for symmetric matrices $\mathbb{S}$ and skew-symmetric matrices $\mathbb{K}$.
The notation $\nabla\times $ denotes the curl operator. For $W\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$, it is important to distinguish curl operators acting on the left and on the right: $\nabla\times W$ is defined to be the curl applied to each column while $W\times \nabla$ is the curl applied to each row. Using index notation, this means $(\nabla\times W)_{ij}=\epsilon_{i}^{~ab}\partial_{a}W_{bj}$ and $(W\times \nabla)_{ij}=\epsilon_{j}^{~ab}\partial_{a}W_{ib}$ where the Einstein summation convention has been used. As a standard notation, we use ${u}\otimes {v}$ to denote the tensor product of the vectors ${u}$ and ${v}$, i.e. $({u}\otimes {v})_{ij}={u}_{i}{v}_{j}$. Similarly, for a matrix $W$ and a vector ${u}$ we will use ${u}\wedge W$ to denote the cross product from the left, meaning the cross product between ${u}$ and the columns of $W$ (which returns a matrix), and $W\wedge {u}$ to denote the cross product from the right, i.e., between the rows of $W$ and the vector ${u}$.
Let $\mathrm{i}_{{v}}: \Lambda^{k}(\Omega)\mapsto \Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega)$ be the contraction operator with respect to a vector field ${v}$, defined by $$\mathrm{i}_{{v}}\omega(\xi_2 \ldots, \xi_k) := \omega ({v}, \xi_2, \ldots, \xi_k), \quad \omega\in \Lambda^{k}(\Omega).$$ In $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, we use ${x}$ to denote the identity vector field. The Poincaré operator $\mathfrak{p}$ with respect to the origin can be defined explicitly on $k$-forms $\omega$ by: $$\label{eq:poinexpl}
(\mathfrak{p}_{k} \omega)_x(\xi_2 \ldots, \xi_k) := \int_0^1 t^{k-1}\left ( \mathrm{i}_{{x}}\omega\right )_{ tx} (\xi_2, \ldots, \xi_k)\, d t= \int_0^1 t^{k-1}\omega_{ tx} ({x}, \xi_2, \ldots, \xi_k)\, d t.$$ In vector form, the 3D Poincaré operators read: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{p}_{1}{u}&=\int_{0}^{1}{u}_{tx}\cdot {x}\,dt, \quad &&\forall u\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}),
\\
\mathfrak{p}_{2}{v}&=\int_{0}^{1}t{v}_{tx}\wedge {x}\,dt, \quad &&\forall v\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}),
\\
\mathfrak{p}_{3}w&=\int_{0}^{1}t^{2}w_{tx} {x}\,dt, \quad &&\forall w\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}),
\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $$\label{deRham1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{p}_{1}{\operatorname{grad}}f&=f+C, \quad &&\forall f\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}),
\\
\mathfrak{p}_{2}{\operatorname{curl}}{u}+{\operatorname{grad}}\mathfrak{p}_{1}{u}&={u}, \quad &&\forall {u}\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}),
\\
\mathfrak{p}_{3}{\operatorname{div}}{v}+{\operatorname{curl}}\mathfrak{p}_{2}{v}&={v}, \quad &&\forall {v}\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}),
\\
{\operatorname{div}}\mathfrak{p}_{3} w &= w, \quad &&\forall w\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}).
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the notation $u_{x}$ is used to denote $u$ evaluated at $x$, i.e., $u(x)$. In $C=-f(0)$ indicates that the identity $\mathfrak{p}_{1}{\operatorname{grad}}f= f$ holds up to a constant. We refer to [@ciarlet2013linear] for more details on the Poincaré operators for the de Rham complex and their relation to the Poincaré lemma.
The contraction of a differential form by ${x}$ is called the Koszul operator (associated with the origin), i.e., $$\kappa_{k} \ : \ \omega \mapsto \kappa_{k} \omega := {\mathrm{i}_{{x}}\omega}, \quad \omega\in \Lambda^{k}(\Omega).$$ The Koszul operators can be used to simplify the construction of some classical finite elements [@Arnold.D;Falk.R;Winther.R.2006a p. 29].
Let $dx_{1}, dx_{2}, \cdots, dx_{n}$ be the canonical dual bases of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Then $dx_{\sigma_{0}}\wedge dx_{\sigma_{1}}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{\sigma_{k}}$ for all $0\leq \sigma_{0}<\sigma_{1}< \cdots < \sigma_{k}\leq n$ form a canonical basis for the vector space of alternating $k$-forms, i.e., any $\omega\in \Lambda^{k}$ can be written as $$\label{form-coefficient}
\omega=\sum_{0\leq \sigma_{1}< \cdots < \sigma_{k}\leq n}a_{\sigma}dx_{\sigma_{1}}\wedge dx_{\sigma_{2}}\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{\sigma_{k}},$$ for a unique choice of coefficients $a_{\sigma}\in \mathbb{R}$ [@Arnold.D;Falk.R;Winther.R.2006a p. 26].
Let $\mathcal{H}_r\Lambda^k(\Omega)$ denote the space of $k$-forms with components ($a_{\sigma}$ in ) that are homogeneous polynomials of degree $r$. Then from we have, for any $\omega\in\mathcal{H}_r\Lambda^k(\Omega)$, that $$\mathfrak{p}_{k} \omega = \frac{1}{ k + r} \kappa_{k} \omega\in \mathcal{H}_{r+1}\Lambda^{k-1}(\Omega).$$ Using the null-homotopy relation for Poincaré operators we further have, for any $\omega\in\mathcal{H}_r\Lambda^{k}(\Omega)$, that $$( d_{k-1} \kappa_{k} + \kappa_{k+1} d_{k} ) \omega = (r+k)\omega.$$ Lastly, we remark that similar to the Poincaré operators, the Koszul operators also satisfy the complex property: $\kappa^2=0$.
The Poincaré and Koszul operators can also be defined with respect to another base point $x_{0}$, rather than the origin $0$. In this case, one replaces ${x}$ by ${x}-{x}_{0}$ in the contraction. To simplify the exposition we will in the remainder of this paper make the choice ${x}_{0}=0$ for the base point of our Poincaré and Koszul operators.
Main results: Poincaré and Koszul operators for the elasticity complex {#sec:results}
======================================================================
In this section we state our main results for the elasticity complex. The proof of Theorem \[thm:1\] is postponed to Section 5. We remark again that the last two Poincaré operators in Theorem \[thm:1\] are, as far as we know, new.
Poincaré operators
------------------
\[thm:1\] Let $\Omega=\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and let $\mathscr{P}_{1}: C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})$ be given by $$\mathscr{P}_{1} (E):= \int_{0}^{1}E_{tx}\cdot {x}\,dt +\int_{0}^{1}(1-t){x}\wedge (\nabla\times E_{tx})\cdot {x}\, dt,$$ let $\mathscr{P}_{2}: C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})$ be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{P}_{2}(V):= {x}\wedge \left (\int_{0}^{1}t(1-t)V_{tx}\, dt \right )\wedge {x},\end{aligned}$$ and let $\mathscr{P}_{3}: C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})$ be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{P}_{3}({v}):= {\operatorname{sym}}\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}{x}\otimes {v}_{tx}\, dt -\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}(1-t){x}\otimes {v}_{tx}\wedge {x}\, dt\right )\times \nabla\right ).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\label{RM}
\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{P}_{1}({\operatorname{def}}{u})&={u}+\mathrm{RM}, \quad&&\forall {u}\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}),
\\
\mathscr{P}_{2}{\operatorname{inc}}E + {\operatorname{def}}\mathscr{P}_{1}E&=E, \quad &&\forall E\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}),
\\
\mathscr{P}_{3}{\operatorname{div}}V +{\operatorname{inc}}\mathscr{P}_{2}V&=V,\quad &&\forall V\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}),
\\
{\operatorname{div}}\mathscr{P}_{3}{v}&={v}, \quad&&\forall {v}\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{RM}$ in indicates that the identity $\mathscr{P}_{1}({\operatorname{def}}{u})={u}$ holds up to rigid body motion, i.e. the kernel of ${\operatorname{def}}$. Particularly, for a symmetric matrix valued function $E$ satisfying ${\operatorname{inc}}E=0$, we have (the Cesàro-Volterra path integral) $$E={\operatorname{def}}\left ( \mathscr{P}_{1}E\right ),$$ and for a symmetric matrix valued function $V$ satisfying ${\operatorname{div}}V=0$, we have $$V={\operatorname{inc}}\left ( \mathscr{P}_{2}V\right ).$$
See Section 5.
The above integrals are with respect to a special path ${\gamma}: t\mapsto tx$, connecting the base point $0$ with $x$. Since the Poincaré operators for the de Rham complex can be defined along an arbitrary path, we can also derive corresponding operators for the elasticity complex on a general path by following the BGG steps in the next two sections. Observe that by choosing the special path ${\gamma}: t\mapsto tx$ in the Cesàr[o]{}-Volterra formula we see that it coincides with the operator $\mathscr{P}_{1}$.
\[thm:p2\] The Poincaré operators derived above satisfy the complex property $\mathscr{P}^2=0$.
We find from a straightforward calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{curlR-3D}
({x}\otimes {v}\wedge {x})\times \nabla=3{x}\otimes {v} - {v}\otimes {x} + {x}\otimes \nabla_{{x}}{v}-(\nabla\cdot {v}){x}\otimes {x}.\end{aligned}$$ Using and the fact that ${x}\wedge {x}=0$, we have the identity $$\mathscr{P}_{2}\mathscr{P}_{3}=0.$$ Lastly, we find that $$\nabla\times ({x}\wedge V\wedge {x})=-3V\wedge {x}-({x}\cdot \nabla)V\wedge {x} +{x}\otimes \left ( ({\operatorname{div}}V)\wedge {x}\right )+{x}\otimes \operatorname{vec}{\operatorname{skw}}V,$$ which implies that $\nabla\times ({x}\wedge V\wedge {x})\cdot {x}=0$ if $V$ is symmetric. Here $\operatorname{vec}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{K})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$ is the canonical identification between a vector and a skew-symmetric matrix (see where we define the inverse identification) and ${\operatorname{skw}}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{K})$ defined by ${\operatorname{skw}}V=1/2(V-V^{T})$ is the skew-symmetrization operator. Therefore $$\mathscr{P}_{1}\mathscr{P}_{2}=0.$$
The Poincaré operators defined above are polynomial preserving: $$E\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{S})\Rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{1}E\in \mathcal{H}_{r+1}(\mathbb{V}),
\quad V\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{S})\Rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{2}V\in \mathcal{H}_{r+2}(\mathbb{S}),
\quad {v}\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{V})\Rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{3}{v}\in \mathcal{H}_{r+1}(\mathbb{S}).$$
Analogous to the de Rham case, the sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3DP-complex}
\begin{diagram}
0& \lTo^{} &\mathrm{RM} & \lTo^{} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})& \lTo^{\mathscr{P}_{1}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \lTo^{\mathscr{P}_{2}} &C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \lTo^{\mathscr{P}_{3}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}) & \lTo & 0
\end{diagram}\end{aligned}$$ is a complex, since $\mathscr{P}^{2}=0$. Furthermore, by the homotopy relation, is exact if $\Omega$ is contractible.
Koszul operators
----------------
Analogous to the de Rham case we derive Koszul operators for the elasticity complex by applying the above Poincaré operators to homogeneous polynomials of degree $r$.
\[thm:3D-Koszul\] Let the operator $\mathscr{K}_{1}^{r}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$ be given by $$\mathscr{K}_{1}^{r}(E):= \frac{1}{r+1}E\cdot {x}+\frac{1}{(r+1)(r+2)}{x}\wedge (\nabla\times E) \cdot {x},$$ the operator $\mathscr{K}_{2}^{r}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$ be given by $$\mathscr{K}_{2}^{r}(V):= \frac{1}{(r+2)(r+3)}{x}\wedge V \wedge {x},$$ and the operator $\mathscr{K}_{3}^{r}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$ be given by $$\mathscr{K}_{3}^{r}({v}):= \frac{1}{r+3}{\operatorname{sym}}({x}\otimes {v}) -\frac{1}{(r+3)(r+4)}{\operatorname{sym}}\left ( ({x}\otimes {v}\wedge {x})\times \nabla\right ).$$ Then $\mathscr{K}_{i}^{r}$, $i=1,2,3$, are the Koszul operators for the 3D elasticity complex.
As corollaries of the properties of the Poincaré operators (Theorem \[thm:p2\]), the Koszul operators satisfy the homotopy identity, the complex property and the polynomial-preserving property on spaces of matrices and vectors whose components are homogeneous polynomials of degree $r$.
For the Koszul operators, we have the homotopy identities $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{K}^{r-1}_{1}{\operatorname{def}}{u}&={u}+\mathrm{RM},\quad&&\forall {u}\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{V}),
\\
{\operatorname{def}}\mathscr{K}^{r}_{1} E+\mathscr{K}^{r-2}_{2}{\operatorname{inc}}E&=\omega,\quad&&\forall E\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{S}),
\\
{\operatorname{inc}}{\mathscr{K}}^{r}_{2}V+\mathscr{K}^{r-1}_{3}{\operatorname{div}}V&= V,\quad&&\forall V\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{S}),
\\
{\operatorname{div}}\mathscr{K}^{r}_{3} {v}&={v}, \quad&&\forall {v}\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{V}).
\end{aligned}$$ We have the complex property $\mathscr{K}^{2}=0$, i.e., $$\mathscr{K}^{r+2}_{1} \mathscr{K}^{r}_{2}=0, \quad\forall r=0, 1, \cdots,$$ and $$\mathscr{K}^{r+1}_{2} \mathscr{K}^{r}_{3}=0, \quad\forall r=0, 1, \cdots.$$ We also have the polynomial-preserving property: $$E\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{S})\Rightarrow \mathscr{K}_{1}^{r}E\in \mathcal{H}_{r+1}(\mathbb{R}),
\quad V\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{S})\Rightarrow \mathscr{K}_{2}^{r}V\in \mathcal{H}_{r+2}(\mathbb{S}),
\quad {v}\in \mathcal{H}_{r}(\mathbb{V})\Rightarrow \mathscr{K}^{r}_{3}{v}\in \mathcal{H}_{r+1}(\mathbb{S}).$$
As a result of the above corollary, the sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3DH-complex}
\begin{diagram}
0& \lTo^{} &\mathrm{RM} & \lTo^{} & \mathcal{H}_{r+4}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})& \lTo^{\mathscr{K}_{1}^{r+3}} & \mathcal{H}_{r+3}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \lTo^{\mathscr{K}_{2}^{r+1}} & \mathcal{H}_{r+1}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \lTo^{\mathscr{K}_{3}^{r}} & \mathcal{H}_{r}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}) & \lTo & 0
\end{diagram}\end{aligned}$$ is a complex. By the homotopy relation, it is exact if $\Omega$ is contractible.
Compared with the Koszul operators for the de Rham complexes, the definitions given in Theorem \[thm:3D-Koszul\] contain correction terms involving derivatives (${\operatorname{curl}}$ operators in 3D) and these terms explicitly depend on the degree of the homogeneous polynomials. As we have seen, these terms together with the polynomial degree naturally match with each other in the null-homotopy formulas and in the duality. As discussed in the introduction for the classical Cesarò-Volterra formula, these derivative terms have physical significance in materials with incompatibility.
Analogous to the de Rham case, we observe a relation of duality for the Koszul operators derived above. Specifically, let $\Omega$ be a star-shaped domain with respect to the origin. We have for any $E, V\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})$: $${x}\wedge E\wedge {x}: V=E: {x}\wedge V\wedge {x},$$ which implies that $$\mathscr{K}_{2}^{r}E:V=E:\mathscr{K}_{2}^{r}V.$$ Here $E:V$ denotes the Frobenius inner product of matrices $E$ and $V$. Moreover, for any $v\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})$, $$\mathscr{K}_{1}^{r}E\cdot {v}={v}\cdot E\cdot {x}+\frac{1}{r+2}{v}\cdot ({x}\wedge \nabla\times {u})\cdot {x},$$ and $$V:\mathscr{K}_{3}^{r}{v}=V:{\operatorname{sym}}({x}\otimes {v})-\frac{1}{r+4}V:({x}\otimes {v}\wedge {x})\times \nabla.$$ We note the identities $$V:{\operatorname{sym}}({x}\otimes {v})={v}\cdot V\cdot {x},$$ and the integration by parts $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} V: \left [({x}\otimes {v}\wedge {x})\times \nabla\right ]
&=\int_{\Omega} -(V\times \nabla): ({x}\otimes {v}\wedge {x})=
-\int_{\Omega} {x}\cdot (V\times \nabla)\cdot ({v}\wedge {x})\\&
=\int_{\Omega} {x}\cdot (V\times \nabla)\wedge {x}\cdot {v}=-\int_{\Omega} {v}\cdot ({x}\wedge (\nabla\times V))\cdot {x},\end{aligned}$$ which holds for $V$ with certain vanishing conditions on the boundary of the domain, e.g. $V\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})$. This implies that $$\int_{\Omega} \mathscr{K}_{1}^{r+2}V\cdot {v}=\int_{\Omega} V:\mathscr{K}_{3}^{r}{v}.$$
Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand Construction {#sec:BGG}
======================================
In this section, we recall the derivation of the elasticity complex from the de Rham complex by the Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand (BGG) construction. This will provide the preparation for the proof of Theorem \[thm:1\], which is given in Section \[sec:derivation\]. The BGG construction was originally developed in the theory of Lie algebras [@bernstein1975differential; @vcap2001bernstein]. Later, Eastwood [@eastwood2000complex; @eastwood1999variations] showed the relation between the elasticity complex and BGG. Arnold, Falk and Winther used the BGG construction to create finite element methods for elasticity [@arnold2006defferential; @Arnold.D;Falk.R;Winther.R.2006a; @falk2008finite]. The BGG construction for the 3D elasticity complex can be summarized in .
$$\label{BGG-3Delasticity}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=3cm]
\node (L11) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[left of=L11] (L10) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L11] (L12) {$\Lambda^1(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L12] (L13) {$\Lambda^2(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L13] (L14) {$\Lambda^3(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L14] (L15) {$0$};
\node[below of=L11] (L21) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[left of =L21] (L20) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L21] (L22) {$\Gamma^1$};
\node[right of=L22] (L23) {$\Gamma^2$};
\node[right of=L23] (L24) {$\Lambda^3(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L24] (L25) {$0$};
\node[below of=L21] (L31) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[left of =L31] (L30) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L31] (L32) {$\Lambda^1(\mathbb{K})$};
\node[right of=L32] (L33) {$\Lambda^2(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L33] (L34) {$\Lambda^3(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L34] (L35) {$0$};
\node[below of=L31] (L41) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K})$};
\node[left of =L41] (L40) {$\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K}$};
\node[right of=L41] (L42) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$};
\node[right of=L42] (L43) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$};
\node[right of=L43] (L44) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{K}\times \mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L44] (L45) {$0$};
\node[below of=L41] (L51) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[left of =L51] (L50) {$\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K}$};
\node[right of=L51] (L52) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$};
\node[right of=L52] (L53) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$};
\node[right of=L53] (L54) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L54] (L55) {$0$};
\draw[->] (L10)--(L11);
\draw[->] (L11)--(L12) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{A}_{0}$};
\draw[->] (L12)--(L13) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{A}_{1}$};
\draw[->] (L13)--(L14) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{A}_{2}$};
\draw[->] (L14)--(L15);
\draw[->] (L20)--(L21);
\draw[->] (L21)--(L22) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{A}_{0}$};
\draw[->] (L22)--(L23) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{A}_{1}$};
\draw[->] (L23)--(L24) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{A}_{2}$};
\draw[->] (L24)--(L25);
\draw[->] (L11)--(L21) node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[->] (L12)--(L22);
\draw[->] (L13)--(L23);
\draw[->] (L14)--(L24)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[->] (L30)--(L31);
\draw[->] (L31)--(L32) node[pos=.5,above] {$(d_{0}, -S_{0})$};
\draw[->] (L32)--(L33) node[pos=.5,above] {$d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}$};
\draw[->] (L33)--(L34) node[pos=.5,above] {$(-S_{2}, d_{2})^{T}$};
\draw[->] (L34)--(L35);
\draw[->] (L40)--(L41);
\draw[->] (L41)--(L42) node[pos=.5,above] {$({\operatorname{grad}}, \mathrm{id})$};
\draw[->] (L42)--(L43) node[pos=.5,above] {${\operatorname{curl}}S_{1}^{-1}{\operatorname{curl}}$};
\draw[->] (L43)--(L44) node[pos=.5,above] {$({\operatorname{skw}}, {\operatorname{div}})$};
\draw[->] (L44)--(L45);
\draw[->] (L50)--(L51);
\draw[->] (L51)--(L52) node[pos=.5,above] {${\operatorname{def}}$};
\draw[->] (L52)--(L53) node[pos=.5,above] {${\operatorname{inc}}$};
\draw[->] (L53)--(L54) node[pos=.5,above] {${\operatorname{div}}$};
\draw[->] (L54)--(L55);
\draw[->] (L21)--(L31)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[->] (L22)--(L32);
\draw[->] (L23)--(L33);
\draw[->](L24)--(L34)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[->] (L31)--(L41);
\draw[->] (L32)--(L42) node[pos=.5,right] {$J_{1}$};
\draw[->] (L33)--(L43)node[pos=.5,right]{$J_{2}$};
\draw[->](L34)--(L44);
\draw[->] (L41)--(L51);
\draw[->] (L42)--(L52) node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{sym}$};
\draw[->] (L43)--(L53)node[pos=.5,right]{$\mathrm{sym}$};
\draw[->](L44)--(L54);
{
\path (L12)--(L22)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$~~(\omega,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {\quad~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$} ;}
\path (L13)--(L23)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$~~(\omega,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~\quad$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$(0, \mu+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}\omega)$} ;
\path (L22)--(L32)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~\quad$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~\quad$\omega$} ;
\path (L23)--(L33)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(0, \mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~~$\mu$} ;
\path (L31)--(L41)
node[pos=0.5,right] {$J_{0}$};
\path (L34)--(L44)
node[pos=0.5,right] {$J_{3}$};
\path (L44)--(L54)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(W, {u})$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {${u}-{\operatorname{div}}W$} ;
\path (L41)--(L51)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$({u}, W)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~~${u}$} ;
\end{tikzpicture}$$
The starting point of the BGG construction is the $\mathbb{W}$-valued de Rham complex $$\begin{CD}
\mathbb{W}@>>>{\Lambda}^{0}(\mathbb{W}) @>d_{0}>> {\Lambda}^{1}(\mathbb{W}) @>d_{1}>>{\Lambda}^{0}(\mathbb{W}) @>d_{2} >>{\Lambda}^{3}(\mathbb{W})@ > >> 0,
\end{CD}$$ where $\mathbb{W}:=\mathbb{K}\times \mathbb{V}$. Each element in ${\Lambda}^{k}(\mathbb{W})$ has two components, one is a skew-symmetric valued $k$-form and another is a vector valued $k$-form.
Define $\mathscr{A}_{k}: {\Lambda}^{k}(\mathbb{W})\mapsto {\Lambda}^{k+1}( \mathbb{W})$ by $$\mathscr{A}_{k}:=\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
d_{k} & -S_{k}\\
0 & d_{k}
\end{array}
\right ),$$ i.e. for $(\omega, \mu)\in {\Lambda}^{k}(\mathbb{W})$, $\mathscr{A}_{k}(\omega, \mu):=(d_{k}\omega-S_{k}\mu, d_{k}\mu)$ with an operator $S_{k}: \Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{V})\mapsto \Lambda^{k+1}(\mathbb{K})$. Before defining $S_k$, we first introduce $K_{k}: \Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{V})\mapsto \Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{K})$ given by $$K_{k}(\omega):={x}\otimes \omega-\omega\otimes {x},$$ where the definition is uniform with $k$. The operator $K_{k}$ only acts on the coefficients of the alternating forms. For any $k$-form, $K_{k}$ maps a vector coefficient to a skew-symmetric matrix coefficient.
The operator $S_{k}$ is then defined by $$S_{k}:=d_{k}K_{k}-K_{k+1}d_{k}.$$ By definition, the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dS}
d_{k+1}S_{k}+S_{k+1}d_{k}=0,\end{aligned}$$ holds. From it is easy to see that $\mathscr{A}_{k+1}\mathscr{A}_{k}=0$, or $\mathscr{A}^{2}=0$ in short.
It turns out that the operators $S_{k}$ are algebraic in the sense that no derivatives are involved. Furthermore, $S_{0}$ is injective, $S_{1}$ is bijective and $S_{2}$ is surjective. The first rows of , i.e. $$\begin{diagram}
0& \rTo & \mathbb{W}& \rTo & \Lambda^{0}(\mathbb{W}) & \rTo^{\mathscr{A}_{0}} &\Lambda^{1}(\mathbb{W})& \rTo^{\mathscr{A}_{1}} & \Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{W}) & \rTo^{\mathscr{A}_{2}} & \Lambda^{3}(\mathbb{W}) &\rTo & 0,
\end{diagram}$$ is a complex. The second step is to filter out some parts of the complex. The space $\Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{W})$ has two components, i.e. $\omega$ and $\mu$. In elasticity $\mu$ corresponds to the stress tensor, therefore we want to filter out the $\omega$ component. Specifically, we consider the subspace of $\Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{W})$: $\{(\omega, \mu)\in \Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{W}): \omega=0\}$. To find out the pre-image of the operator $\mathscr{A}_{2}$ restricted on this subspace, we notice that $\mathscr{A}_{1}(u, v)=(d_{1}u-S_{1}v, d_{1}v)=(0, \mu)$ if and only if $v=S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}u$. This gives the operators from the first row to the second: we keep $\Lambda^{0}(\mathbb{W})$ and $\Lambda^{3}(\mathbb{W})$ and project $\Lambda^{1}(\mathbb{W})$ and $\Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{W})$ to the corresponding subspaces. One can verify that these operators are projections and the diagram commutes.
The next step is an identification i.e. we identify $(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$ with $\omega$ and $(0, \mu)$ with $\mu$. This step also leads to a commuting diagram.
Then we identify differential forms and exterior derivatives with vectors/matrices and differential operators. Such identifications are called the vector proxies [@Arnold.D;Falk.R;Winther.R.2006a p. 26]. The operators $J_{k}$ provide vector/matrix representations of the differential forms. These representations are isomorphisms. We will give explicit forms of the vector proxies below. This leads to the elasticity complex with weakly imposed symmetry (the fourth row of ).
The last step is to project the complex into the subcomplex involving symmetric matrices.
#### Vector proxies in BGG
We identify vector valued differential forms $$w=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{1}\\
w_{2}\\
w_{3}
\end{array}
\right ) \sim \left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{1}\\
w_{2}\\
w_{3}
\end{array}
\right ), \quad \forall w\in \Lambda^{0}(\mathbb{V});$$ $$w=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{11}\\
w_{21}\\
w_{31}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{1} +
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{12}\\
w_{22}\\
w_{32}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{2}
+
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{13}\\
w_{23}\\
w_{33}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{3} \sim
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_{11} & w_{12} & w_{13}\\
w_{21} & w_{22} & w_{23}\\
w_{31} & w_{32} & w_{33}
\end{array}
\right ),
\quad \forall w\in \Lambda^{1}(\mathbb{V});$$ $$w=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{11}\\
w_{21}\\
w_{31}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{2} \wedge d x_{3} +
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{12}\\
w_{22}\\
w_{32}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{3} \wedge d x_{1}
+
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{13}\\
w_{23}\\
w_{33}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{1} \wedge d x_{2} \sim \left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_{11} & w_{12} & w_{13}\\
w_{21} & w_{22} & w_{23}\\
w_{31} & w_{32} & w_{33}
\end{array}
\right ), \quad \forall w\in \Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{V})$$ $$w=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{1}\\
w_{2}\\
w_{3}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{1} \wedge d x_{2} \wedge d x_{3} \sim \left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{1}\\
w_{2}\\
w_{3}
\end{array}
\right ), \quad \forall w\in \Lambda^{3}(\mathbb{V}).$$ Here, a vector can be identified with a skew-symmetric matrix as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Skw}
{w}=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{1}\\
w_{2}\\
w_{3}
\end{array}\right )
\sim
\mathrm{Skw}({w}):=\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -w_{3} & w_{2}\\
w_{3} & 0 & -w_{1}\\
-w_{2} & w_{1} & 0
\end{array}
\right ).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the skew-symmetric matrix valued forms can be written as $$\mathrm{Skw}(w_{1}, w_{2}, w_{3}),$$ $$\mathrm{Skw}(w_{11}, w_{21}, w_{31})d x_{1} +\mathrm{Skw}(w_{12}, w_{22}, w_{32})d x_{2} +\mathrm{Skw}(w_{13}, w_{23}, w_{33})d x_{3} ,$$ $$\mathrm{Skw}(w_{11}, w_{21}, w_{31})d x_{2} \wedge d x_{3} +\mathrm{Skw}(w_{12}, w_{22}, w_{32})d x_{3} \wedge d x_{1} +\mathrm{Skw}(w_{13}, w_{23}, w_{33})d x_{1} \wedge d x_{2} ,$$ $$\mathrm{Skw}(w_{1}, w_{2}, w_{3})d x_{1} \wedge d x_{2} \wedge d x_{3} ,$$ and the matrix proxies are obvious as discussed above.
The identifications $J_{0}: \Lambda^{0}(\mathbb{W})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K})$, $J_{1}: \Lambda^{1}(\mathbb{K})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$, $J_{2}: \Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{V})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$ and $J_{3}: \Lambda^{3}(\mathbb{W})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{W})$ are defined by $$J_{0} (W, v):= ({\operatorname{Skw}}^{-1}W, {\operatorname{Skw}}v),$$ $$J_{1}\left [ \mathrm{Skw}(w_{11}, w_{21}, w_{31})d x_{1} +\mathrm{Skw}(w_{12}, w_{22}, w_{32})d x_{2} +\mathrm{Skw}(w_{13}, w_{23}, w_{33})d x_{3} \right ]:= \left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_{11} & w_{12} & w_{13}\\
w_{21} & w_{22} & w_{23}\\
w_{31} & w_{32} & w_{33}
\end{array}
\right ),$$ $$J_{2}\left [\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{11}\\
w_{21}\\
w_{31}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{2} \wedge d x_{3} +
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{12}\\
w_{22}\\
w_{32}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{3} \wedge d x_{1}
+
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
w_{13}\\
w_{23}\\
w_{33}
\end{array}
\right )d x_{1} \wedge d x_{2} \right ]:= \left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
w_{11} & w_{12} & w_{13}\\
w_{21} & w_{22} & w_{23}\\
w_{31} & w_{32} & w_{33}
\end{array}
\right ),$$ $$J_{3} \left [ (W, v)dx_{1}\wedge dx_{2}\wedge dx_{3}\right ]:= (W, v).$$
In the vector/matrix notation, the $S_{1}$ operator is of the form $$S_{1}W=W^{T}-\mathrm{tr}(W)I,$$ and $$S_{1}^{-1}U=U^{T}-\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(U)I.$$
Derivation of the Poincaré operators {#sec:derivation}
====================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm:1\]. We remark that our approach of using the BGG construction to derive explicit Poincaré path integrals for the elasticity complex is, as far as we know, a new methodology. The BGG construction is a general procedure for constructing differential complexes from the de Rham complex, and our results for the elasticity complex are thus a particular example of this approach.
Poincaré operators on subcomplexes
----------------------------------
We first provide a general result for constructing null-homotopy operators on subcomplexes. Assume that $W^{i}{\subseteq} V^{i}$, $(W, d)$ is a subcomplex of $(V, d)$ and the following diagram commutes, i.e. $\Pi_{i+1} d_{i}=d_{i}\Pi_{i}$, $$\begin{diagram}
\cdots& \rTo & V^{i-1} & \rTo^{d_{i-1}} &V^{i}& \rTo^{d_{i}} & V^{i+1} & \rTo & \cdots\\
&&\dTo^{\Pi_{i-1}} & & \dTo^{\Pi_{i}} & & \dTo^{\Pi_{i+1}} &\\
\cdots& \rTo & W^{i-1} & \rTo^{d_{i-1}} &W^{i}& \rTo^{d_{i}} & W^{i+1} & \rTo & \cdots.
\end{diagram}$$ We assume that $\Pi_{i}$ is surjective for each $i$, therefore there exists a right inverse of $\Pi_{i}$, which we denote as $\Pi_{i}^{\dagger}: W^{i}\mapsto V^{i}$. Suppose the top row has Poincaré operators $\mathfrak{p}_{i}: V^{i}\mapsto V^{i-1}$ satisfying $$\mathfrak{p}_{i+1}d_{i}+d_{i-1}\mathfrak{p}_{i}=\mathrm{id}_{V^{i}},$$ then the next theorem shows how we can construct the Poincaré operator $\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i}: W^{i}\mapsto W^{i-1}$ for the bottom row based on $\mathfrak{p}_{i}$ and the pseudo inverses of the operators $\Pi_{i}$.
\[lem:general-commuting\] If $\Pi^{\dagger}$ commutes with the differential operator $d$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{commuting-dagger}
d_{i}\Pi^{\dagger}_{i}=\Pi^{\dagger}_{i+1}d_{i},\end{aligned}$$ the formula $$\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i}:=\Pi_{i-1}\mathfrak{p}_{i}\Pi_{i}^{\dagger}$$ defines an operator $\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i}: W^{i}\mapsto W^{i-1}$ for the subcomplex $(W, d)$ satisfying $$d_{i-1}\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i}+\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i+1}d_{i}=\mathrm{id}_{W^{i}}.$$
We have $$d_{i-1}\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i}=\Pi_{i}d_{i-1}\mathfrak{p}_{i}\Pi_{i}^{\dagger},$$ and $$\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i+1}d_{i}=\Pi_{i}\mathfrak{p}_{i}d_{i}\Pi_{i}^{\dagger}.$$ Therefore $$d_{i-1}\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i}+\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}_{i+1}d_{i}=\Pi_{i}\Pi_{i}^{\dagger}=\mathrm{id}_{W^{i}}.$$
If $\Pi_{j}$ is a projection, the inclusion operator $i: W^{j}\mapsto V^{j}$ naturally defines a right inverse of $\Pi_{j}$ and satisfies the commutative relation .
Poincaré operators on the elasticity complex
--------------------------------------------
The construction is summarized in . $$\label{poincare-3Delasticity}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=3cm]
\node (L11) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[left of=L11] (L10) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L11] (L12) {$\Lambda^1(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L12] (L13) {$\Lambda^2(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L13] (L14) {$\Lambda^3(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L14] (L15) {$0$};
\node[below of=L11] (L21) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[left of =L21] (L20) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L21] (L22) {$\Gamma^1$};
\node[right of=L22] (L23) {$\Gamma^2$};
\node[right of=L23] (L24) {$\Lambda^3(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L24] (L25) {$0$};
\node[below of=L21] (L31) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[left of =L31] (L30) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L31] (L32) {$\Lambda^1(\mathbb{K})$};
\node[right of=L32] (L33) {$\Lambda^2(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L33] (L34) {$\Lambda^3(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L34] (L35) {$0$};
\node[below of=L31] (L41) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K})$};
\node[left of =L41] (L40) {$\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K}$};
\node[right of=L41] (L42) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$};
\node[right of=L42] (L43) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$};
\node[right of=L43] (L44) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{K}\times \mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L44] (L45) {$0$};
\node[below of=L41] (L51) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[left of =L51] (L50) {$\mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{K}$};
\node[right of=L51] (L52) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$};
\node[right of=L52] (L53) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$};
\node[right of=L53] (L54) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L54] (L55) {$0$};
\draw[<-] (L10)--(L11);
\draw[<-][pos=.5, below] (L11)--(L12) node[pos=.5, above] {$\mathscr{B}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L12)--(L13) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{B}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L13)--(L14) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{B}_{3}$};
\draw[<-] (L14)--(L15);
\draw[<-] (L20)--(L21);
\draw[<-] (L21)--(L22) node[pos=.5,above] {${\mathscr{C}_{1}}$};
\draw[<-] (L22)--(L23) node[pos=.5,above] {${\mathscr{C}_{2}}$};
\draw[<-] (L23)--(L24) node[pos=.5,above] {${\mathscr{C}_{3}}$};
\draw[<-] (L24)--(L25);
\draw[<-] (L11)--(L21) node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[<-] (L12)--(L22) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L13)--(L23) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L14)--(L24)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[<-] (L30)--(L31);
\draw[<-] (L31)--(L32) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{F}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L32)--(L33) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{F}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L33)--(L34) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{F}_{3}$};
\draw[<-] (L34)--(L35);
\draw[<-] (L40)--(L41);
\draw[<-] (L41)--(L42) node[pos=.5,above] {$\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L42)--(L43) node[pos=.5,above] {$\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L43)--(L44) node[pos=.5,above] {$\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{3}$};
\draw[<-] (L44)--(L45);
\draw[<-] (L50)--(L51);
\draw[<-] (L51)--(L52) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{P}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L52)--(L53) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{P}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L53)--(L54) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{P}_{3}$};
\draw[<-] (L54)--(L55);
\draw[<-] (L21)--(L31)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[<-] (L22)--(L32) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L23)--(L33) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-](L24)--(L34)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[<-] (L31)--(L41);
\draw[<-] (L32)--(L42) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L33)--(L43)node[pos=.5,right]{};
\draw[<-](L34)--(L44);
\draw[<-] (L41)--(L51);
\draw[<-] (L42)--(L52) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L43)--(L53)node[pos=.5,right]{};
\draw[<-](L44)--(L54);
{
\path (L12)--(L22)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$~~(\omega,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {\quad~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$} ;}
\path (L12)--(L22)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$~~(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$\quad~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$} ;
\path (L13)--(L23)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$~~(\omega,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~\quad$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$(0, \mu+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}\omega)$} ;
\path (L13)--(L23) node[pos=0.2,left] {$~~(0,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~\quad}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$(0, \mu)$} ;
\path (L22)--(L32)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~\quad$\updownarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~\quad$\omega$} ;
\path (L23)--(L33)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(0, \mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\updownarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~~$\mu$} ;
\path (L31)--(L41)
node[pos=0.5,right]{$J_{0}^{-1}$};
\path (L32)--(L42)
node[pos=0.5,right]{$J_{1}^{-1}$};
\path (L33)--(L43)
node[pos=0.5,right]{$J_{2}^{-1}$};
\path (L34)--(L44)
node[pos=0.5,right]{$J_{3}^{-1}$};
\path (L41)--(L51)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$({u}, W)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~~${u}$} ;
\path (L42)--(L52)
node[pos=0.2,right] {~~~${M}$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$\mathrm{sym}(M)$} ;
\path (L42)--(L52)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$V$~~~}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$V$~~~} ;
\path (L43)--(L53)
node[pos=0.2,right] {~~~$M$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$\mathrm{sym}(M)$} ;
\path (L43)--(L53)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$V$~~~}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$V$~~~} ;
\path (L44)--(L54)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(W, {u})$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {${u}-{\operatorname{div}}W$} ;
\path (L44)--(L54)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$(0, {u})$}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {${u}$~~~} ;
\end{tikzpicture}$$
The first step is to define an operator in the $\mathbb{W}$-valued de Rham complex $\mathscr{B}_{k}: \Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{W})\mapsto \Lambda^{k-1}(\mathbb{W})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{B}_{k}:=\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathfrak{p}_{k} & -T_{k}\\
0 & \mathfrak{p}_{k}
\end{array}
\right ).\end{aligned}$$ Here $T_{k}: \Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{V})\mapsto \Lambda^{k-1}(\mathbb{K})$ plays a similar role to $S_{k}$, but with the opposite direction ($S_{k}$ has degree 1 while $T_{k}$ has degree $-1$). We define $T_{k}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T-operator}
T_{k}:=\mathfrak{p}_{k}K_{k}-K_{k-1}\mathfrak{p}_{k}.\end{aligned}$$ By straightforward calculations, we can check that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{homotopy-AB}
\mathscr{A}_{k-1}\mathscr{B}_{k}+\mathscr{B}_{k+1}\mathscr{A}_{k}=\mathrm{id}_{\Lambda^{k}(\mathbb{W})}.\end{aligned}$$ We have derived the homotopy inverses of the first row of . The next step is to perform several projections based on Lemma \[lem:general-commuting\].
To compute $\mathscr{C}_{3}$, we use the following path $$\begin{diagram}
(\mathfrak{p}_{3}\omega-T_{3}\mu, \mathfrak{p}_{3}\mu)& \lTo^{\mathscr{B}_{3}} & (\omega, \mu) \\
\dTo& & \uTo\\
\left (0, \mathfrak{p}_{3}\mu+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}(\mathfrak{p}_{3}\omega-T_{3}\mu)\right )& & (\omega, \mu)
\end{diagram}$$ Therefore $\mathscr{C}_{3}$ maps $(\omega, \mu)$ to $\left (0, \mathfrak{p}_{3}\mu+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}(\mathfrak{p}_{3}\omega-T_{3}\mu)\right )$. Similarly, we can obtain $\mathscr{C}_{2}$: $$\begin{diagram}
(-T_{2}\mu, \mathfrak{p}_{2}\mu)& \lTo^{\mathscr{B}_{2}} & (0, \mu) \\
\dTo& & \uTo\\
\left (-T_{2}\mu, -S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}T_{2}\mu\right )& & (0, \mu)
\end{diagram}$$ For $\mathscr{C}_{1}$, we just have $\mathscr{C}_{1}=\mathscr{B}_{1}$.
Furthermore, for the third row we find $\mathscr{F}_{1}$, $\mathscr{F}_{2}$ and $\mathscr{F}_{3}$ by: $$\begin{diagram}
\left (\mathfrak{p}_{1}\omega-T_{1}S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega, \mathfrak{p}_{1}S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega\right )& \lTo & (\omega, S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega) \\
\dTo& & \uTo\\
\left (\mathfrak{p}_{1}\omega-T_{1}S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega, \mathfrak{p}_{1}S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}\omega\right )& & \omega
\end{diagram}$$ $$\begin{diagram}
\left (-T_{2}\mu, -S_{1}^{-1}d_{1}T_{2}\mu\right )& \lTo & (0, \mu) \\
\dTo& & \uTo\\
-T_{2}\mu& & \mu
\end{diagram}$$ $$\begin{diagram}
\left (0, \mathfrak{p}_{3}\mu+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}(\mathfrak{p}_{3}\omega-T_{3}\mu)\right )& \lTo & (\omega, \mu) \\
\dTo& & \uTo\\
\mathfrak{p}_{3}\mu+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}(\mathfrak{p}_{3}\omega-T_{3}\mu)& & (\omega, \mu)
\end{diagram}$$
The next step is to consider vector proxies given by $J_{0}$, $J_{1}$, $J_{2}$ and $J_{3}$.
#### Matrix proxy
We give the vector-matrix forms of the above constructions. For $\mu\in \Lambda^{1}(\mathbb{V})$, we have $$T_{1}{\mu}_x\sim -\int_{0}^{1}(1-t){x}\wedge \left (J_{1}\mu\right )_{tx}\cdot {x}\,dt,$$ and so for a matrix $M\in \mathbb{M}$, this gives $$\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{1}: M\mapsto \left ( \int_{0}^{1}M_{tx}\cdot {x}\,dt +\int_{0}^{1}(1-t){x}\wedge (M_{tx}\times \nabla)\cdot {x}\,dt,~ \int_{0}^{1}\left [ (M_{tx}\times \nabla)^{T}-\frac{1}{2}(M_{tx}\times \nabla)I\right ] \cdot {x}\, dt
\right ) .$$
If $\mu\in \Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{V})$, then $$T_{2}\mu_x\sim \int_{0}^{1}t(1-t){x}\wedge (J_{2}\mu)_{tx}\wedge {x}\,dt,$$ and so for $M\in \mathbb{M}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{2}: M\mapsto \int_{0}^{1}t(1-t){x}\wedge M_{tx} \wedge {x} \, dt ={x}\wedge \left (\int_{0}^{1}t(1-t)M_{tx}\,dt \right )\wedge {x}.\end{aligned}$$
Lastly, with $\mu\in \Lambda^{3}(\mathbb{V})$, $$T_{3}\mu_x\sim -\int_{0}^{1}t^{2}(1-t){x}\wedge (J_{3}\mu)_{tx}\otimes {x}\, dt,$$ and so for $(W, {v})\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{K})\times C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$, this leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{3}: (W, {v})\mapsto \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}{v}_{tx}\otimes {x}\, dt +\left ( S_{1}^{-1}\int_{0}^{1}t^{2}(1-t){x}\wedge {v}_{tx}\otimes {x}\, dt\right )\times \nabla + \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}\left [ {x}\otimes W_{tx}-1/2({x}\cdot W_{tx})I\right ]\times \nabla\, dt.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we perform several symmetrizations to get the Poincaré operators for the elasticity complex. If $E$ is a symmetric matrix, we have $\mathrm{tr}(E\times \nabla)=0$. Therefore $\mathscr{P}_{1}$ can be interpreted as $$\mathscr{P}_{1}: E\mapsto \int_{0}^{1}E_{tx}\cdot {x}\,dt +\int_{0}^{1}(1-t){x}\wedge (\nabla\times E_{tx})\cdot {x}\, dt,\quad E\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}),$$ which is the Cesàro-Volterra formula.
Moreover, the vector proxy of $\mathscr{P}_{2}$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{P}_{2}: V\mapsto \mathrm{sym}T_{2}V=\mathrm{sym}\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t(1-t){x}\wedge V_{tx} \wedge {x}\, dt \right )={x}\wedge \left (\int_{0}^{1}t(1-t)V_{tx}\,dt \right )\wedge {x}.\end{aligned}$$ whenever $V$ is symmetric.
For $\mathscr{P}_{3}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{P}_{3}: {v}\mapsto \mathrm{sym} (\mathfrak{p}_{3}{ {v}}+d_{1}S_{1}^{-1}T_{3}{ {v}})=\mathrm{sym}\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}{ {v}_{tx}}\otimes {x} \,dt +\left ( S_{1}^{-1}\int_{0}^{1}t^{2}(1-t){x}\wedge { {v}_{tx}}\otimes {x} \,dt\right )\times \nabla\right ),\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that $S_{1}^{-1}M:=M^{T}-1/2\mathrm{tr}(M)$. For any vector ${u}$, the matrix ${x}\wedge {u}\otimes {x}$ has the index form $\left ( {x}\wedge {u}\otimes {x}\right )_{il}=\epsilon_{ijk}{x}^{j}{u}^{k}{x}_{l}$, from which we can easily see that $\mathrm{tr}\left ({x}\wedge {u}\otimes {x}\right )=\epsilon_{ijk}{x}^{j}{u}^{k}{x}^{i}=0$. Therefore $\mathscr{P}_{3}$ is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{P}_{3}: { {v}}\mapsto {\operatorname{sym}}\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}{x}\otimes { {v}_{tx}} \,dt -\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t^{2}(1-t){x}\otimes { {v}_{tx}}\wedge{x} \,dt\right )\times \nabla\right ).\end{aligned}$$
2D elasticity complex {#sec:2D}
=====================
Let $\Omega$ be a contractible domain in 2D. The [elasticity complex]{} in 2D reads $$\label{2D-elasticity0}
\begin{diagram}
{0}& \rTo^{} &{\mathcal{P}_1}& \rTo^{{\subseteq}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega)& \rTo^{{\operatorname{airy}}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \rTo^{{\operatorname{div}}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}) & \rTo & 0.
\end{diagram}$$ The Airy operator, ${\operatorname{airy}}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$ is defined by ${\operatorname{airy}}(u):= \nabla\times u\times \nabla$ in 2D, is a rotated version of the Hessian: $${\operatorname{airy}}(u):=\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
{\partial_{2}^{2}u} & -\partial_{1}\partial_{2} u \\
-\partial_{1}\partial_{2} u &{\partial_{1}^{2}u}
\end{array}
\right ).$$ In planar elasticity, the Cauchy stress is a second order symmetric tensor, appearing in $ C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S})$ in the sequence . The divergence operator, defined row-wise, maps onto $ C^{\infty}$ vectors and the kernel can be parametrized by $ C^{\infty}$ scalar functions through the Airy operator.
For ${x}=(x_{1}, x_{2})$ we let ${x}^{\perp}=(x_{2}, -x_{1})$. We use $${\chi}=
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right )$$ to denote the canonical skew-symmetric matrix in 2D.
In the 2D case, we assume ${v}=({v}_{1}, {v}_{2})^{T}$. Then $$K_{k}({v}):={x}\otimes {v}-{v}\otimes {x}=\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {x}_{1}{v}_{2}-{x}_{2}{v}_{1}\\
-\left ({x}_{1}{v}_{2}-{x}_{2}{v}_{1} \right ) & 0
\end{array}
\right ).$$ This anti-symmetric matrix is usually identified with the scalar $-\left ({x}_{1}{v}_{2}-{x}_{2}{v}_{1} \right )$.
\[2D:poincare-results\] Assume $\Omega=\mathbb{R}^{2}$. We define $\mathscr{P}_{1}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ by $$\mathscr{P}_{1}: V\mapsto \int_{0}^{1}(1-t){x}^{\perp}\cdot V_{tx}\cdot {x}^{\perp} \, dt.$$ and define $\mathscr{P}_{2}: C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})\mapsto C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$ by $$\mathscr{P}_{2}: {u}\mapsto{\operatorname{sym}}\left ( \int_{0}^{1}t {u}_{tx}\otimes {x}\, dt+\left (\int_{0}^{1}t(t-1)({x}^{\perp}\cdot {u}_{tx}){x} \, dt\right )\times \nabla\right ),$$ where the 2D scalar curl operator “$\times \nabla$” maps each component of the vector ${\operatorname{sym}}\int_{0}^{1}t {u}_{tx}\otimes {x}\, dt+\left (\int_{0}^{1}t(t-1)({x}^{\perp}\cdot {u}_{tx}){x} \, dt\right )$ to a row vector. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P1}
\mathscr{P}_{1}({\operatorname{airy}}u)=u+\mathcal{P}_{1}, \quad\forall u\in C^{\infty}(\Omega),\end{aligned}$$ $$\mathscr{P}_{2}{\operatorname{div}}V + {\operatorname{airy}}\mathscr{P}_{1}V=V, \quad \forall V\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}),$$ and $${\operatorname{div}}\mathscr{P}_{2}{v}={v}, \quad\forall {v}\in C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V}),$$ where $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ in indicates that the identity $\mathscr{P}_{1}{\operatorname{airy}}u=u$ holds up to $\mathcal{P}_{1}$, the kernel of ${\operatorname{airy}}$. Particularly, for a matrix field $V$ satisfying ${\operatorname{div}}V=0$, we can find a scalar function $f:=\mathscr{P}_{1}V$ satisfying ${\operatorname{airy}}f=V$. For any vector function ${v}$, we can explicitly find a symmetric matrix potential $M:=\mathscr{P}_{2}{v}$ satisfying ${\operatorname{div}}M={v}$.
Similar to the 3D case , the 2D version $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2DP-complex}
\begin{diagram}
0& \lTo^{} &\mathrm{RM} & \lTo^{} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{V})& \lTo^{\mathscr{P}_{1}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega; \mathbb{S}) & \lTo^{\mathscr{P}_{2}} & C^{\infty}(\Omega) & \lTo & 0
\end{diagram}\end{aligned}$$ is also a complex, which is exact on contractible domains. Koszul operators can be similarly obtained.
The construction for the Poincaré operators for the 2D elasticity complex can be summarized in the diagram below.
$$\label{poincare-2Delasticity}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=3cm]
\node (L11) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L11] (L12) {$\Lambda^0(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L12] (L13) {$\Lambda^1(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L13] (L14) {$\Lambda^2(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L14] (L15) {$0$};
\node[below of=L11] (L21) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L21] (L22) {$\Gamma^0$};
\node[right of=L22] (L23) {$\Gamma^1$};
\node[right of=L23] (L24) {$\Lambda^2(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L24] (L25) {$0$};
\node[below of=L21] (L31) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L31] (L32) {$\Lambda^{0}(\mathbb{K})$};
\node[right of=L32] (L33) {$\Lambda^{1}(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L33] (L34) {$\Lambda^{2}(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L34] (L35) {$0$};
\node[below of=L31] (L41) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L41] (L42) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$};
\node[right of=L42] (L43) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{M})$};
\node[right of=L43] (L44) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{W})$};
\node[right of=L44] (L45) {$0$};
\node[below of=L41] (L51) {$\mathbb{W}$};
\node[right of=L51] (L52) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$};
\node[right of=L52] (L53) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S})$};
\node[right of=L53] (L54) {$C^{\infty}(\mathbb{V})$};
\node[right of=L54] (L55) {$0$};
\draw[<-][pos=.5, below] (L11)--(L12) node[pos=.5, above] {};
\draw[<-] (L12)--(L13) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{B}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L13)--(L14) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{B}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L14)--(L15);
\draw[<-] (L21)--(L22) node[pos=.5,above] {};
\draw[<-] (L22)--(L23) node[pos=.5,above] {${\mathscr{C}_{1}}$};
\draw[<-] (L23)--(L24) node[pos=.5,above] {${\mathscr{C}_{2}}$};
\draw[<-] (L24)--(L25);
\draw[<-] (L12)--(L22) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L13)--(L23) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L14)--(L24)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[<-] (L31)--(L32) node[pos=.5,above] {};
\draw[<-] (L32)--(L33) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{F}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L33)--(L34) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{F}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L34)--(L35);
\draw[<-] (L41)--(L42) node[pos=.5,above] {};
\draw[<-] (L42)--(L43) node[pos=.5,above] {$\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L43)--(L44) node[pos=.5,above] {$\tilde{\mathscr{F}}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L44)--(L45);
\draw[<-] (L51)--(L52) node[pos=.5,above] {};
\draw[<-] (L52)--(L53) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{P}_{1}$};
\draw[<-] (L53)--(L54) node[pos=.5,above] {$\mathscr{P}_{2}$};
\draw[<-] (L54)--(L55);
\draw[<-] (L22)--(L32) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L23)--(L33) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-](L24)--(L34)node[pos=.5,right] {$\mathrm{id}$};
\draw[<-] (L32)--(L42) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L33)--(L43)node[pos=.5,right]{};
\draw[<-](L34)--(L44);
\draw[<-] (L42)--(L52) node[pos=.5,right] {};
\draw[<-] (L43)--(L53)node[pos=.5,right]{};
\draw[<-](L44)--(L54);
{
\path (L12)--(L22)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$~~(\omega,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {\quad~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$(\omega, S_{0}^{-1}d_{0}\omega)$} ;}
\path (L12)--(L22)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$~~(\omega, S_{0}^{-1}d_{0}\omega)$}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$\quad~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$(\omega, S_{0}^{-1}d_{0}\omega)$} ;
\path (L13)--(L23)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$~~(\omega,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~\quad$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$(0, \mu+d_{0}S_{0}^{-1}\omega)$} ;
\path (L13)--(L23) node[pos=0.2,left] {$~~(0,\mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~\quad}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$(0, \mu)$} ;
\path (L22)--(L32)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(\omega, S_{0}^{-1}d_{0}\omega)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~\quad$\updownarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~\quad$\omega$} ;
\path (L23)--(L33)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(0, \mu)$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\updownarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {~~~$\mu$} ;
\path (L42)--(L52)
node[pos=0.2,right] {}
node[pos=0.4,right] {$\mathrm{id}$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {} ;
\path (L43)--(L53)
node[pos=0.2,right] {~~~$M$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {$\mathrm{sym}(M)$} ;
\path (L43)--(L53)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$V$~~~}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {$V$~~~} ;
\path (L44)--(L54)
node[pos=0.2,right] {$(V, {v})$}
node[pos=0.4,right] {~~~$\downarrow$}
node[pos=0.6,right] {${v}-{\operatorname{div}}V$} ;
\path (L44)--(L54)
node[pos=0.2,left] {$(0, {v})$}
node[pos=0.4,left] {$\uparrow$~~~}
node[pos=0.6,left] {${v}$~~~} ;
\path (L32)--(L42)
node[pos=0.5,right] {$J_{0}^{-1}$};
\path (L33)--(L43)
node[pos=0.5,right] {$J_{1}^{-1}$};
\path (L34)--(L44)
node[pos=0.5,right] {$J_{2}^{-1}$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
The derivation for the 2D Poincaré operators is analogous to the 3D case discussed above. The results in Theorem \[2D:poincare-results\] can thus be obtained in a similar manner. We omit the details.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we derived the null-homotopy operators for the elasticity complex. By construction they automatically satisfy the homotopy relation $\mathscr{D}_{i-1}\mathscr{P}_{i}+\mathscr{P}_{i+1}\mathscr{D}_{i}=\mathrm{id}$. The complex property $\mathscr{P}^{2}=0$ and the polynomial-preserving property were also shown. As the de Rham case, for any $\omega\in V^{i}$ with $\mathscr{D}_{i}\omega=0$, a potential $\phi\in V^{i-1}$ satisfying $\mathscr{P}_{i-1}\phi=0$ and $\mathscr{D}_{i-1}\phi=\omega$ is uniquely determined, and is given by $\phi=\mathscr{P}_{i}\omega$.
As a special case, the classical Cesarò-Volterra path integral is derived from the first Poincaré operator for the de Rham complex. The known path independence of the Cesarò-Volterra integral can thus be seen as a corollary of the known path independence of the Poincaré operator for differential $1$-forms.
The method discussed in this paper would work for any complex obtained by the BGG construction. The elasticity complex is just one special case, and more examples can be found in, e.g., [@arnold2015beijing; @eastwood1999variations]. Therefore, Poincaré operators for these complexes can be also constructed following an analogous approach.
As future work, we hope that the methodology and the results in this paper can be useful in establishing regularity results for the elasticity complex based on estimates of regularized integral operators (c.f., [@costabel2010bogovskiui]) and in the investigation of Poincaré operators on manifolds or with little regularity, as studied for the Cesàr[o]{}-Volterra formula [@ciarlet2010cesaro; @ciarlet2009cesaro].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to Douglas Arnold and Ragnar Winther for valuable feedback that helped improve the manuscript.
The research of KH leading to the results of this paper was partly carried out during his affiliation with the University of Oslo. KH and ES were supported in part by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement 339643.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1053 Blindern, NO 0316 Oslo, Norway. email:[[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Corresponding author. School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, 206 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, USA. email: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1053 Blindern, NO 0316 Oslo, Norway. email:[[email protected]]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study a number of variants of an abstract scheduling problem inspired by the scheduling of reclaimers in the stockyard of a coal export terminal. We analyze the complexity of each of the variants, providing complexity proofs for some and polynomial algorithms for others. For one, especially interesting variant, we also develop a constant factor approximation algorithm.
**Keywords:** reclaimer scheduling, stockyard management, approximation algorithm, complexity
author:
- |
Enrico Angelelli\
[*University of Brescia, Italy*]{}
- |
Thomas Kalinowski , Reena Kapoor\
[*University of Newcastle, Australia*]{}
- |
Martin W.P. Savelsbergh\
[*Georgia Institute of Technology, USA*]{}
title: 'A reclaimer scheduling problem arising in coal stockyard management[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
We investigate a scheduling problem that arises in the management of a stockyard at a coal export terminal. Coal is marketed and sold to customers by brand. The brand of coal dictates its characteristics, for example the range in which its calorific value, ash, moisture and/or sulphur content lies. In order to deliver a brand required by a customer, coal from different mines, producing coal with different characteristics, is “mixed” in a stockpile at the stockyard of a coal terminal to obtain a blended product meeting the required brand characteristics. Stackers are used to add coal that arrives at the terminal to stockpiles in the yard and reclaimers are used to reclaim completed stockpiles for delivery to waiting ships at the berths.
We focus on the scheduling of the reclaimers. The stockyard motivating our investigation has four pads on which stockpiles are build. A stockpile takes up the entire width of a pad and a portion of its length. Each pad is served by two reclaimers that cannot pass each other and each reclaimer serves two pads, one on either side of the reclaimer. Effective reclaimer scheduling, even though only one of component of the management of the stockyard management at a coal terminal, is a critical component, because reclaimers tend to be the constraining entities in a coal terminal (reclaiming capacity, in terms of tonnes per hour, is substantially lower than stacking capacity).
In order to gain a better understanding of the challenges associated with reclaimer scheduling, we introduce an abstract model of reclaimer scheduling and study the complexity of different variants of the model as well as algorithms for the solution of these variants. Our investigation has not only resulted in insights that may be helpful in improving stockyard efficiency, but has also given rise to a new and intriguing class of scheduling problems that has proven to be surprisingly rich. One reason is that the travel time of the reclaimers, i.e., the time between the completion of the reclaiming of one stockpile and the start of the reclaiming of a subsequent stockpile, cannot be ignored. Another reason is the interaction between the two reclaimers, caused by the fact that they cannot pass each other.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:background\], we provide background information on the operation of a coal export terminal and the origin of the reclaimer scheduling problem. In Section \[sec:lit\], we provide a brief literature review. In Section \[sec:problem\], we introduce the abstract model of the reclaimer scheduling problem that is the focus of our research and we introduce a graphical representation of schedules that will be used throughout the paper. In Sections \[sec:without\] and \[sec:with\], we present the analysis of a number of variants of the reclaimer scheduling problem. In Section \[sec:final\], we give some final remarks and discuss future research opportunities.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
The Hunter Valley Coal Chain (HVCC) refers to the inland portion of the coal export supply chain in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia, which is the largest coal export supply chain in the world in terms of volume. Most of the coal mines in the Hunter Valley are open pit mines. The coal is mined and stored either at a railway siding located at the mine or at a coal loading facility used by several mines. The coal is then transported to one of the terminals at the Port of Newcastle, almost exclusively by rail. The coal is dumped and stacked at a terminal to form stockpiles. Coal from different mines with different characteristics is “mixed” in a stockpile to form a coal blend that meets the specifications of a customer. Once a vessel arrives at a berth at the terminal, the stockpiles with coal for the vessel are reclaimed and loaded onto the vessel. The vessel then transports the coal to its destination. The coordination of the logistics in the Hunter Valley is challenging as it is a complex system involving 14 producers operating 35 coal mines, 27 coal load points, 2 rail track owners, 4 above rail operators, 3 coal loading terminals with a total of 8 berths, and 9 vessel operators. Approximately 1700 vessels are loaded at the terminals in the Port of Newcastle each year. For a more in-depth description of the Hunter Valley Coal Chain see Boland and Savelsbergh ([@Boland]).
An important characteristic of a coal loading terminal is whether it operates as a cargo assembly terminal or as a dedicated stockpiling terminal. When a terminal operates as a cargo assembly terminal, it operates in a “pull-based” manner, where the coal blends assembled and stockpiled are based on the demands of the arriving ships. When a terminal operates as dedicated stockpiling terminal, it operates in a “push-based” manner, where a small number of coal blends are built in dedicated stockpiles and only these coal blends can be requested by arriving vessels. We focus on cargo assembly terminals as they are more difficult to manage due to the large variety of coal blends that needs to be accommodated.
Depending on the size and the blend of a cargo, the assembly may take anywhere from three to seven days. This is due, in part, to the fact that mines can be located hundreds of miles away from the port and getting a trainload of coal to the port takes a considerable amount of time. Once the assembly of a stockpile has started, it is rare that the location of the stockpile in the stockyard is changed; relocating a stockpile is time-consuming and requires resources that can be used to assemble or reclaim other stockpiles. Thus, deciding where to locate a stockpile and when to start its assembly is critical for the efficiency of the system. Ideally, the assembly of the stockpiles for a vessel completes at the time the vessel arrives at a berth (i.e., “just-in-time” assembly) and the reclaiming of the stockpiles commences immediately. Unfortunately, this does not always happen due to the limited capacities of the resources in the system, e.g., stockyard space, stackers, and reclaimers, and the complexity of the stockyard planning problem.
A seemingly small, but in fact crucial component of the planning process is the scheduling of the reclaimers, because reclaimers tend to be the constraining entities in a coal terminal (the reclaiming capacity is substantially lower than the stacking capacity).
The characteristics of the reclaimer scheduling problems studied in this paper are motivated by those encountered at a stockyard at one of the cargo assembly terminals at the Port of Newcastle. At this particular terminal, the stockyard has four pads, $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$, on which cargoes are assembled. Coal arrives at the terminal by train. Upon arrival at the terminal, a train dumps its contents at one of three dump stations. The coal is then transported on a conveyor to one of the pads where it is added to a stockpile by a stacker. There are six stackers, two that serve pad $A$, two that serve pad $B$ and pad $C$, and two that serve pad $D$. A single stockpile is built from several train loads over several days. After a stockpile is completely built, it dwells on its pad for some time (perhaps several days) until the vessel onto which it is to be loaded is available at one of the berths. A stockpile is reclaimed using a bucket-wheel reclaimer and the coal transferred to the berth on a conveyor. The coal is then loaded onto the vessel by a shiploader. There are four reclaimers, two that serve pad $A$ and pad $B$ and two that serve pad $C$ and pad $D$. Both stackers and reclaimers travel on rails at the side of a pad. Stackers and reclaimers that serve that same pads cannot pass each other.
A brief overview of the events driving the cargo assembly planning process is presented next. An incoming vessel alerts the coal chain managers of its pending arrival at the port. This announcement is referred to as the vessel’s nomination. Upon nomination, a vessel provides its estimated time of arrival ($ETA$) and a specification of the cargoes to be assembled to the coal chain managers. As coal is a blended product, the specification includes for each cargo a recipe indicating from which mines coal needs to be sourced and in what quantities. At this time, the assembly of the cargoes (stockpiles) for the vessel can commence. A vessel cannot arrive at a berth prior to its $ETA$, and often a vessel has to wait until after its $ETA$ for a berth to become available. Once at a berth, and once all its cargoes have been assembled, the reclaiming of the stockpiles (the loading of the vessel) can begin. A vessel must be loaded in a way that maintains its physical balance in the water. As a consequence, for vessels with multiple cargoes, there is a predetermined sequence in which its cargoes must be reclaimed. The goal of the planning process is to maximize the throughput without causing unacceptable delays for the vessels.
For a given set of vessels arriving at the terminal, the goal is thus to assign each cargo of a vessel to a location in the stockyard, schedule the assembly of these cargoes, and schedule the reclaiming of these cargoes, so as to minimize the average delay of the vessels, where the delay of a vessel is defined to be the difference between the departure time of the vessel (or equivalently the time that the last cargo of the vessel has been reclaimed) and the earliest time the vessel could depart under ideal circumstances, i.e., the departure time if we assume the vessel arrives at its $ETA$ and its stockpiles are ready to be reclaimed immediately upon its arrival.
When assigning the cargoes of a vessel to locations in the stockyard, scheduling their assembly, and scheduling their reclaiming, the limited stockyard space, stacking rates, reclaiming rates, and reclaimer movements have to be accounted for.
Since reclaimers are most likely to be the constraining entities in the system, reclaimer activities need to be modeled at a fine level of detail. That is all reclaimer activities, e.g., the reclaimer movements along its rail track and the reclaiming of a stockpile, have to be modeled in continuous time.
When deciding a stockpile location, a stockpile stacking start time, and a stockpile reclaiming start time, a number of constraints have to be taken into account: at any point in time no two stockpiles can occupy the same space on a pad, reclaimers cannot be assigned to two stockpiles at the same time, reclaimers can only be assigned to stockpiles on pads that they serve, reclaimers serving the same pad cannot pass each other, the stockpiles of a vessel have to be reclaimed in a specified reclaim order and the time between the reclaiming of consecutive stockpiles of a vessel can be no more than a prespecified limit, the so-called continuous reclaim time limit, and the reclaiming of the first stockpile of a vessel cannot start before *all* stockpiles of that vessel have been stacked. We focus on some of the aspects of real world reclaimer scheduling as specified in Section 4.
The reclaiming of a stockpile using a bucket wheel reclaimer is conducted in a series of long travel bench cuts. For each cut, the reclaimer moves along the whole length of the stockpile with a fixed boom position. Then the boom is adjusted for the next cut, the reclaimer turns around and moves along the stockpile in the opposite direction as indicated in Figure \[fig:reclaim\]. The reclaiming process is fully automated and a typical stockpile is reclaimed in three benches with approximately 55 cuts. In our simplified model we assume that a stockpile is reclaimed while a reclaimer moves along it exactly once.
(0.8,0.4)–(-0.2,1)–(2,2.8); (4.8,0.4)–(6,1)–(3.6,2.8); (0.8,0.4)–(4.8,0.4); (2,2.8)–(3.6,2.8); (0.0,1.2)–(5.6,1.2); (1,2)–(4.6,2);
(0.04,0.9332) arc (270:315:0.8); (0.48,0.6664) arc (270:340:0.8); (0.88,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (1.28,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (1.68,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (2.08,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (2.48,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (2.88,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (3.28,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (3.68,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (4.08,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8); (4.48,0.4) arc (270:360:0.8);
(0.08,1.2) arc (270:349:1); (0.56,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (1,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (1.4,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (1.8,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (2.2,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (2.6,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (3,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (3.4,1.2) arc (270:350:1); (3.8,1.2) arc (270:340:1.05); (4.2,1.2) arc (270:330:1); (4.6,1.2) arc (270:315:1); (5,1.2) arc (270:300:1);
(1.04,2) arc (270:348:0.92); (1.44,2) arc (270:352:0.92); (1.84,2) arc (270:352:0.92); (2.24,2) arc (270:352:0.92); (2.64,2) arc (270:352:0.92); (3.04,2) arc (270:339:0.92); (3.44,2) arc (270:324:0.92); (3.84,2) arc (270:308:0.92);
(0.6,2.76) – (1.70, 2.3);
; ; ; ;
(-0.05,0.0) rectangle (0.55,1.2) ; (0.0,0.0) – (0.0,1.2) ; (-0.02,0.025) – (0.0,0) – (0.02,0.025); (0.05,0.0) – (0.05,1.2) ; (0.0,-0.01) arc (180:360:0.05); (0.08,-0.025) – (0.1,0.0) – (0.12,-0.025); (0.1,0.0) – (0.1,1.2) ; (0.08,1.175) – (0.1,1.2) – (0.12,1.175); (0.15,0.0) – (0.15,1.2) ; (0.2,1.21) arc (0:180:0.05); (0.18,1.225) – (0.2,1.2) – (0.22,1.225); (0.2,0.0) – (0.2,1.2) ; (0.18,0.025) – (0.2,0) – (0.22,0.025); (0.25,0.0) – (0.25,1.2) ; (0.2,-0.01) arc (180:360:0.05); (0.28,-0.025) – (0.3,0.0) – (0.32,-0.025); (0.3,0.0) – (0.3,1.2) ; (0.28,1.175) – (0.3,1.2) – (0.32,1.175); (0.35,0.0) – (0.35,1.2) ; (0.4,1.21) arc (0:180:0.05); (0.38,1.225) – (0.4,1.2) – (0.42,1.225); (0.4,0.0) – (0.4,1.2) ; (0.38,0.025) – (0.4,0) – (0.42,0.025); (0.45,0.0) – (0.45,1.2) ; (0.4,-0.01) arc (180:360:0.05); (0.48,-0.025) – (0.5,0.0) – (0.52,-0.025); (0.5,0.0) – (0.5,1.2) ; (0.48,1.175) – (0.5,1.2) – (0.52,1.175); (0.9,0.45) – (0.9,-0.04) – (0.52,-0.04); (0.9,0.74) – (0.9,1.24) – (0.42,1.24); ;
Literature Review {#sec:lit}
=================
The scheduling of bucket wheel reclaimers in a coal terminal has some similarities to the scheduling of quay and yard cranes in container terminals. When a vessel arrives at a container terminal, import containers are taken off the vessel and mounted onto trucks by quay cranes and then unloaded by yard cranes at various locations in the yard for storage. In the reverse operation, export containers are loaded onto trucks by yard cranes at the yard, are off-loaded at the quay, and loaded onto a vessel by quay cranes. Both reclaimers and cranes move along a single rail track and therefore cannot pass each other, and handle one object at a time (a stockpile in the case of a bucket wheel reclaimer and a container in the case of quay or yard cranes). Furthermore, in coal terminals as well as container terminals maximizing throughput, i.e., minimizing the time it takes to load and/or unload vessels, is the primary objective, and achieving a high throughput depends strongly on effective scheduling of the equipment.
However, there are also significant differences between the scheduling of bucket wheel reclaimers in a coal terminal and the scheduling of quay and yard cranes in the container terminals. The number of containers that has to be unloaded from or loaded onto a vessel in a container terminal is much larger than the number of cargoes that has to be loaded onto a vessel in a coal terminal. As a result, the sequencing of operations (e.g., respecting precedence constraints between the unloading/loading of containers) is much more challenging and a primary focus in crane scheduling problems. On the other hand, containers and holds of a vessel has fixed length whereas stockpiles can have an arbitrary length. As a consequence, the time between the completion of one task and the start of the next task (to account for any movement of equipment) can only take on a limited number of values in crane scheduling problems at a container terminal, especially in quay crane scheduling, and can take on any value in reclaimer scheduling problem.
Below, we give a brief overview of the literature on scheduling of quay and yard cranes in container terminals.
Most of the literature on quay crane scheduling focuses on a static version of the problem in which the number of vessels, berth assignments, and the quay crane assignments for each vessel are known in advance for the entire planning horizon. [@RePEc:eee:transb:v:23:y:1989:i:3:p:159-175] studies the optimal assignment quay cranes (QCs) to the holds of multiple vessels. In the considered setting, a task refers to the loading or unloading of a single hold of a vessel and any precedence constraints between the containers of a single hold are not accounted for. Crane movement time between different holds is assumed to be negligible. The fact that QCs cannot pass each other is not explicitly considered. A mixed integer programming formulation minimizing the (weighted) sum of departure times of the vessels is presented. Some heuristics for a dynamic variant, in which vessel arrival times are uncertain are also proposed. [@peterkofsky1990branch] develop a branch-and-bound algorithm for the same problem that is able to solve larger problem instances.
[@kim2004crane] studies the scheduling of multiple QCs simultaneously operating on a single vessel taking into account precedence constraints between containers and no-passing constraints between QCs. In their setting, a task refers to a “cluster”, where a cluster represents a collection of adjacent slots in a hold and a set of containers to be loaded into/unloaded from these slots. The objective is to minimize a weighted combination of the load/unload completion time of the vessel and the sum of the completion times of the QCs, with higher weight for the load/unload completion time. The sum of the completion times of the QCs is included in the objective to ensure that QCs will be available to load/unload other vessels as early as possible. The problem is modeled as an parallel machine scheduling problem. A MIP formulation is presented and branch-and-bound algorithm is developed for its solution. A greedy randomized adaptive search procedure (GRASP) is developed to handle instances where the branch-and-bound algorithm takes too much time. [@NAV:NAV20121] have strengthened the MIP formulation of [@kim2004crane] by deriving sets of valid inequalities. They propose a branch-and-cut algorithm to solve the problem to optimality.
[@doi:10.1080/03052150600691038] also study the scheduling of multiple QCs for a single vessel with the objective of minimizing the loading/unloading time. In their setting, a task refers to the loading/unloading of a single hold, but [*no-passing*]{} constraints for the QCs are explicitly taken into account. A heuristic that partitions the holds of the vessel into non-overlapping zones and assigns a QC to each zone is proposed. The optimal zonal partition is found by dynamic programming. [@ZhuYandLiA2006] consider the same setting, but formulate a mixed integer programming model and propose a branch-and-bound algorithm for its solution (which outperforms CPLEX on small instances). A simulated annealing algorithm is developed to handle larger instances.
[@NAV:NAV20108] study a dynamic variant of the problem considered by [@RePEc:eee:transb:v:23:y:1989:i:3:p:159-175], which accounts for movement time of QCs and that QCs cannot pass each other, and enforces a minimum separation between vessels. By limiting the movement of QCs to be unidirectional, i.e., either from “stern to bow” or from “bow to stern” when loading/unloading a vessel, it becomes relatively easy to handle the no-passing constraint and to enforce a minimum separation. The objective is to minimizing the time to load/unload multiple vessels. A heuristic is proposed for the solution of the problem. [@NAV:NAV20189] study a static, single vessel setting and also adopt a unidirectional movement restriction for QCs to handle the no-passing constraint. When a task refers to the loading/unloading of a hold, it is shown that there always exists an optimal schedule among the unidirectional schedules. Since a unidirectional schedule can be easily obtained for a given task-to-QC assignment, a simulated annealing algorithm is proposed to explore the space of task-to-QC assignments.
For a more detailed, more comprehensive survey of crane scheduling, the reader is referred to [@Bierwirth2010615].
Recently [@legato2012modeling] presented a refined version of an existing mixed integer programming formulation of the QC scheduling problem incorporating many real-life constraints, such as QC service rates, QC ready and due times, QC no-passing constraints, and precedence constraints between groups of containers. Unidirectional QC movements can be captured in the model as well. The best-known branch-and-bound algorithm (i.e., from [@bierwirth2009fast]) is improved with new lower bounding and branching techniques.
Yard crane (YC) scheduling is another critical component of the efficient operation of a container terminal. The yard is typically divided into several storage blocks and YCs are used to transfer containers between these storage blocks and trucks (or prime movers). YCs are either rail mounted or rubber wheeled. The rubber wheeled YCs have the flexibility to move from one yard block to another while rail mounted YCs are restricted to work on a single yard block.
[@young1999routing] study the problem of minimizing the sum of the set up times and the travel times of single YC. Their mixed integer programming model determines the optimal route for the YC as well as the containers to be picked up by the YC in each of the storage blocks. Because of the excessive solve times of the mixed integer program for large instances, two heuristics are proposed in [@NAV:NAV10076].
[@zhang2002dynamic] study the problem of scheduling a set of YCs covering a number of storage blocks so as to minimize the total tardiness (or delays). A mixed integer program model determines the number of YCs to be deployed in each storage block in each planning period and a lagrangian relaxation based heuristic algorithm is employed to find an optimal solution.
[@Ng2005263; @doi:10.1080/03052150500323849] studied the problem of scheduling a YC that has to load/unload a given set of containers with different ready times. The objective is to minimize the sum of waiting times. The problem is formulated as mixed integer programming problem, and a branch-and-bound algorithm is developed for its solution. [@RePEc:eee:ejores:v:164:y:2005:i:1:p:64-78] expands the study to the scheduling of multiple YCs in order to minimize the total loading time or the sum of truck waiting times. Because more than one YC can serve a storage block, a no-passing constraint has to be enforced. A dynamic programming based heuristic is proposed to solve the problem and a lower bound is derived to be able to assess the quality of the solutions produced by the heuristic.
[@petering2009effect] investigates how the width of the storage blocks affects the efficiency of the operations at a container terminal, given that the number of prime movers, the number of YCs, the service rates of the YCs remain unchanged. A simulation study indicates that the optimal storage block width ranges form 6 to 12 rows, depending on the size and shape of the terminal and the annual number of containers handled by the terminal. Their experimental results further show that restrictive YC mobility due to more storage blocks gives better performance than a system with greater YC mobility.
Only recently, researchers have started to examine the scheduling of equipment in bulk goods terminals. [@Hu:2012:SSD:2441300.2441305] consider the problem of scheduling the stacker and reclaiming at a terminal for iron ore. It is assumed that all tasks (stacking and reclaiming operation) are known at the start of the planning horizon. The terminal configuration is such that a single stracker/reclaimer serves two pads, so there is no need to consider a no-passing constraint. A sequence dependent set-up time, as a result of the movement of the stacker/reclaimer between two consecutive tasks, is considered. A mixed integer programming formulation is presented and a genetic algorithm is proposed. [@6565191] study the problem of scheduling reclaimers at an iron ore import terminal serving the steel industry. Each reclaim task has a release date and due date, and the goal is to minimize the completion of a set of reclaim tasks. The terminal configuration is not specified and no mention is made of no-passing constraints. A mixed integer programming formulation is presented and a Benders decomposition algorithms is proposed for its solution.
For the single reclaimer case, the fact that the reclaimer has to travel along every stockpile gives it a traveling salesman flavor. The basic traveling salesman problem is trivial when all nodes are on a line, but it becomes difficult when additional constraints, such as time windows, are added ([@psaraftis1990routing], [@tsitsiklis1992special]). In our problem, the single reclaimer case becomes a traveling salesman problem on a line with prescribed edges: the nodes are the endpoints of the stockpiles, and for every stockpile the edge connecting its endpoints has to be traversed in the solution.
Problem Description {#sec:problem}
===================
The practical importance of reclaimer scheduling at a coal terminal prompted us to study a set of simplified and idealized reclaimer scheduling problems. These simplified and idealized reclaimer scheduling problems turn out to lead to intriguing and, in some cases, surprisingly challenging optimization problems.
We make the following basic assumptions:
- There are two reclaimers $R_0$ and $R_1$ that serve two pads; one on either side of the reclaimers.
- Reclaimer $R_0$ starts at one end of the stock pads and Reclaimer $R_1$ starts at the other end of the stock pads.
- Stockpiles are reclaimed by one of the two reclaimers $R_0$ and $R_1$ that move forward and backward along a single rail in the aisle between the two pads.
- The reclaimers cannot pass each other but they can go along side by side.
- The reclaimers are identical, i.e., they have the same reclaim speed and the same travel speed.
- Each stockpile has a given length and a given reclaim time (derived from the stockpile’s size and the reclaim speed of the reclaimers).
- When a stockpile is reclaimed, it has to be traversed along its entire length by one of the reclaimers, either from left to right or from right to left.
- After reclaiming the stockpiles, the reclaimers need to return to their original position.
Using these basic assumptions, we define a number of variants of the reclaimer scheduling problem:
- Both reclaimers are used for the reclaiming of stockpiles or only one reclaimer ($R_0$) is used to reclaim of stockpiles.
- The positions of the stockpiles on the pads are given or have to be decided. If the positions on the pad are given, it is implicitly assumed that the stockpile positions are feasible, i.e., that stockpiles on the same pad do not overlap. If the positions have to be decided, then both the pad and the location on the pad have to be decided for each stockpile.
- Precedence constraints between stockpiles have to be observed or not. When precedence constraints have to be observed, the reclaim sequence of the stockpiles is completely specified. That is, the precedence constraints form a chain involving all the stockpiles.
The goal in all settings is to reclaim all stockpiles and to minimize the time at which both reclaimers have returned to their original positions.
We use the following notation. When the positions of the stockpiles are given, we have two sets $J_1 = \{1, \ldots, n_1\}$ and $J_2 =
\{n_1+1, \ldots, n\}$ of stockpiles located on the two identical and opposite pads $P_1$ and $P_2$. We represent a pad by segment $[0,L]$, with $L$ being the length of the pad. Stockpile $j \in J_1$ occupies a segment $[l_j, r_j]$ on pad $P_1$ ($0 \leqslant l_j < r_j \leq
L$). Similarly, stockpile $j \in J_2$ occupies a segment $[l_j,
r_j]$ on pad $P_2$. Stockpiles cannot overlap on the same pad and we assume that $r_j \leqslant l_{j+1}$ for $j \in \{1, \ldots, n_1-1\}$ and for $j \in \{n_1+1, \ldots, n-1\}$ and that $r_j, l_j$ for $j \in
\{1, \ldots, n\}$ and $L$ are integers.
Reclaimers start and finish at the two endpoints of the rail, reclaimer $R_0$ at point $0$ and reclaimer $R_1$ at point $L$, and can reclaim stockpiles on either one of the pads (we assume there is no time required to switch from one pad to the other), but they cannot pass each other. A reclaimer can stay idle or move forward and backward at the given speed $s$. When reclaiming a stockpile the speed cannot be larger than $s$. Without loss of generality, we assume that the reclaim speed is equal to 1 and the travel speed is $s\geqslant 1$. Thus, the time necessary to reclaim stockpile $j$ is $p_j = r_j - l_j$, the length of stockpile $j$.
When the positions of the stockpiles are not given but have to be decided, we are given the length $p_j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ of each stockpile $j$ ($0 < p_j \leqslant L$) and we have to decide the pad on which to locate the stockpile (either $P_1$ or $P_2$), the position $(l_j,
r_j)$ of that pad that the stockpile will occupy, and the reclaimer schedules.
Graphical representation of a feasible schedule
-----------------------------------------------
The schedule $H_k$ of reclaimer $R_k$ ($k=0,1$) with makespan $C_k$ can be described by a piecewise linear function representing the position of the reclaimer on the rail as a function of time. Such a function can be represented by an ordered list of breakpoints $$B_k=\left(\left(t_i^{(k)},x^{(k)}_i\right)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{+}\times [0,L]\ :\ i=0,1,\ldots,q_k \right)$$ in the time-space Cartesian plane, where $0=t_0^{(k)}<t_1^{(k)}<\cdots<t_{q_k}^{(k)}=C_k$, $x_0^{(k)}=x_{q_k}^{(k)}=kL$. For $t\in[t_i^{(k)},t^{(k)}_{i+1}]$ we have $$H_k(t)=x_i^{(k)}+\frac{x^{(k)}_{i+1}-x^{(k)}_{i}}{t^{(k)}_{i+1}-t^{(k)}_{i}}\left({t-t^{(k)}_{i}}\right),$$ and the slope between consecutive points $(t^{(k)}_i,x^{(k)}_i)$ and $(t^{(k)}_{i+1},x^{(k)}_{i+1})$ is either:
- $0$, the reclaimer is idle;
- $+s$, the reclaimer is moving to the right without processing any stockpile;
- $-s$, the reclaimer is moving to left without processing any stockpile;
- $+1$, the reclaimer is moving to right while processing a stockpile on either one of the two pads; and
- $-1$, the reclaimer is moving to left while processing a stockpile on either one of the two pads.
This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:example\].
(0.0,0.0) – (15.0,0.0) node\[anchor =west\] [[time]{}]{} ; (0.0,0.0) – (0.0,13.0) node\[anchor = south\] [[space]{}]{} ; in [0,...,6]{} [(-.1,2\*)–(.1,2\*) node\[left, xshift = -0.02\] [[$\y$]{}]{};]{} in [0,...,7]{} [(2\*, 0.1) – (2\*, -0.1) node\[below, yshift = -0.02\] [[$\x$]{}]{};; ]{} in [0,...,12]{} (0.0,) – (15,) ;
(SPLR) at (0.0,0.0); (SPC) at ([(10.0-0.0)/5]{},10); (SPLR) – (SPC); (EPC) at ($({(10-0)/1}, 0) +( SPC |- 0,0.0)$); (SPC) – (EPC); (SPA) at ($({(2-0)/5},2) +( EPC |- 0,0)$); (EPC) – (SPA); (EPA) at ($({(2-0)/1}, 0) +( SPA |- 0,0.0)$); (EPA) – (SPA); (15,10) – (16,10); at (17,10) [$R_0$]{}; (SPRR) at (0.0,12); (EPD) at ($({(12-2)/1},2) +( SPRR |- 0,0)$); (SPRR) – (EPD); (SPB) at ($({(10-2)/5}, 10) +( EPD |- 0,0.0)$); (EPD) – (SPB); (EPB) at ($({(12-10)/1}, 12) +( SPB |- 0,0)$); (SPB) – (EPB); (15,8) – (16,8); at (17,8) [$R_1$]{};
A pair ($H_0$, $H_1$) of reclaimer schedules is feasible if:
1. the two functions $H_0$ and $H_1$ satisfy the inequality $H_1(t)\geqslant H_0(t), \forall t\geqslant 0$ (the reclaimers do not pass each other);
2. each interval $[l_j,r_j]$ is traversed at least once at speed 1 (either from left to right or from right to left); and
3. all other constraints are satisfied, e.g., precedence constraints between stockpiles.
The makespan of a feasible schedule $(H_0,H_1)$ is $C = \max(C_0, C_1)$. Next, we analyze a number of variants of the reclaimer schedule problem. We start by considering variants in which the positions of the stockpiles are given, which means only the schedules of the reclaimers have to be determined. This is followed by considering variants in which the positions of the stockpiles are not given, but have to be determined, which means that both the stockpile positions and the reclaimer schedules have to be determined.
Reclaimer Scheduling Without Positioning Decisions {#sec:without}
==================================================
No precedence constraints
-------------------------
### Single reclaimer
For variants with a single reclaimer, we assume that the active reclaimer is reclaimer $R_0$ with initial position $x_0 = 0$, and that the schedule of reclaimer $R_1$ is $H_1(t) = L$ for $t
\geqslant 0$.
We start by observing that the optimal makespan $C^*$ cannot be less than twice the time it takes to reach the farthest stockpile endpoint $r= \max\{r_{n_1}, r_{n}\}$ at speed $s$ plus the additional time to process the stockpiles, i.e., $$\label{eq:lower_bound}
C^* \geqslant 2\frac{r}{s} + \sum_{j=1}^{n} \left[(r_j-l_j)-\frac{r_j-l_j}{s} \right]$$ Next, we consider the **Forward-Backward (FB)** algorithm given in Algorithm \[alg:fb\], where we omit the index $k$ for the reclaimer which is understood to be 0.
...........................................\
**Input:** $n_1$ and $ \{(l_j,r_j) | \ j=1,\ldots,n \} $\
Initialize $q=0$ and $B=\left(\,(0,0)\,\right)$\
**for** $j=1,\ldots,n_1$ **do**\
**if** $l_j\neq x_{q}$ **then** add $\left(t_{q}+(l_j-x_{q})/s,\,l_j\right)$ to $B$ and increase $q$ by 1\
Add $\left(t_{q}+(r_j-l_j),\,r_j\right)$ to $B$ and increase $q$ by 1\
**for** $j=n,n-1,\ldots,n_1+1$ **do**\
**if** $r_j\neq x_{q}$ **then** add $\left(t_{q}+\left\lvert r_j-x_{q}\right\rvert/s,\,r_j\right)$ to $B$ and increase $q$ by 1\
Add $\left(t_{q}+(r_j-l_j),\,l_j\right)$ to $B$ and increase $q$ by 1\
**if** $l_{n_1+1}\neq 0$ **then** add $\left(t_{q}+l_{n_1+1}/s,\,0\right)$ to $B$ and increase $q$ by 1\
**Output:** $C=t_{q}$ and $B$
\[thm:FB-optimal\] Algorithm \[alg:fb\] computes an optimal schedule for a single reclaimer in time $O(n)$.
The schedule that is returned by Algorithm \[alg:fb\] is optimal because by construction its makespan equals the lower bound given by (\[eq:lower\_bound\]). The algorithm runs in time $O(n)$.
### Two reclaimers
Unfortunately, optimally exploiting the additional flexibility and extra opportunities offered by a second reclaimer is not easy as we have the following theorem.
\[thm:np\_hard\_1\] Determining an optimal schedule for two reclaimers when the positions of the stockpiles are given and the stockpiles can be reclaimed in any order is NP-hard.
We provide a transformation from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>. An instance is given by positive integers $a_1,\ldots,a_m$ and $B$ satisfying $a_1+\cdots+a_m=2B$ and the problem is to decide if there is an index set $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m\}$ with $\sum_{i\in I}a_i=B$. We reduce this to the following instance of the reclaimer scheduling problem. The length of the pad is $L=6B$, the travel speed is $s=5B$, and we have $n=m+2$ stockpiles which are all placed on pad $P_1$, i.e., $n_1=n$. The stockpile lengths are $a_i$ ($i = 1,
\ldots, m$) for the first $m$ stockpiles and the two additional stockpiles have both length $2B$. The positions of the stockpiles on the pad are given by $(l_{m+1}, r_{m+1}) = (0,2B)$, $(l_{m+2},
r_{m+2}) = (4B,6B)$, and $(l_i, r_i) = (2B + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} a_i,
2B + \sum_{j=1}^i a_i)$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$. We claim that a makespan $\leqslant 3B+1$ can be achieved if and only if the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> instance is a YES-instance. Clearly, if there is no $I$ with $\sum_{i\in I}a_i=B$, we cannot divide the stockpiles between the two reclaimers in such a way that the total stockpile length for both reclaimers is $3B$, which implies that one of the reclaimers has a reclaim time of at least $3B+1$, hence its makespan is larger than $3B+1$ (as the reclaimer also has to travel without reclaiming a stockpile). Conversely, if there is an $I$ with $\sum_{i\in I}a_i=B$, we can achieve a makespan of less than or equal to $3B+1$ as follows. Reclaimer $R_0$ moves from $x=0$ to $x=4B$ while reclaiming (from left to right) stockpile $m+1$ and the stockpiles with index in $I$, and then it returns to its start point at time $3B+1$. Reclaimer $R_1$ moves from $x=L$ to $x=2B$ without reclaiming anything, and then it moves back to $x=L$, reclaiming (from left to right) the stockpiles with index in $\{1,\ldots,m\}\setminus I$ and stockpile $m+2$. There is no clashing because the region that is visited by both reclaimers is the interval $[2B,4B]$, and reclaimer $R_0$ enters this interval at time $2B$ and leaves it at time $2B+3/5$, while reclaimer $R_1$ enters at time $2/5$ and leaves at time $B+1$.
To be able to analyze the quality of schedules for two reclaimers, we start by deriving a lower bound. For this purpose, we allow preemption, i.e., we allow a stockpile to be split and be processed either simultaneously or at different times by any of the two reclaimers. Let $$\begin{aligned}
S_1 &= \bigcup\limits_{j=1}^{n_1}[l_j,r_j]&&\text{ and}& S_2 &= \bigcup\limits_{j=n_1+1}^{n}[l_j,r_j]\label{eq:stockpiles}\end{aligned}$$ be the subsets of $[0,L]$ that represent occupied space on pads $P_1$ and $P_2$, respectively. Furthermore, let $$\begin{aligned}
Q_1 &= S_1 \triangle S_2,& Q_1 &= S_1 \cap S_2,&& \text{and}& E &=
[0,L] \setminus (S_1 \cup S_2)\end{aligned}$$ be the subsets of $[0,L]$ with stockpiles on one side, with a stockpile on both sides, and with no stockpile on either side, respectively. Note that $E$ is a union of finitely many pairwise disjoint intervals, say $$\label{eq:empty_area}
E = [a_1, b_1] \cup [a_2, b_2] \cup \cdots \cup [a_r, b_r].$$
For a subset $X \subseteq[0,L]$ let $\ell(X)$ denote the (total) length of $X$. The set $Q_2$ has to be traversed twice with speed 1 and the set $Q_1$ has to be traversed once with speed 1 and once with traveling speed $s$, hence $C_1+C_2\geqslant 2\ell(Q_2) +
\ell(Q_1)+ \ell(Q_1)/s$, which implies the lower bound $$C=\max\{C_0,\,C_1\}\geqslant\frac12\left[2\ell(Q_2) + \ell(Q_1)+ \ell(Q_1)/s\right].$$
We can improve this bound by taking into account the set $E$. Note that at most one of the intervals in the partition (\[eq:empty\_area\]) can contain points that are not visited by any reclaimer, because otherwise the stockpiles between two such points are not reclaimed. Now we consider two cases.
Case 1.
: If every point of the set $E$ is visited, then the set $E$ is traversed (at least) twice with speed $s$, so in this case the makespan $C$ is at least $$K_0 = \frac12 \left[ 2\ell(Q_2) + \ell(Q_1) + \ell(Q_1)/s + 2\ell(E)/s \right].$$
Case 2.
: If some point in the interval $[a_i,b_i]$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, r\}$, is not visited, then everything left of $a_i$ is reclaimed by $R_0$, while everything right of $b_i$ is reclaimed by $R_1$, so in this case the makespan $C$ is at least $$K_i = \max \left\{ 2\ell(Q_2^-) + \ell(Q_1^-) +\frac{\ell(Q_1^-)}{s} + 2\frac{\ell(E^-)}{s},\ 2\ell(Q_2^+) + \ell(Q_1^+) +\frac{\ell(Q_1^+)}{s} + 2\frac{\ell(E^+)}{s} \right\} ,$$ where $Q_2^- = Q_2 \cap[0, a_i]$, $Q_2^+ = Q_2 \cap [b_i, L]$, and similarly for $Q_1$ and $E$.
\[thm:preempt\_opt\] The optimal makespan for a preemptive schedule equals $$K^*=\min\{K_i\ :\ i=0,1\ldots,r\},$$ and an optimal schedule can be computed in linear time.
By the above discussion, $K^*$ is a lower bound for the makespan of a preemptive schedule. We define two functions $f,g:[0,L]\to{\mathbb{R}}$ as follows. Let $f(x)$ be the return time of reclaimer $R_0$ if it moves from $0$ to $x$, reclaiming everything on this part of pad $P_1$, and then moves back to $0$ while reclaiming everything on this part of pad $P_2$. Similarly, let $g(x)$ be the return time of reclaimer $R_1$ if it moves from $L$ to $x$ reclaiming everything on this part of pad $P_1$, and then moves back to $L$, reclaiming everything on this part of pad $P_2$. These are piecewise linear, continuous functions, which can be expressed in terms of the sets $Q_1$, $Q_2$ and $E$: $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) &= 2\ell(Q_2^-(x)) + \ell(Q_1^-(x)) +\frac{\ell(Q_1^-(x))}{s} + 2\frac{\ell(E^-(x))}{s},\\
g(x) &= 2\ell(Q_2^+(x)) + \ell(Q_1^+(x)) +\frac{\ell(Q_1^+(x))}{s} + 2\frac{\ell(E^+(x))}{s},\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_2^-(x) = Q_2 \cap[0, x]$, $Q_2^+(x) = Q_2 \cap [x, L]$, and similarly for $Q_1$ and $E$. Note that $K_i=\max\{f(a_i),\,g(b_i)\}$. The functions $f$ and $g$ satisfy the following conditions:
- $f(0)=g(L)=0$ and $f(L)=g(0)=2K_0$,
- $f(x)+g(x)=2K_0$ for all $x\in[0,L]$, and
- $f$ is strictly increasing, and $g$ is strictly decreasing.
This implies that there is a unique $x^*\in[0,L]$ with $f(x^*)=g(x^*)=K_0$.
Case 1.
: There is at least one stockpile at position $x^*$, i.e., $x^*\in Q_1\cup Q_2$. In this case, for any interval $[a_i,b_i]$ in the partition (\[eq:empty\_area\]), either $b_i\leqslant x^*$ or $a_i\geqslant x^*$, hence $K_i=\max\{f(a_i),\,g(b_i)\}\geqslant K_0$, and consequently $K^*=K_0$. This value is achieved by reclaiming everything left of $x^*$ by reclaimer $R_0$ and everything right of $x^*$ by reclaimer $R_1$ as described in the definition of the functions $f$ and $g$.
Case 2.
: There is no stockpile at position $x^*$, i.e., $x^*\in[a_i,b_i]$ for some interval $[a_i,b_i]$ in the partition (\[eq:empty\_area\]). Then $K_i=\max\{f(a_i),\,g(b_i)\}\leqslant f(x^*)=K_0$. For $j<i$, we have $K_j\geqslant g(b_j)>g(x^*)=K_0$, and for $j>i$, $K_j\geqslant f(a_j)>f(x^*)=K_0$. Hence $K^*=K_i$, and this value is achieved by reclaiming everything left of $a_i$ by reclaimer $R_0$ and everything right of $b_i$ by reclaimer $R_1$ as described in the definition of the functions $f$ and $g$.
This concludes the proof of the optimality of the value $K^*$. In order to compute $x^*$, which defines an optimal schedule, we order the numbers $0,l_1,r_1,\ldots,l_n,r_n,L$ increasingly, which can be done in linear time, because we assume that the stockpiles on each pad are already ordered from left to right. This gives an ordered list $$0=x_0\leqslant x_1\leqslant x_2\leqslant\cdots\leqslant x_{2n+2}=L$$ of the breakpoints of the piecewise linear functions $f$ and $g$. We can determine the values of $f$ and $g$ at these points recursively, by $f(x_0)=0$, $$f(x_{k})=
\begin{cases}
f(x_{k-1})+(x_{k}-x_{k-1})\cdot 2/s & \text{if }[x_{k-1},\,x_k]\subseteq E\\
f(x_{k-1})+(x_{k}-x_{k-1})\left(1+1/s\right) & \text{if }[x_{k-1},\,x_k]\subseteq Q_1\\
f(x_{k-1})+(x_{k}-x_{k-1})\cdot 2 & \text{if }[x_{k-1},\,x_k]\subseteq Q_2
\end{cases}$$ for $k=1,2,\ldots,2n+2$, and $g(x_k)=2K_0-f(x_k)$. Then there is a unique index $k$ with $f(x_{k-1})\leqslant K_0<f(x_k)$, and we obtain $x^*$ by $$x^*=x_{k-1}+\frac{K_0-f(x_{k-1})}{f(x_k)-f(x_{k-1})}\cdot(x_k-x_{k-1}).\qedhere$$
In order to describe and analyze non-preemptive schedules, we introduce some additional notation and a few more functions. For $x\in[0,L]$, the region occupied by stockpiles left (resp. right) of $x$ on pad $i$ is denoted by $S^-_i(x)$ (resp. $S^+_i(x)$). More precisely, with $S_1$ and $S_2$ defined by (\[eq:stockpiles\]), $$\begin{aligned}
S^-_i(x)&=S_i\cap[0,x], & S^+_i(x)&=S_i\cap[x,L].\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we define functions $f_i,g_i:[0,L]\to{\mathbb{R}}$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
f_i(x) &= \ell(S^-_i(x))+\frac{x-\ell(S^-_i(x))}{s},&
g_i(x) &= \ell(S^+_i(x))+\frac{L-x-\ell(S^+_i(x))}{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $f(x)=f_1(x)+f_2(x)$ and $g(x)=g_1(x)+g_2(x)$, where $f$ and $g$ are the functions defined in the proof of Theorem \[thm:preempt\_opt\].
Let $j\in\{1,\ldots,n_1\}$ be a stockpile on pad $P_1$, and let $j'\in\{n_1+1,\ldots,n\}$ be a stockpile on pad $P_2$. If $R_0$ reclaims all stockpiles left of (and including) $j$ on pad $P_1$, and all stockpiles left of (and including) $j'$ on pad $P_2$, then its earliest possible return time is $$\label{eq:F_unimod}
F(j,j')=f_1(r_j)+\lvert r_j-r_{j'}\rvert/s+f_2(r_{j'}).$$ Similarly, if $R_1$ reclaims all stockpiles right of (not including) $j$ on pad $P_1$, and all stockpiles right of (not including) $j'$, then its earliest possible return time is $$\label{eq:G_unimod}
G(j,j')=g_1(l_{j+1})+\lvert l_{j+1}-l_{j'+1}\rvert/s+g_2(l_{j'+1}).$$ See Figure \[fig:unimodal\] for an illustration.
(0,0) – (11,0); (0,1) – (11,1); (1.5,1) – (1.6,1.4) – (3.4,1.4) – (3.5,1) – cycle; (1.5,1) – (1.6,1.4) – (3.4,1.4) – (3.5,1) – cycle; (4.5,1) – (4.6,1.4) – (7.4,1.4) – (7.5,1) – cycle; (4.5,1) – (4.6,1.4) – (7.4,1.4) – (7.5,1) – cycle; (l11) at (4.5,1); (r11) at (7.5,1); (8.5,1) – (8.6,1.4) – (9.9,1.4) – (10,1) – cycle; (8.5,1) – (8.6,1.4) – (9.9,1.4) – (10,1) – cycle; (l12) at (8.5,1); (r12) at (10,1); (1,0) – (1.1,.4) – (3.9,.4) – (4,0) – cycle; (1,0) – (1.1,.4) – (3.9,.4) – (4,0) – cycle; (l21) at (1,0); (r21) at (4,0); (5,0) – (5.1,.4) – (6.9,.4) – (7,0) – cycle; (5,0) – (5.1,.4) – (6.9,.4) – (7,0) – cycle; (l22) at (5,0); (r22) at (7,0); (8,0) – (8.1,.4) – (10.4,.4) – (10.5,0) – cycle; (8,0) – (8.1,.4) – (10.4,.4) – (10.5,0) – cycle; (0,2.5) – (11,2.5); (0,3.5) – (11,3.5); (1.5,3.5) – (1.6,3.9) – (3.4,3.9) – (3.5,3.5) – cycle; (1.5,3.5) – (1.6,3.9) – (3.4,3.9) – (3.5,3.5) – cycle; (4.5,3.5) – (4.6,3.9) – (7.4,3.9) – (7.5,3.5) – cycle; (4.5,3.5) – (4.6,3.9) – (7.4,3.9) – (7.5,3.5) – cycle; (l11a) at (1.5,3.5); (r11a) at (3.5,3.5); (8.5,3.5) – (8.6,3.9) – (9.9,3.9) – (10,3.5) – cycle; (8.5,3.5) – (8.6,3.9) – (9.9,3.9) – (10,3.5) – cycle; (l12a) at (4.5,3.5); (r12a) at (7.5,3.5); (1,2.5) – (1.1,2.9) – (3.9,2.9) – (4,2.5) – cycle; (1,2.5) – (1.1,2.9) – (3.9,2.9) – (4,2.5) – cycle; (l21a) at (1,2.5); (r21a) at (4,2.5); (5,2.5) – (5.1,2.9) – (6.9,2.9) – (7,2.5) – cycle; (5,2.5) – (5.1,2.9) – (6.9,2.9) – (7,2.5) – cycle; (l22a) at (5,2.5); (r22a) at (7,2.5); (8,2.5) – (8.1,2.9) – (10.4,2.9) – (10.5,2.5) – cycle; (8,2.5) – (8.1,2.9) – (10.4,2.9) – (10.5,2.5) – cycle; (0,-1.2) – (0.1,-.95) – (1.9,-.95) – (2,-1.2) – cycle; (0,-1.2) – (0.1,-.95) – (1.9,-.95) – (2,-1.2) – cycle; (R0) at (1,-1.2); (9,-1.2) – (9.1,-.95) – (10.9,-.95) – (11,-1.2) – cycle; (9,-1.2) – (9.1,-.95) – (10.9,-.95) – (11,-1.2) – cycle; (R1) at (10,-1.2); (P1a) at (-.3,1); (P2a) at (-.3,0); (P1b) at (-.3,3.5); (P2b) at (-.3,2.5);
Observe that if $l_{j'+1}\geqslant r_j$ and $l_{j+1}\geqslant
r_{j'}$, then no clashes will occur between the two reclaimers and a makespan of $C(j,j') = \max(F(j,j'),\,G(j,j'))$ can be achieved. On the other hand, if $l_{j'+1}<r_j$ or $l_{j+1}<r_{j'}$, then it can happen that one reclaimer has to wait. Therefore, in order to specify a schedule, we have to
- Choose one of two options for the routing of $R_0$: (1) first reclaim stockpiles $1,2,\ldots,j$ on pad $P_1$ from left to right and then stockpiles $j',j'-1,\ldots,n_1+1$ on pad $P_2$ from right to left, or (2) first reclaim stockpiles $n_1+1,\ldots,j'$ on pad $P_2$ from left to right and then stockpiles $j,j-1,\ldots,1$ on pad $P_1$ from right to left;
- Choose one of two options for the routing of $R_1$: (1) first reclaim stockpiles $n_1,n_1-1,\ldots,j+1$ on pad $P_1$ from right to left and then stockpiles $j'+1,\ldots,n$ on pad $P_2$ from left to right, or (2) first reclaim stockpiles $n,n-1,\ldots,j'+1$ on pad $P_2$ from right to left and then stockpiles $j+1,\ldots,n_1$ on pad $P_1$ from left to right; and
- Choose which reclaimer waits.
Taking all possible combinations we have $8$ different schedules for a given pair $(j,j')$ of stockpiles. For $p,q\in\{1,2\}$ and $k\in\{0,1\}$, let $C_{pqk}$ be the makespan that results from routing option $p$ for $R_0$, routing option $q$ for $R_1$, and letting $R_k$ wait if necessary. We describe the computation of $C_{pqk}$ in detail for $l_{j'+1}<r_j$ and $k=1$. The cases with $l_{j+1}<r_{j'}$ or $k=0$ can be treated in the same way. Since $R_1$ waits if necessary, the makespan of $R_0$ is $F(j,j')$, defined in (\[eq:F\_unimod\]). So $C_{pq1}=\max\{F(j,j'),C^1_{pq1}\}$, where $C^1_{pq1}$ is the corresponding makespan for $R_1$ and can be computed as follows. In each case we express $C^1_{pq1}$ as $G(j,j')+w$ where $G(j,j')$ is the lower bound for the makespan of $R_1$ given in (\[eq:G\_unimod\]) and $w$ is the waiting time which is the expression in square brackets in the equations below.
Case 1.
: Both reclaimers start on pad $P_1$. If $g_1(r_j)\geqslant f_1(r_j)$, then no waiting is necessary and $C^1_{111}=G(j,j')$. Otherwise $R_1$ waits at $x=r_j$ until $R_0$ arrives there at time $f_1(r_j)$, hence $$C^1_{111} = g_1(r_j) + [f_1(r_j)-g_1(r_j)] +(r_j-l_{j'+1})/s+g_2(l_{j'}).$$
Case 2.
: $R_0$ starts on pad $P_1$ and $R_1$ starts on pad $P_2$. If $g_2(l_{j'+1})\leqslant f_1(l_{j'+1})$, then no waiting is necessary and $C^1_{121}=G(j,j')$. Otherwise $R_1$ waits on its way to $x=l_{j'+1}$ for a period of length $f_1(r_j)-g_2(r_j)$ and the makespan is $$C^1_{121} = g_2(l_{j'+1})+[f_1(r_j)-g_2(r_j)]+(l_{j+1}-l_{j'+1})/s+g_1(l_{j+1}).$$
Case 3.
: $R_0$ starts on pad $P_2$ and $R_1$ starts on pad $P_1$. If $g_1(r_j)\geqslant f_2(r_{j'})+(r_j-r_{j'})/s$, then $R_1$ arrives at $x=r_j$ when $R_0$ is already on its way back, no waiting is necessary, and $C^1_{211}=G(j,j')$. Otherwise $R_1$ waits at $x=l_{j+1}$ for a period of length $f_2(r_{j'})+(r_j-r_{j'})/s-g_1(r_j)$ and the makespan is $$C^1_{211} = g_1(l_{j+1})+[f_2(r_{j'})+(r_j-r_{j'})/s-g_1(r_j)]+(l_{j+1}-l_{j'+1})/s+g_2(l_{j'+1}).$$
Case 4.
: Both reclaimers start on pad $P_2$. If $g_2(l_{j'+1})\leqslant
f_2(l_{j'+1})$, then $R_1$ is already on its way back when $R_0$ arrives at $x=l_{j'+1}$, no waiting is necessary, and $C^1_{211}=G(j,j')$. Otherwise $R_1$ waits to the right of $x=r_j$ for a period of length $f_2(r_{j'})+(r_j-r_{j'})/s+f_1(r_j)-f_1(l_{j'+1})$ to arrive at $x=l_{j'+1}$ at the same time as $R_0$ on its way back, and the makespan is $$C^1_{221} = g_2(l_{j'+1})+[f_2(r_{j'})+(r_j-r_{j'})/s+f_1(r_j)-f_1(l_{j'+1})]+(l_{j+1}-l_{j'+1})/s+g_1(l_{j+1}).$$
The necessary data to evaluate the $8$ schedules associated with a pair $(j,j')$ can be computed in linear time in the same way as the functions $f$ and $g$ are evaluated in the proof of Theorem \[thm:preempt\_opt\].
In the discussion above, we have assumed that a schedule has the following properties:
- Each reclaimer changes direction exactly once.
- Reclaimer $R_0$ reclaims everything between $0$ and some point on one pad from left to right, and then everything from some (possibly different) point to 0 on the other pad from right to left.
- Reclaimer $R_1$ reclaims everything between $L$ and some point on one pad from right to left, and then everything from some (possibly different) point to $L$ on the other pad from left to right.
In the following, we call such a schedule *contiguous unimodal*. Since every contiguous unimodal schedule is associated with some stockpile pair, we have the following theorem.
\[thm:best\_unimodal\] An optimal contiguous unimodal schedule can be computed in quadratic time.
The next example shows that it is possible that there is no optimal contiguous unimodal schedule.
\[ex:unimod\_not\_opt\] Consider an instance with four stockpiles of lengths $2,\,10,\,10,\,2$ shown in Figure \[fig:instance\], and let the travel speed be $s=5$.
Unimodal routing results in $C = 15.2$. However, when $R_0$ first travels to $x=10$ without processing any stockpile, then processes stockpile 3 while coming back, then travels to $x=2$, and finally processes stockpile 1, and $R_1$ first processes stockpile 2, then turns and processes stockpile 4 on the way back, the resulting makespan is 14.4. This shows that sometimes “zigzagging” can be beneficial.
Next, we analyze one particular schedule, which is obtained by a natural modification of the optimal preemptive schedule and therefore can be computed in linear time.
Let $x^*$ be the optimal split point for a preemptive schedule as described in Theorem \[thm:preempt\_opt\], and let $k$ be the index with $x_{k-1}<x^*\leqslant x_k$. If $x^*\in E$, i.e., there is no stockpile at $x^*$, then the optimal preemptive schedule is actually non-preemptive, and yields an optimal solution with makespan $K^*$, the optimal preemptive makespan. In general, the stockpiles are assigned according to the following rules (see Figure \[fig:assign\]).
1. All stockpiles $j$ with $r_j\leqslant x^*$ are assigned to $R_0$, and all stockpiles $j$ with $l_j\geqslant x^*$ are assigned to $R_1$.
2. If there is exactly one stockpile $j$ with $l_j\leqslant x^*\leqslant r_j$ then this stockpile is assigned to $R_0$ if $x^*-l_j\geqslant r_j-x^*$ and to $R_1$ otherwise.
3. If there are two stockpiles $j\in\{1,\ldots,n_1\}$ and $j'\in\{n_1+1,\ldots,n\}$ with $l_j\leqslant x^*\leqslant r_j$ and $l_{j'}\leqslant x^*\leqslant r_{j'}$ then both of them are assigned to $R_0$ if $$\label{eq:left_assign}
(x^*-l_j)+(x^*-l_{j'})+\lvert
l_j-l_{j'}\rvert/s\geqslant(r_j-x^*)+(r_{j'}-x^*)+\lvert
r_j-r_{j'}\rvert/s,$$ and otherwise both stockpiles are assigned to $R_1$.
(0,2.5) – (11,2.5); (0,3.5) – (11,3.5); (.5,3.5) – (.6,3.9) – (2.4,3.9) – (2.5,3.5) – cycle; (.5,3.5) – (.6,3.9) – (2.4,3.9) – (2.5,3.5) – cycle; (3.5,3.5) – (3.6,3.9) – (7.9,3.9) – (8,3.5) – cycle; (3.5,3.5) – (3.6,3.9) – (7.9,3.9) – (8,3.5) – cycle; (l11) at (3.5,3.5); (r11) at (8,3.5); (9.5,3.5) – (9.6,3.9) – (10.4,3.9) – (10.5,3.5) – cycle; (9.5,3.5) – (9.6,3.9) – (10.4,3.9) – (10.5,3.5) – cycle; (6,2.5) – (6,4.1); (4.5,2.5) – (4.5,4.1); (7,2.5) – (7,4.1); (x) at (6,4.1); (x1) at (4.5,4.1); (x2) at (7,4.1); (1,2.5) – (1.1,2.9) – (1.4,2.9) – (1.5,2.5) – cycle; (1,2.5) – (1.1,2.9) – (1.4,2.9) – (1.5,2.5) – cycle; (3,2.5) – (3.1,2.9) – (4.4,2.9) – (4.5,2.5) – cycle; (3,2.5) – (3.1,2.9) – (4.4,2.9) – (4.5,2.5) – cycle; (8,2.5) – (8.1,2.9) – (10.4,2.9) – (10.5,2.5) – cycle; (8,2.5) – (8.1,2.9) – (10.4,2.9) – (10.5,2.5) – cycle; (7,2.5) – (7.1,2.9) – (7.4,2.9) – (7.5,2.5) – cycle; (7,2.5) – (7.1,2.9) – (7.4,2.9) – (7.5,2.5) – cycle; (0,0) – (11,0); (0,1) – (11,1); (1.5,1) – (1.6,1.4) – (3.4,1.4) – (3.5,1) – cycle; (1.5,1) – (1.6,1.4) – (3.4,1.4) – (3.5,1) – cycle; (4.5,1) – (4.6,1.4) – (8.9,1.4) – (9,1) – cycle; (4.5,1) – (4.6,1.4) – (8.9,1.4) – (9,1) – cycle; (10,1) – (10.1,1.4) – (10.4,1.4) – (10.5,1) – cycle; (10,1) – (10.1,1.4) – (10.4,1.4) – (10.5,1) – cycle; (l12a) at (4.35,1); (r12a) at (9,1); (.5,0) – (.6,.4) – (1.4,.4) – (1.5,0) – cycle; (.5,0) – (.6,.4) – (1.4,.4) – (1.5,0) – cycle; (5,0) – (5.1,.4) – (6.9,.4) – (7,0) – cycle; (2.5,0) – (2.6,.4) – (6.9,.4) – (7,0) – cycle; (l22a) at (2.5,0); (l22a) at (7,0); (10,0) – (10.1,.4) – (10.4,.4) – (10.5,0) – cycle; (10,0) – (10.1,.4) – (10.4,.4) – (10.5,0) – cycle; (7.5,0) – (7.6,.4) – (7.9,.4) – (8,0) – cycle; (7.5,0) – (7.6,.4) – (7.9,.4) – (8,0) – cycle; (8.5,0) – (8.6,.4) – (9.4,.4) – (9.5,0) – cycle; (8.5,0) – (8.6,.4) – (9.4,.4) – (9.5,0) – cycle; (P1a) at (-.3,1); (P2a) at (-.3,0); (P1b) at (-.3,3.5); (P2b) at (-.3,2.5); (6,0) – (6,1.6); (x) at (6,1.6); (4.5,0) – (4.5,1.6); (x1) at (4.5,1.6); (7,0) – (7,1.6); (x2) at (7,1.6); (0,-1.2) – (0.1,-.95) – (1.9,-.95) – (2,-1.2) – cycle; (0,-1.2) – (0.1,-.95) – (1.9,-.95) – (2,-1.2) – cycle; (R0) at (1,-1.2); (9,-1.2) – (9.1,-.95) – (10.9,-.95) – (11,-1.2) – cycle; (9,-1.2) – (9.1,-.9) – (10.9,-.9) – (11,-1.2) – cycle; (R1) at (10,-1.2);
Let $(\tilde H_0,\,\tilde H_1)$ be the best unimodal schedule associated with this stockpile assignment, and let $\tilde
C=\max\{\tilde C_0,\,\tilde C_1\}$ be the makespan of this schedule.
\[thm:2\_approx\] We have $\tilde C\leqslant 2K^*$. In particular, the schedule $(\tilde H_0,\,\tilde H_1)$ provides a 2-approximation for the problem of scheduling two reclaimers when the positions of the stockpiles are given and the stockpiles can be reclaimed in any order. The factor 2 is asymptotically best possible (for $s\to\infty$).
To see that the factor of $2$ cannot be improved, consider two stockpiles each of length $L$. According to our rule, both stockpiles are assigned to the left reclaimer and this yields a makespan of $\tilde C=2L$. On the other hand, assigning one stockpile to each reclaimer and reclaiming both of them from right to left yields a makespan of $C^*=(1+2/s)L$.
Without loss of generality, we make the following assumptions.
- If $x^*\in S_1\triangle S_2$, then $x^*\in S_1\setminus S_2$ and for the stockpile $j$ with $l_j<x^*<r_j$, we have $x^*-l_j\geqslant
r_j-x^*$, so that stockpile $j$ is assigned to $R_0$.
- If $x^*\in S_1\cap S_2$, then for the two stockpiles $j\in\{1,\ldots,n_1\}$ and $j'\in\{n_1+1,\ldots,n\}$ with $l_j<x^*<r_j$ and $l_{j'}<x^*<r_{j'}$, we have $r_j\geqslant r_{j'}$ and (\[eq:left\_assign\]) holds, so that both stockpiles are assigned to $R_0$.
Furthermore, it turns out that in order to establish the factor 2 bound it is sufficient to consider the setting where $R_0$ starts on pad $P_1$, $R_1$ starts on pad $P_2$, and $R_1$ waits if necessary. We start by bounding $\tilde C_0$, the makespan for $R_0$. If $x^*\in S_1\setminus S_2$ then $$\tilde C_0=f_1(r_j)+(r_j-x^*)/s+f_2(x^*)=f_1(x^*)+(r_j-x^*)(1+1/s)+f_2(x^*)\leqslant 2K^*,$$ where the last inequality follows from $$K^*=f_1(x^*)+f_2(x^*)\geqslant (x^*-l_j)+x^*/s\geqslant(r_j-x^*)(1+1/s).$$ If $x^*\in S_1\cap S_2$ then $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde C_0=f_1(x^*)+(r_j-x^*)+(r_j-r_{j'})/s+f_2(x^*)+(r_{j'}-x^*)\\
= K^*+(r_j-x^*)+(r_j-r_{j'})/s+(r_{j'}-x^*)\leqslant 2K^*.\end{gathered}$$ The bound for the makespan $\tilde C_1$ of $R_1$ can be derived simultaneously for both cases after noting that in our setting we have $r_{j'}=x_k$. If $g_2(x_k)\leqslant f_1(x_k)$ or $g_2(r_j)\geqslant f_1(r_j)$ then no waiting is necessary, and the makespan of $R_1$ is $$\tilde C_1\leqslant g_2(x_k)+(r_j-x_k)+g_1(r_j)\leqslant g_1(x_k)+g_2(x_k)\leqslant K^*.$$ Otherwise the waiting time for $R_1$ is $$f_1(r_j)-g_2(r_j)=[f_1(x_k)+(r_j-x_k)]-g_2(r_j)<g_2(x_k)-g_2(r_j)+(r_j-x_k)$$ hence the makespan is (using $g_1(x_k)=g_1(r_j)+(r_j-x_k)$) $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde C_1= g_2(x_k)+[g_2(x_k)-g_2(r_j)+(r_j-x_k)]+(r_j-x_k)/s+g_1(r_j)\\
= [g_1(x_k)+g_2(x_k)]+[g_2(x_k)-g_2(r_j)+(r_j-x_k)/s]\leqslant
2K^*.\qedhere\end{gathered}$$
Example \[ex:unimod\_not\_opt\] shows that unimodal routing might not be optimal. Next, we examine whether contiguous assignment is always optimal, i.e., whether there always exists an optimal schedule characterized by two stockpiles $j \in \{1,\ldots,n_1\}$ on pad $P_1$ and $j' \in \{n_1+1,\ldots,n\}$ on pad $P_2$ and an associated assignment of stockpiles $\{1,\ldots,j,
j',j'-1,\ldots,n_1+1\}$ to $R_0$ and the remaining stockpiles to $R_1$. We call such a schedule a *contiguous* schedule. The next example shows that it is possible that no contiguous schedule is optimal.
\[ex:weak\_uni\_not\_opt\] Consider the instance (illustrated in Figure \[fig:Counter\_Assign\]) with $n=n_1=5$, i.e., all stockpiles on pad $P_1$, and stockpile positions $(0,1) \, (1,2),
\,(2,4), \, (4,5), \, (5,6)\}$. The best we can do with a contiguous schedule is to assign stockpiles $1$ and $2$ to $R_0$ and the other stockpiles to $R_1$, which yields a makespan of $4+4/s$. But by assigning stockpiles $1$, $2$ and $4$ to $R_0$ and stockpiles $3$ and $5$ to $R_1$ we can achieve a makespan of $3+9/s$. The ratio $\frac{4+4/s}{3+9/s}$ tends to $4/3$ for $s\to\infty$.
(-3.2,-1.3) rectangle (7.6,8.6); at (2.2,8) [[contiguous: makespan $4.22$]{}]{}; (-1,0.0) – (5,0.0) node\[anchor = west\] [[time]{}]{} ; (-1,0.0) – (-1,7) node\[anchor = east\] [[space]{}]{} ; in [1,2,3,4,5,6]{} [ (-0.98,) – ( -1.02,) node\[left, xshift = -0.02\] [[$\y$]{}]{}; ]{} in [0,1,2,3,4,5]{} [ (-1.0, 0.02) – (-1.0, -0.02) node\[below, yshift = -0.02\] [[$\x$]{}]{}; ]{}
(-1,1) – (5,1) ; (-1,2) – (5,2) ; (-1,3) – (5,3) ; (-1,4) – (5,4) ; (-1,5) – (5,5) ; (-1,6) – (5,6) ; (SPLRC) at (-1,0.0); (SPAA) at (-1,0); (SPLRC) – (SPAA); (EPAA) at ($({(1-0)/1}, 1) +( SPAA |- 0,0)$); (SPAA) – (EPAA); (SPBB) at ($({(1-1)/18}, 1) +( EPAA |- 0,0.0)$); (EPAA) – (SPBB); (EPBB) at ($({(2-1)/1},2) +( SPBB |- 0,0)$); (SPBB) – (EPBB); (EPLRC) at ($({(2-0.0)/18}, 0.0) +( EPBB |- 0,0)$); (EPBB) – (EPLRC); (5.5,4) – (6.1,4); at (6.7,4) [[$R_0$]{}]{}; (SPRRC) at (-1.0,6); (SPEE) at (-1,6); (SPRRC) – (SPEE); (EPEE) at ($({(6-5)/1}, 5) +( SPEE |- 0,0)$); (SPEE) – (EPEE); (SPDD) at ($({(5-5)/18}, 5) +( EPEE |- 0,0.0)$); (EPEE) – (SPDD); (EPDD) at ($({(5-4)/1}, 4) +( SPDD |- 0,0)$); (SPDD) – (EPDD); (EPCC) at ($({(4-2)/1}, 2) +( EPDD |- 0,0)$); (EPDD) – (EPCC); (EPRRC) at ($({(6-2)/18}, 6) +( EPCC |- 0,0)$); (EPCC) – (EPRRC); (5.5,3) – (6.1,3); at (6.7,3) [[$R_1$]{}]{};
(8.5,-1.3) rectangle (19.3,8.6); at (13.9,8) [[optimal: makespan 3.5]{}]{}; (10.7,0.0) – ([10.7+6]{},0.0) node\[anchor = west\] [[time]{}]{} ; (10.7,0.0) – (10.7,7) node\[anchor = east\] [[space]{}]{} ; in [1,2,3,4,5,6]{} [ (10.72,) – ( 10.68,) node\[left, xshift = -0.02\] [[$\y$]{}]{}; ]{} in [10,11,12,13,14,15]{} [ (+0.7, 0.02) – (+0.7, -0.02) node\[below, yshift = -0.02\] ; ]{} (10.7,1) – (16.7,1) ; (10.7,2) – (16.7,2) ; (10.7,3) – (16.7,3) ; (10.7,4) – (16.7,4) ; (10.7,5) – (16.7,5); (10.7,6) – (16.7,6) ; (SPLR) at (10.7,0.0); (SPLR) – ([10.7+(1)/(9)]{},0); (EPA) at ([12.7+(1)/(9)]{},2); ([10.7+(1)/(9)]{},0) – (EPA); (EPB) at ([12.7+(2)/(9)]{},4); (EPA) – (EPB); (SPD) at ([13.7+(2)/(9)]{},5); (EPB) – (SPD); (EPD) at ([10.7+3.5]{},0); (SPD) – (EPD); (17.2,4) – (17.8,4); at (18.4,4) [[$R_0$]{}]{}; (SPRR) at (10.7,6); (SPC) at ($({(6-2)/18},2) +(10.7,0)$); (SPRR) – (SPC); (EPC) at ($({(4-2)/1}, 4) +( SPC |- 0,0)$); (SPC) – (EPC); (SPE) at ($({(5-4)/18},5) +( EPC |- 0,0.0)$); (EPC) – (SPE); (EPE) at ($({(6-5)/1}, 6) +( SPE |- 0,0)$); (SPE) – (EPE); (17.2,3) – (17.8,3); at (18.4,3) [[$R_1$]{}]{};
(0,0) – (0.2,0.3) – (0.8,0.3) – (1,0) – cycle; (1,0) – (1.2,0.3) – (1.8,0.3) – (2,0) – cycle; (2,0) – (2.2,0.3) – (3.8,0.3) – (4,0) – cycle; (4,0) – (4.2,0.3) – (4.8,0.3) – (5,0) – cycle; (5,0) – (5.2,0.3) – (5.8,0.3) – (6,0) – cycle; (0,0) – (0.2,0.3) – (0.8,0.3) – (1,0) – cycle; (1,0) – (1.2,0.3) – (1.8,0.3) – (2,0) – cycle; (2,0) – (2.2,0.3) – (3.8,0.3) – (4,0) – cycle; (4,0) – (4.2,0.3) – (4.8,0.3) – (5,0) – cycle; (5,0) – (5.2,0.3) – (5.8,0.3) – (6,0) – cycle; (0,0) – (6,0); (A) at (0.5,0); (B) at (1.5,0); (C) at (3,0); (D) at (4.5,0); (E) at (5.5,0); (P1a) at (-.3,0); (P2a) at (-.3,-.6); (0,-.6) – (6.0,-.6);
We conjecture that Example \[ex:weak\_uni\_not\_opt\] represents the worst case for the performance of contiguous schedules.
\[con:weak\_uni\_ratio\] An optimal contiguous schedule provides a $4/3$-approximation for the problem of scheduling two reclaimers when the positions of the stockpiles are given and the stockpiles can be reclaimed in any order.
A natural approach for finding an optimal contiguous schedule is to determine an optimal schedule for each pair $(j,j')\in\{1,\ldots,n_1\} \times \{n_1+1,\ldots,n\}$ and pick the best one. Unfortunately, it is already an NP-hard problem to determine the best routing for a given contiguous assignment of stockpiles to reclaimers.
\[thm:oracle\_hardness\] [Suppose that we are given the stockpile positions and a contiguous assignment of the stockpiles to two reclaimers. Then it is NP-hard to find an optimal schedule.]{}
We provide a reduction from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>. Let the instance be given by positive integers $a_1,\ldots,a_m$ whose sum is $2B$. A corresponding instance of the reclaimer scheduling problem is constructed as follows (see Figure \[fig:instance-pf\] for an illustration). The pad length is $L=53B$ and the travel speed is $s=2$. On pad $P_1$, there are $m+3$ stockpiles with lengths $a_1$, $\ldots$, $a_m$, $9B$, $26B$ and $16B$, and on pad $P_2$ there are $3$ stockpiles with lengths $35B$, $6B$ and $2B$. The positions of the first $m$ stockpiles corresponding to the integers from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> instance are determined by $$\begin{aligned}
l_j &= L-\sum_{i=1}^ja_i, & r_j &= l_j+a_j && \text{for }j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\end{aligned}$$ and the positions of the 6 dummy stockpiles are $[0,9B]$, $[9B,35B]$, $[35B,51B]$, $[0,35B]$, $[35B,41B]$ and $[41B,43B]$. Let stockpiles $1,\ldots, m, m+2, m+3$, and $m+6$ be assigned to reclaimer $R_1$ and let stockpiles $m+1$, $m+4$, and $m+5$ be assigned to reclaimer $R_0$.
\(A) at (0,0); (B) at (0.1,1); (C) at (4.9,1); (D) at (5,0); (A) – (B) – (C) – (D) – cycle; (5,0) – (5.1,1) – (18.9,1) – (19,0) – cycle; (19,0) – (19.1,1) – (26.9,1) – (27,0) – cycle; (27,0) – (27.05,1) – (27.65,1) – (27.7,0) – cycle; (28.3,0) – (28.35,1) – (28.95,1) – (29,0) – cycle; (A) – (B) – (C) – (D) – cycle; (5,0) – (5.1,1) – (18.9,1) – (19,0) – cycle; (19,0) – (19.1,1) – (26.9,1) – (27,0) – cycle; (27,0) – (27.05,1) – (27.65,1) – (27.7,0) – cycle; (28.3,0) – (28.35,1) – (28.95,1) – (29,0) – cycle; (27.7,0.5) – (28.3,0.5); (A) at (2.5,0); (B) at (12,0); (C) at (23,0); (D) at (27.35,0); (G) at (28.65,0); (A) at (2.5,1); (B) at (12,1); (C) at (23,1); (D) at (27.35,1); (G) at (28.65,1); (0,-3.5) – (0.1,-2.5) – (18.9,-2.5) – (19,-3.5) – cycle; (19,-3.5) – (19.1,-2.5) – (21.9,-2.5) – (22,-3.5) – cycle; (22,-3.5) – (22.1,-2.5) – (22.9,-2.5) – (23,-3.5) – cycle; (0,-3.5) – (0.1,-2.5) – (18.9,-2.5) – (19,-3.5) – cycle; (19,-3.5) – (19.1,-2.5) – (21.9,-2.5) – (22,-3.5) – cycle; (22,-3.5) – (22.1,-2.5) – (22.9,-2.5) – (23,-3.5) – cycle; (0,-3.5) – (29,-3.5); (A) at (9.5,-3.55); (B) at (20.3,-3.55); (C) at (22.7,-3.55); (G) at (9.5,-2.5); (A) at (20.5,-2.5); (B) at (22.5,-2.5); (0,-4.7) – (0.1,-4.2) – (3.9,-4.2) – (4,-4.7) – cycle; (0,-4.7) – (0.1,-4.2) – (3.9,-4.2) – (4,-4.7) – cycle; (R0) at (2,-4.7); (25,-4.7) – (25.1,-4.2) – (28.9,-4.2) – (29,-4.7) – cycle; (25,-4.7) – (25.1,-4.2) – (28.9,-4.2) – (29,-4.7) – cycle; (R1) at (27,-4.7); (P1a) at (-.6,0); (P2a) at (-.6,-3.5);
at (35,56) [[makespan: $75B$]{}]{}; (0.0,0.0) – (76.0,0.0) node\[anchor=west\] [[time]{}]{} ; (0.0,0.0) – (0.0,54.0) node\[anchor=south\] [[space]{}]{} ; in [0,...,8]{} [ ( 0.5, 6\*) – ( -0.5, 6\*) node\[left, xshift = -0.05\] ; ]{} in [0,...,7]{} [ (, .5) – (, -.5) node\[below, yshift = -0.02\] ; ]{} in [0,...,26]{} (0.0,2\*) – (75,2\*) ; (0,0) – (17.5,35) – (23.5,41) – (26.5,35) – (61.5,0) – (70.5,9) – (75,0); (0.0,53) – (1.5,51); (73.5,51) – (75,53); (1.5,51) – (17.5,35) – (21.5,43) – (23.5,41) – (26.5,35) – (52.5,9) – (73.5,51); (76,15) – (80,15); at (82.5,15) [[$R_1$]{}]{}; (76,20) – (80,20); at (82.5,20) [[$R_0$]{}]{};
We claim that the smallest possible makespan for this assignment is $75B$, and that this makespan can be achieved if and only if the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> instance is a YES-instance. First, suppose the instance is a YES-instance, and that $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m\}$ is an index set with $\sum_{i\in I}a_i=B$. In this case, a makespan of $75B$ is achieved by the following schedule (see Figure \[fig:instance-pf\]).
- $R_0$ moves from $x=0$ to $x=35B$ without reclaiming anything, and reaches $x=35B$ at time $t=17.5B$. Then it reclaims stockpile $m+5$ from left to right, moves back to $x=35B$ (arriving at time $t=26.5B$), reclaims stockpile $m+4$ from right to left, then stockpile $m+1$ from left to right, and finally returns to its starting point at time $t=75B$.
- $R_1$ moves from $x=53B$ to $x=51B$ while reclaiming the stockpiles $j$ with $j\in I$, then it reclaims stockpile $m+3$ from right to left, reaching $x=35B$ at time $t=17.5B$. It moves to $x=43B$ without reclaiming anything, reclaims stockpile $m+6$ from right to left, moves to $x=35B$, where it arrives at time $t=26.5B$. Then it reclaims stockpile $m+2$, moves back to $x=51B$, and finally to $x=53B$, reclaiming the stockpiles $j$ with $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\setminus I$.
Next, we assume the existence of a schedule with a makespan of at most $75B$. We want to show that this implies that the instance is a YES-instance. For the sake of contradiction, assume that the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> instance does not have a solution. In order to reclaim the stockpile $m+2$, reclaimer $R_1$ has to spend a time interval of length $39B$ in the interval $X=[9B,35B]$. It cannot enter this interval before time $9B$, and the latest possible time for leaving $X$ is $75B-9B=66B$. This implies that $R_1$ has to enter $X$ between $t=9B$ and $t=(66-39)B=27B$. Let $I,I'\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m\}$ be the sets of stockpiles that $R_1$ reclaims before and after its first visit to $X$, respectively. Note that our assumption on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> instance implies $\sum_{j\in I}a_j\neq B$.
Case 1.
: $R_1$ enters $X$ at time $t_0<26.5B$. Since $R_0$ cannot finish reclaiming stockpile $m+5$ and be back at $x=35B$ before time $26.5B$, this implies that $R_0$ starts reclaiming stockpile $m+5$ after $R_1$ has left $X$. If $R_0$ does not reclaim both stockpiles $m+1$ and $m+4$ before stockpile $m+5$, then its makespan is at least $t_0+39B+6B+16B+9B\geqslant 79B$. So we may assume that $R_0$ reclaims stockpiles $m+1$, $m+4$ and $m+5$ in this order. Its makespan is at least $t_0+39B+6B+20.5B$, hence $t_0\leqslant
(75-65.5)B=9.5B$. This implies that before entering $X$, the maximal time that $R_1$ can spend in the interval $[51B,53B]$ is $9.5B-8B=1.5B$. Together with our assumption that $\sum_{j\in
I}a_j\neq B$, this implies $\sum_{j\in I}a_j < B$. On the other hand, $R_0$ does not leave the interval $[35B,53B]$ before time $9B+9B/2+41B+3B=57.5B$, and this is the earliest time at which $R_1$ can start reclaiming stockpile $m+3$. Consequently, $57.5B+16B+B+\frac12\sum_{j\in I'}a_j\leqslant 75B$, i.e., $\sum_{j\in I'}a_j<B$, which is a contradiction to the fact that $\sum_{j \in I \cup I'} a_j = 2B$.
Case 2.
: $R_1$ enters $X$ at time $t_0\in[26.5B,\,27B]$. $26.5B+39B+16B=81.5B>75B$ implies that stockpile $m+3$ needs to be reclaimed before $R_1$ enters $X$. From our assumption about the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> instance and $$75B\geqslant 26.5B+39B+8B+B+\frac12\sum_{j\in I'}a_j=74.5B+\frac12\sum_{j\in I'}a_j$$ it follows that $\sum_{j\in I'}a_j<B$, hence $\sum_{j\in I}a_j>B$. Since $26.5B+39B+6B+20.5B=92B>75B$, we deduce that $R_0$ reclaims stockpile $m+5$ before $R_1$ enters $X$, i.e., before time $27B$. This is only possible if $m+5$ is the first stockpile reclaimed by $R_0$, because $9B+16B+6B>27.5B$. Together with the makespan bound of $75B$, this implies that $R_0$ enters the interval $[35B,53B]$ at time $17.5B$ and leaves it at time $26.5B$. From $\sum_{j\in
I}a_j>B$ it follows that $R_1$ cannot finish reclaiming stockpile $m+3$ at time $17.5B$. This leaves two possibilities.
Case 2.1.
: Stockpile $m+6$ is reclaimed before $R_1$ enters $X$. Then the entering time is at least $$3B/2+4B+2B+5B+16B=28.5B,$$ which is the required contradiction.
Case 2.2.
: Stockpile $m+6$ is reclaimed after $R_1$ enters $X$. Then the makespan of $R_1$ is at least $$26.5B+39B+3B+2B+5B=75.5B,$$ which is the required contradiction.
Precedence constraints
----------------------
### Single reclaimer
In this section, for sake of simplicity, we assume that the stockpiles are indexed by their position in the precedence chain, i.e., $J = \{1, 2, \ldots, n \}$ and $1
\rightarrow 2 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow n$ (where $i
\rightarrow j$ means that stockpile $i$ has to be reclaimed before stockpile $j$). Furthermore, for convenience, we add two dummy stockpiles, one at the beginning of the precedence chain (stockpile 0) and one at the end of the precedence chain (stockpile $n+1$) with $(l_0,r_0) = (l_{n+1},r_{n+1}) = (0,0)$.
Determining an optimal schedule for a single reclaimer when the positions of the stockpiles are given and the stockpiles have to be reclaimed in a prespecified order can be done in time $O(n)$.
Let $f_r(j)$ be the optimal makespan that can be obtained starting from the right endpoint of stockpile $j$ and processing stockpiles $j+1, \ldots, n+1$. Similarly, let $f_l(j)$ to be the optimal makespan that can be obtained starting from the left endpoint of stockpile $j$ and processing stockpiles $j+1, \ldots, n+1$. Naturally, we are interested to $f_r(0) = f_l(0)$. The functions $f_r$ and $f_l$ can be computed as follows.
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{r}(j) &=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if }j=n+1,\\
\lvert r_{j+1}-l_{j+1}\rvert+\min\left\{\frac{\lvert r_{j}-l_{j+1}\rvert}{s}+f_{r}(j+1),\ \frac{\lvert r_{j}-r_{j+1}\rvert}{s}+f_{l}(j+1)\right\} & \text{if }j\leqslant n.
\end{cases}\\
f_{l}(j) &=
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if }j=n+1,\\
\lvert r_{j+1}-l_{j+1}\rvert+\min\left\{ \frac{\lvert l_{j}-l_{j+1}\rvert}{s}+f_{r}(j+1),\ \frac{\lvert l_{j}-r_{j+1}\rvert}{s}+f_{l}(j+1)\right\} & \text{if }j\leqslant n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
and $f_l(0)$ can be computed backward from $f_l(n)$ and $f_r(n)$ in $O(n)$ time.
### Two reclaimers
Each stockpile must be processed either from left to right or from right to left by a reclaimer.
\[thm:two\_pred\] If the travel speed $s$ is an integer, then an optimal schedule for two reclaimers when the positions of the stockpiles are given and the stockpiles have to be reclaimed in a prespecified order can be determined in pseudo-polynomial time, in particular $O(nL^3)$.
We consider $n+1$ stages $j = 0, 1, \ldots, n$ and indicate with $x_{0}^{(j)}$ and $x_{1}^{(j)}$ the positions of reclaimers $R_{0}$ and $R_{1}$ at stage $j$, respectively. At stage $j = 0$ reclaimers $R_{0}$ and $R_{1}$ are located at positions $x_{0}^{(0)} = 0$ and $x_{1}^{(1)} = L$, respectively. At stage $0 < j < n$ one of the reclaimers has just finished reclaiming stockpile $j$ and the other reclaimer has repositioned. At stage $n$, the reclaimers $R_{0}$ and $R_{1}$ move back to positions $0$ and $L$, respectively (taking $\lvert x_{0}^{(n)}-0\rvert/s$ and $\lvert x_{1}^{(n)}-L\rvert/s$, respectively).
The system evolves from stage $j$ to stage $j+1$ according to the following rules. One reclaimer, say $R_{0}$ at position $x_{0}^{(j)}$, is chosen to move either to point $l_{j+1}$ and reclaim stockpile $j+1$ ending at point $r_{j+1}$ and taking time $t=\lvert x_{0}^{(j)}-l_{j+1}\rvert/s + (r_{j+1}-l_{j+1})$ or to point $r_{j+1}$ and reclaim stockpile $j+1$ ending at point $l_{j+1}$ and taking time $t = \lvert x_{0}^{(j)}-r_{j+1}\rvert/s +
(r_{j+1}-l_{j+1})$. In either case, the final position of $R_{0}$ is denoted by $x_{0}^{(j+1)}$. The other reclaimer, in this case $R_{1}$ at position $x_{1}^{(j)}$, will reposition to a point in the set $[x_{0}^{(j+1)}, L] \cap [ x_{1}^{(j)} - t s,\,x_{1}^{(j)} + t
s]$. That is, the position $x_{1}^{(j+1)}$ of $R_{1}$ at stage $j+1$ is restricted by the final position of $R_{0}$, by the endpoint of the pad $L$, and by the maximum distance $ts$ that $R_1$ can travel.
Note that when $x_0^{(j)}$ and $x_1^{(j)}$ are integer points, the maximum distance $ts$ that $R_1$ can travel is integer, and thus, if $R_1$ travels the maximum distance, it will end up at an integer point. Furthermore, if $R_{1}$ does not travel the maximum distance, it will stop at a stockpile endpoint, and, thus, travel an integer distance as well (stockpile endpoints are integers) and end up at an integer point. Because both reclaimers start at integer points, both reclaimers will be at integer points at every stage.
Let $f(j, x_{0}, x_{1})$ be the minimum makespan that can be obtained when the two reclaimers start from $x_{0}$ and $x_{1}$, respectively, to process stockpiles $j+1, \ldots, n$. The optimal makespan $f(0, 0, L)$ can be computed by backward dynamic programming.
Let the set of points that can be reached by $R_{0}$ from $x$ in time $t$ when $R_{1}$ ends in point $y$ be denoted by $$\Gamma_{0}(x,y,t) = [0, y] \cap [x - ts, x + ts] \cap\mathbb{N}.$$ Similarly, let the set of points that can be reached by $R_{1}$ from $x$ in time $t$ when $R_{0}$ stops in $y$ be denoted by $$\Gamma_{1}(x,y,t) = [y,L] \cap [x - ts, x + ts] \cap \mathbb{N}.$$ The recursion is given by $f(n, x_{0}, x_{1})=\max\{x_{0}/s,
(L-x_{1})/s\}$ and $f(j,x_0,x_1)=\min\{F_1,F_2,F_3,F_4\}$ for $j<n$, where
$$\begin{aligned}
F_1 &= \frac{|x_{0}-l_{j+1}|}{s}+|r_{j+1}-l_{j+1}| + \min\limits_{x\in\Gamma_{1}(x_{1},r_{j+1},t)}f(j+1,r_{j+1},x),\\
F_2 &= \frac{|x_{0}-r_{j+1}|}{s}+|r_{j+1}-l_{j+1}| + \min\limits_{x\in\Gamma_{1}(x_{1},l_{j+1},t)}f(j+1,l_{j+1},x),\\
F_3 &= \frac{|x_{1}-l_{j+1}|}{s}+|r_{j+1}-l_{j+1}| + \min\limits_{x\in\Gamma_{0}(x_{0},r_{j+1},t)}f(j+1,x,r_{j+1}),\\
F_4 &= \frac{|x_{1}-r_{j+1}|}{s}+|r_{j+1}-l_{j+1}| + \min\limits_{x\in\Gamma_{0}(x_{0},l_{j+1},t)}f(j+1,x,l_{j+1})\end{aligned}$$
Thus, computing $f(0, 0 , L)$ does not require more than $O(nL^{3})$ time, which is pseudo-polynomial with respect to the instance size.
If the travel speed is rational, say $s=a/b$ for integers $a\geqslant b$, then multiplying through with $b$ and repeating the proof of Theorem \[thm:two\_pred\], we obtain an optimal solution in time $O(n(bL)^3)$.
Reclaimer Scheduling With Positioning Decisions {#sec:with}
===============================================
No precedence constraints
-------------------------
### Single reclaimer
\[thm:pos\_single\] Positioning stockpiles and simultaneously determining an optimal schedule for a single reclaimer is NP-hard.
Reduction from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> to an instance with pad length $L=2B$. We map each element $a_i$ to a stockpile $i$ of length $a_i$ and set $s=1$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> has a solution if and only if the stockpiles can be divided over the two pads in such a way that they take up an equal amount of space, i.e., if the makespan is equal to $2B$.
### Two reclaimers
\[thm:pos\_two\] Positioning stockpiles and simultaneously determining an optimal schedule for two reclaimers is NP-hard.
Reduction from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> to an instance with pad length $L=2B$. We map each element $a_i$ to a stockpile $i$ of length $a_i$, add two dummy stockpiles each with length $B$, and set $s=1$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> has a solution if and only if the stockpiles can be divided equally over the two reclaimers and equally over the two pads in such a way that they take up an equal amount of space, i.e., if the makespan (for both reclaimers) is equal to $2B$.
Precedence constraints
----------------------
### Single reclaimer
[Note that our problem is feasible only if it is possible to place all stockpiles on the two pads. An obvious necessary condition is that the sum of all stockpile lengths is at most $2L$. This is clearly not sufficient, as $p_1=p_2=p_3=6$ and $L=10$ give an infeasible instance, and if the sum of the stockpile lengths is equal to $2L$ then it is actually NP-hard to decide if the instance is feasible. With the stronger assumption that $p_1+\cdots+p_n\leqslant 3L/2$ the problem is always feasible, and in fact we can find an optimal solution as follows.]{} Let $P =p_1+\cdots+p_n$ be the sum of all stockpile lengths, and let $$\begin{aligned}
P^t &= \sum_{i=1}^tp_i, & \overline P^t &=\sum_{i=t+1}^np_i= P-P^t\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in\{0,\ldots,n\}$. Let $k$ be the unique index with $P^{k-1}\leqslant \overline P^k$ and $P^k >
\overline P^{k+1}$. The stockpiles are positioned as follows.
Case 1.
: $\min\{ P^k,\, \overline P^{k-1}\} \leqslant L$. If $P^k < \overline P^{k-1}$, then place stockpiles $1, \ldots, k$ on pad $P_1$, one after the other starting from 0 and place stockpiles $k+1, \ldots, n$ on pad $P_2$, one after the other in reverse order starting from 0. If $P^k \geqslant \overline P^{k-1}$, then place stockpiles $1, \ldots, k-1$ on pad $P_1$, one after the other starting from 0 and place stockpiles $k, \ldots, n$ on pad $P_2$, one after the other in reverse order starting from 0. [The stockpiles on pad $P_1$ are reclaimed from left to right and then the stockpiles on pad $P_2$ are reclaimed from right to left.]{}
Case 2.
: $\min\{P^k,\,\overline P^{k-1}\} > L$. In this case $p_k>\max\{L/2,\,P^{k-1},\,\overline P^k\}$ and $P-p_{k} < L$ (because we have assumed that $P\leqslant 3L/2$). Place stockpiles $1, \ldots,k-1$ on pad $P_1$, one after the other starting from 0, followed by $k+1, \ldots, n$ also on pad $P_1$, one after the other in reverse order starting from $P -
p_{k}$. Place stockpile $k$ on pad $P_2$ starting from $\max \{P - 2 p_{k}, 0 \}$. [The stockpiles $1,\ldots,k$ are reclaimed from left to right, and the stockpiles $k+1,\ldots,n$ are reclaimed from right to left.]{}
The stockpile positions are described more precisely in Algorithm \[alg:fb\_positioning\], and the schedule is completely determined by the positions and the given reclaim directions.
.......................................\
**if** $\min \{ P^k,\, \overline P^{k-1} \} \leqslant L$ **then**\
**if** $P^k < \overline P^{k-1}$ **then**\
**for** $i=1,\ldots,k$ **do** $(l_i,\,r_i)\leftarrow (P^{i-1},\,P^i)$ (on pad 1)\
**for** $i=k+1,\ldots,n$ **do** $(l_i,\,r_i)\leftarrow (\overline P^i,\,\overline
P^{i-1})$ (on pad 2)\
**else**\
**for** $i=1,\ldots,k-1$ **do** $(l_i,\,r_i)\leftarrow (P^{i-1},\,P^i)$ (on pad 1)\
**for** $i=k,\ldots,n$ **do** $(l_i,\,r_i)\leftarrow (\overline P^i,\,\overline
P^{i-1})$(on pad 2)\
**else**\
**for** $i=1,\ldots,k-1$ **do** $(l_i,\,r_i)\leftarrow (P^{i-1},\,P^i)$ (on pad 1)\
**for** $i=k+1,\ldots,n$ **do** $(l_i,\,r_i)\leftarrow (P^{k-1}+\overline
P^i,\,P^{k-1}+\overline P^{i-1})$ (on pad 1)\
$(l_k,\ r_k)\leftarrow\left(\max\{P - 2 p_k,\, 0 \},\ \max\{ P-p_k,\, p_k \} \right)$ (on pad 2)
\[lem:fb\_objective\] For instances with $p_1+\cdots+p_n\leqslant 3L/2$, the stockpile positions determined by Algorithm \[alg:fb\_positioning\] with the reclaim directions described above achieve a makespan of $$\label{eq:FB_makespan}
C = P+\min\limits_{0\leqslant t\leqslant n}\left\lvert P^t-\overline P^t\right\rvert/s.$$
[By definition $k$ is the index for which the minimum in is obtained. In Case 1, there is exactly one time interval in which the reclaimer moves without reclaiming anything, namely when it moves from $r_k$ to $r_{k+1}$ or from $r_{k-1}$ to $r_k$ between reclaiming the stockpiles on pad $P_1$ and the stockpiles on pad $P_2$. This takes time $\left\lvert P^k-\overline
P^k\right\rvert/s$ and the result follows.]{}
In Case 2, there are three time intervals in which the reclaimer moves without reclaiming anything, namely when it moves (1) from $r_{k-1}$ to $l_k$, (2) from $r_k$ to $r_{k+1}$ and (3) from $l_n$ to $0$. These travel time intervals have lengths $$\begin{aligned}
& P^{k-1}-\max\{P-2p_k,\,0\},\\
& \max\{p_k-(P-p_k),\,0\}=\max\{2p_k-P,\,0\},\\
& P^{k-1},\end{aligned}$$ and this yields a makespan $$C = P+\frac{P^{k-1}-P+2p_k+P^{k-1}}{s}=P+\frac{2P^k-P}{s}=P+\frac{P^k-\overline P^k}{s}.\qedhere$$
The next lemma states that the RHS of (\[eq:FB\_makespan\]) is a lower bound on the makespan.
\[lem:fb\_lower\_bound\] For any placement of the stockpiles and any feasible reclaimer schedule, the makespan $C$ satisfies $$C \geqslant P+\min\limits_{0\leqslant k\leqslant n}\left\lvert P^k-\overline P^k\right\rvert/s.$$
Suppose we have an optimal stockpile placement together with an optimal reclaimer schedule. Let $x_1$ be the rightmost point reached by the reclaimer, and let $t_1$ be the time when $x_1$ is reached for the first time. Let $I$ be the set of stockpiles whose reclaiming is at or before time $t_1$ and let $J$ be the set of stockpiles whose reclaiming is finished after time $t_1$. Clearly $I=\{1,\ldots,k\}$ for some $k$, where $k=0$ corresponds to $I=\emptyset$. The sets $I$ and $J$ can be partitioned according to the pads on which the stockpiles are placed: $I=I_1\cup I_2$ where $I_1$ contains the stockpiles on pad $P_1$, and $I_2$ contains the stockpiles on pad $P_2$, and similarly for $J=J_1\cup J_2$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
X_i &= \bigcup\limits_{j\in I_i}[l_j,r_j], & Y_i &= \bigcup\limits_{j\in J_i}[l_j,r_j]\end{aligned}$$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. Recall that the total length of a set $X\subseteq[0,L]$ is denoted by $\ell(X)$. The total stockpile length equals $$\label{eq:total_length}
P=\ell(X_1)+\ell(X_2)+\ell(Y_1)+\ell(Y_2).$$ Between $t=0$ and $t=t_1$ the reclaimer has to visit (1) the set $X_1\triangle X_2$ while reclaiming, (2) the set $X_1\cap X_2$ twice while reclaiming and at least once while moving without reclaiming, (3) the set $[0,x_1]\setminus(X_1\cup X_2)$ at least once without reclaiming. This yields $$\begin{gathered}
t_1\geqslant \ell(X_1)+\ell(X_2)+\frac{\ell(X_1\cap X_2)+x_1-\ell(X_1\cup X_2)}{s}\\
=\ell(X_1)+\ell(X_2)+\frac{x_1-\ell(X_1)-\ell(X_2)+2\ell(X_1\cap X_2)}{s}.\end{gathered}$$ Applying the same argument to the time interval $[t_1,C]$ and the sets $Y_1$ and $Y_2$, we have $$C-t_1\geqslant \ell(Y_1)+\ell(Y_2)+\frac{x_1-\ell(Y_1)-\ell(Y_2)+2\ell(Y_1\cap Y_2)}{s}.$$ Adding these two inequalities, taking into account (\[eq:total\_length\]), we obtain $$C\geqslant P+\frac{2(x_1+\ell(X_1\cap X_2)+\ell(Y_1\cap Y_2))-P}{s}.$$ Using $x_1+\ell(X_1\cap X_2)\geqslant\ell(X_1)+\ell(X_2)=P^k$ and $x_1+\ell(Y_1\cap Y_2)\geqslant\ell(Y_1)+\ell(Y_2)=\overline P^k$, we obtain $$C\geqslant P+\frac{2\max\{P^k,\,\overline P^k\}-P}{s}=P+\left\lvert P^k-\overline P^k\right\rvert/s.\qedhere$$
From Algorithm \[alg:fb\_positioning\], and Lemmas \[lem:fb\_objective\] and \[lem:fb\_lower\_bound\] we get the following theorem.
\[thm:fb\_optimal\] If the sum of the stockpile lengths is at most $3L/2$ then the problem of finding optimal stockpile positions and a corresponding schedule for a single reclaimer can be solved in time $O(n)$.
### Two reclaimers
\[thm:hardness:pos\_two\_rec\_prec\] Positioning stockpiles and simultaneously determining an optimal schedule for two reclaimers when the stockpiles have to be reclaimed in a given order is NP-hard.
To prove the NP-hardness we use 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>, the following variation of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>:
1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>.
: Given a set $A =\{a_1, \dots, a_n\}$ of positive integers with $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i = 7B$, can the set $A$ be partitioned into two disjoint subsets $A_1$ and $A_2$ such that $\sum_{a_i \in A_1} a_{i} = B$ and $\sum_{a_i\in A_2} a_{i} = 6B$?
We illustrate the idea of the proof with the following example.
\[ex:1\_6\_partition\] Consider the following instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>: a set $A
= \{a_1, \dots, a_n\} = \{5, 1, 6, 1, 1, 7\}$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i
= 7B = 21$, i.e., $B = 3$. Create the following instance of the reclaimer scheduling problem: pad length $L=108$, traveling speed $s=3$, and a set of $n+4 = 10$ stockpiles of lengths 30, 87, 3, 21, 5, 1, 6, 1, 1, 7, respectively, to be reclaimed in that order. Note that four special stockpiles have been added that have to be reclaimed first.
An obvious lower bound on the objective function value is 162, the sum of the reclaim times of the stockpiles. Next consider the stockpile placements and reclaimer assignments shown in Figure \[fig:instance-pf-ex-prec\], i.e., stockpiles 1 and 3 together with stockpiles 5, 7, and 10 are assigned to $R_0$ and stockpiles 2 and 4 together with stockpiles 6, 8, and 9 are assigned to $R_1$. Furthermore, let $R_0$ reclaim stockpile 1 going out and stockpiles 3, 5, 7, and 10 coming back, and let $R_1$ reclaim stockpile 2 going out and stockpiles 4, 6, 8, and 9 coming back.
\(A) at (0,1.2); (B) at (0.05,1.6); (C) at (4.25,1.6); (D) at (4.3,1.2); (A) – (B) – (C) – (D) – cycle; (4.3,1.2) – (4.35,1.6) – (6.75,1.6) – (6.8,1.2) – cycle; (8.6,1.2) – (8.65,1.6) – (8.75,1.6) – (8.8,1.2) – cycle; (11,1.2) – (11.05,1.6) – (11.15,1.6) – (11.2,1.2) – cycle; (11.2,1.2) – (11.25,1.6) – (11.35,1.6) – (11.4,1.2) – cycle; (A) – (B) – (C) – (D) – cycle; (4.3,1.2) – (4.35,1.6) – (6.75,1.6) – (6.8,1.2) – cycle; (8.6,1.2) – (8.62,1.6) – (8.78,1.6) – (8.8,1.2) – cycle; (11,1.2) – (11.02,1.6) – (11.18,1.6) – (11.2,1.2) – cycle; (11.2,1.2) – (11.22,1.6) – (11.38,1.6) – (11.4,1.2) – cycle; (6.8,1.6) – (8.6,1.6); (A) at (7.7,1.7); (8.8,1.6) – (11,1.6); (A) at (9.9,1.7); (11.4,1.6) – (14,1.6); (A) at (12.7,1.7); (3.1,1.6) – (4.3,1.6); (A) at (3.7,1.7); (0,1.2) – (14,1.2); (A) at (2.15,1.2); (B) at (5.55,1.2); (C) at (8.7,1.2); (D) at (11.08,1.2); (E) at (11.32,1.2); (A) at (2.15,1.6); (B) at (5.55,1.6); (C) at (8.7,1.6); (D) at (11.1,1.6); (E) at (11.3,1.6); (0,-.2) – (14,-.2); (0,-.2) – (0.05,.2) – (0.95,.2) – (1,-.2) –cycle; (1,-.2) – (1.05,.2) – (1.85,.2) – (1.9,-.2) – cycle; (1.9,-.2) – (1.95,.2) – (2.65,.2) – (2.7,-.2) – cycle; (2.7,-.2) – (2.75,.2) – (3.05,.2) – (3.1,-.2) – cycle; (3.1,-.2) – (3.15,.2) – (13.95,.2) – (14,-.2) – cycle; (0,-.2) – (0.05,.2) – (0.95,.2) – (1,-.2) –cycle; (1,-.2) – (1.05,.2) – (1.85,.2) – (1.9,-.2) – cycle; (1.9,-.2) – (1.95,.2) – (2.65,.2) – (2.7,-.2) – cycle; (2.7,-.2) – (2.75,.2) – (3.05,.2) – (3.1,-.2) – cycle; (3.1,-.2) – (3.15,.2) – (13.95,.2) – (14,-.2) – cycle;
\(A) at (2.9,-.2); (B) at (2.3,-.2); (C) at (1.45,-.2); (D) at (.5,-.2); (F) at (8.55,-.2); (F) at (8.55,.2); (A) at (2.9,.2); (B) at (2.3,.2); (C) at (1.45,.2); (D) at (.5,.2); (P1a) at (-.4,1.2); (P2a) at (-.4,0); (0,-1.1) – (0.1,-.8) – (2.9,-.8) – (3,-1.1) – cycle; (0,-1.1) – (0.1,-.8) – (2.9,-.8) – (3,-1.1) – cycle; (R0) at (1.5,-1.1); (11,-1.1) – (11.1,-.8) – (13.9,-.8) – (14,-1.1) – cycle; (11,-1.1) – (11.1,-.8) – (13.9,-.8) – (14,-1.1) – cycle; (R1) at (12.5,-1.1);
Observe that $R_1$ can complete the reclaiming of stockpile 4 at time $30 + 87 + 3 + 21 = 141$ (the value 3 corresponds to the travel time required to go from the left-most point of stockpile 2 to the right-most point of stockpile 4. Furthermore, observe that the remaining reclaim time assigned to Reclaimer $R_1$ is 3 and that Reclaimer $R_1$ also has to travel $108 - 30 - 21 - 3 =
54$ to get back to its starting position, which takes 18 for a total of $3 + 18 = 21$. So Reclaimer $R_1$ can return at time 162 if and only if it does not incur any waiting time, i.e., it can start reclaiming stockpiles 6, 8, and 9 as soon as it reaches their left-most point. Their positions are chosen precisely to make this happen. For example, the left-most position of stockpile 6 is 66, i.e., 15 away from 51, which implies that while $R_0$ is reclaiming stockpile 5, which takes 5, reclaimer $R_1$ can move from the right-most position of stockpile 4 to the left-most position of stockpile 6. While $R_1$ reclaims stockpile 6, reclaimer $R_0$ waits at the right-most position of stockpile 7. And so on. Finally, observe that the stockpiles 6, 8, and 9 correspond to a subset $A_1$ with $\sum_{a_i \in A_1} a_{i} = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 = B$ and the stockpiles 5, 7, and 10 correspond to a subset $A_2$ with $\sum_{a_i \in A_2} a_{i} = 5 + 6 + 7 = 18 = 6B$.
More generally, for an instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>, we create a corresponding instance of the reclaimer scheduling problem with pad length $L = 36B$, traveling speed $s = 3$, and a set of $n+4$ stockpiles of lengths $10B, 29B, B, 7B, a_1, \ldots, a_n$, respectively, to be reclaimed in that order. We will show that the instance is a yes-instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> if and only if there exists a reclaimer schedule in which both reclaimers return to their starting positions at time $54B$.
Suppose the instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> is a yes-instance, then the placements and assignments shown in Figure \[fig:instance-pf-prec\], i.e., stockpiles 1 and 3 together with the stockpiles corresponding to the subset $A_1$ are assigned to $R_0$ and stockpiles 2 and 4 together with the stockpiles corresponding to the subset $A_2$ are assigned to $R_1$, $(l_1, r_1)
=(0,10B)$, $(l_2, r_2) = (7B,36B)$, $(l_3, r_3) = (6B, 7B)$, and $(l_4, r_4) = (10B, 17B)$, the stockpiles in $A_2$ are placed on pad $P_2$ in the interval $[0,6B]$ and the stockpiles in $A_1$ are placed on pad $P_1$ in the interval $[17B, 36B]$ in such a way that the distance between two consecutive stockpiles $i$ and $j$ is $3
\sum_{k=i+1}^{j-1}a_{k}$. It can easily be verified that schedule $S^*$ has an objective function value equal to the lower bound of $54B$.
\(A) at (0,1.2); (B) at (0.05,1.6); (C) at (4.25,1.6); (D) at (4.3,1.2); (A) – (B) – (C) – (D) – cycle; (4.3,1.2) – (4.33,1.6) – (6.77,1.6) – (6.8,1.2) – cycle; (A) – (B) – (C) – (D) – cycle; (4.3,1.2) – (4.33,1.6) – (6.77,1.6) – (6.8,1.2) – cycle; (6.8,1.6) – (14,1.6); (A) at (10.4,1.7); (3.1,1.62) – (4.3,1.62); (A) at (3.7,1.7); (0,1.2) – (14,1.2); (A) at (2.15,1.2); (B) at (5.55,1.2); (A) at (2.15,1.6); (B) at (5.55,1.6); (0,-.2) – (14,-.2); (2.7,-.2) – (2.75,.2) – (3.05,.2) – (3.1,-.2) – cycle; (3.1,-.2) – (3.15,.2) – (13.95,.2) – (14,-.2) – cycle; (2.7,-.2) – (2.75,.2) – (3.05,.2) – (3.1,-.2) – cycle; (3.1,-.2) – (3.15,.2) – (13.95,.2) – (14,-.2) – cycle;
\(A) at (2.9,-.2); (F) at (8.55,-.2); (F) at (8.55,.2); (A) at (2.9,.2); (2.7,-.25) – (0,-.25); (A) at (1.35,-.33); (P1a) at (-.4,1.2); (P2a) at (-.4,0); (0,-1.2) – (0.1,-1) – (2.9,-1) – (3,-1.2) – cycle; (0,-1.2) – (0.1,-1) – (2.9,-1) – (3,-1.2) – cycle; (R0) at (1.5,-1.2); (11,-1.2) – (11.1,-1) – (13.9,-1) – (14,-1.2) – cycle; (11,-1.2) – (11.1,-1) – (13.9,-1) – (14,-1.2) – cycle; (R1) at (12.5,-1.2);
Next, we prove that lower bound of $54B$ is not achievable if (1) stockpiles 1, 2, 3, and 4 are placed differently or (2) the instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> is a no-instance.
First, observe that to achieve the lower bound there cannot be any time between the end of the reclaiming of one stockpile and the start of the reclaiming of the next stockpile. Furthermore, w.l.o.g., we can assume that stockpile 1 is assigned to $R_0$ with placement $(l_1, r_1) = (0, 10B)$.
**Claim 1: The lower bound of $54B$ cannot be achieved if stockpiles 1 and 2 are assigned to the same reclaimer.**
This is obvious because the stockpiles cannot fit together on a single path and have different lengths. Therefore, stockpile 2 has to be assigned to $R_1$ and placed on pad $P_2$. It also follows that stockpile 2 has to be reclaimed from right to left.
**Claim 2: The lower bound of $54B$ cannot be achieved if stockpile 3 is assigned to $R_1$ or stockpile 4 to $R_0$.**
To avoid time between the end of reclaiming of stockpile 2 and the start of reclaiming of stockpile 3, stockpile 3 has to be placed on pad $P_2$ to the left of stockpile 2. As a consequence, stockpile 4 has to be placed on pad $P_1$, because there is not enough space left to place it on pad $P_2$. As a result, stockpile 3 and stockpile 4 cannot be reclaimed by the same reclaimer, because the right-most position of stockpile 3 will be less than or equal to $7B$ and the left-most position of stockpile 4 will be greater than or equal to $10B$. Furthermore, if stockpile 4 would be assigned to Reclaimer $R_0$, then, because Reclaimer $R_0$ always has to be to the left of Reclaimer $R_1$, it is unavoidable to incur travel time before the start of the reclaiming of stockpile 4. Thus, stockpile 4 has to be assigned to $R_1$ and stockpile 3 to $R_0$.
**Claim 3: The lower bound of $54B$ cannot be achieved unless the travel time between $l_2$ and $l_4$ is exactly $B$.**
Since $l_2 \leqslant 7B$ and $l_4 \geqslant 10B$, we have $\frac{l_4 - l_2}{3}
\geqslant B$. Since stockpile 3 has length $B$ and has to be reclaimed between stockpile 2 and 4, if $l_4 > 10B$ or $l_2 < 7B$, then there will be travel time of at least $\frac{l_4 - l_2 - B}{3}$ in the schedule.
From the above three claims it follows that to be able to achieve the lower bound of $54B$, stockpiles 1 and 3 have to be assigned to $R_0$, stockpiles 2 and 4 have to be assigned to $R_1$, and the four stockpiles have to be placed as follows: $(l_1, r_1) = (0, 10B), \
(l_2, r_2) = (7B, 36B), (l_3, r_3) = (6B, 7B)$, and $(l_4, r_4) =
(10B, 17B)$.
**Claim 4: The lower bound of $54B$ is achievable iff the instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> is a yes-instance.**
Observe that $R_1$ can complete the reclaiming of stockpile 4 at time $47B$ and at that time will be at position $17B$. The remaining space of $19B$ on pad $P_1$ has to be allocated to stockpiles, say $x$, and unoccupied space, say $y$. To reach its starting position at or before time $54B$, the time spend on reclaiming, i.e., $x$, and the time spend on traveling, i.e., $y/3$ should be less than or equal to $7B$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
x + y & = 19B \\
3x + y & \leqslant 21B,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $x \leqslant B$, i.e., the stockpiles placed on pad $P_1$ should take up no more space than $B$. However, given that the remaining space available for the placement of stockpiles on pad $P_2$ is $6B$, this implies that the stockpiles corresponding to $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n$ with $\sum_{j=1}^n a_j = 7B$ have to be partitioned into two subsets $A_1$ and $A_2$ with $\sum_{a_i \in
A_1} a_{i} = B$ and $\sum_{a_i \in A_2} a_{i} = 6B$, i.e., the instance of 1,6-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> is a yes-instance.
Final Remarks {#sec:final}
=============
We have studied a number of variants of an abstract scheduling problem inspired by the scheduling of reclaimers in the stockyard of a coal export terminal.
We leave the following open question for future work.
1. For the following problems, we used reduction from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> to prove that they are NP-hard, but we did not decide if they are strongly NP-hard.
- Find an optimal schedule for two reclaimers with given stockpile positions and arbitrary reclaim order (Theorem \[thm:np\_hard\_1\]).
- Find an optimal schedule for two reclaimers with given stockpile positions and and given assignment of stockpiles to reclaimers (Theorem \[thm:oracle\_hardness\]).
- Find optimal stockpile positions and reclaimer schedules for two reclaimers with arbitrary reclaim order (Theorem \[thm:pos\_two\]).
- Find optimal stockpile positions and reclaimer schedules for two reclaimers with given reclaim order (Theorem \[thm:hardness:pos\_two\_rec\_prec\]).
We conjecture that these problems are not strongly NP-hard.
2. We described a pseudo-polynomial algorithm for the problem to schedule two reclaimers for given stockpile positions and given reclaim order (Theorem \[thm:two\_pred\]). We conjecture that this problem can actually be solved in polynomial time.
One important aspect of the real-life reclaimer scheduling problem, which is ignored so far, is its dynamic nature. Vessels arrive over time, and, as a result, the stockpiles that need be stacked and reclaimed are not all known at the start of the planning horizon (and do not all fit together on the pads). We are currently investigating multi-vessel variants of the problems studied in this paper that explicitly take into account the time dimension of the reclaimer scheduling problem.
Bierwirth, C. and F. Meisel (2009). A fast heuristic for quay crane scheduling with interference constraints. [*12*]{}(4), 345–360.
Bierwirth, C. and F. Meisel (2010). A survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. [*202*]{}(3), 615–627.
Boland, N., D. Gulczynski, and M. Savelsbergh (2012). A stockyard planning problem. [*1*]{}(3), 197–236.
Daganzo, C. F. (1989). The crane scheduling problem. [*23*]{}(3), 159–175.
Hu, D. and Z. Yao (2012, November). Stacker-reclaimer scheduling in a dry bulk terminal. [*25*]{}(11), 1047–1058.
Kim, K. H. and Y.-M. Park (2004). A crane scheduling method for port container terminals. [*156*]{}(3), 752–768.
Kim, K. Y. and K. H. Kim (1999). A routing algorithm for a single straddle carrier to load export containers onto a containership. [*59*]{}(1), 425–433.
Kim, K. Y. and K. H. Kim (2003). Heuristic algorithms for routing yard-side equipment for minimizing loading times in container terminals. [*50*]{}(5), 498–514.
Legato, P., R. Trunfio, and F. Meisel (2012). Modeling and solving rich quay crane scheduling problems. [*39*]{}(9), 2063–2078.
Lim, A., B. Rodrigues, and Z. Xu (2007). A m-parallel crane scheduling problem with a non-crossing constraint. [*54*]{}(2), 115–127.
Liu, J., Y.-w. Wan, and L. Wang (2006). Quay crane scheduling at container terminals to minimize the maximum relative tardiness of vessel departures. [*53*]{}(1), 60–74.
Moccia, L., J.-F. Cordeau, M. Gaudioso, and G. Laporte (2006). A branch-and-cut algorithm for the quay crane scheduling problem in a container terminal. [*53*]{}(1), 45–59.
Ng, W. (2005). Crane scheduling in container yards with inter-crane interference. [*164*]{}(1), 64–78.
Ng, W. C. and K. L. Mak (2005a). An effective heuristic for scheduling a yard crane to handle jobs with different ready times. [*37*]{}(8), 867–877.
Ng, W. C. and K. L. Mak (2005b). Yard crane scheduling in port container terminals. [*29*]{}(3), 263–276.
Ng, W. C. and K. L. Mak (2006). Quay crane scheduling in container terminals. [*38*]{}(6), 723–737.
Petering, M. E. (2009). Effect of block width and storage yard layout on marine container terminal performance. [*45*]{}(4), 591–610.
Peterkofsky, R. I. and C. F. Daganzo (1990). A branch and bound solution method for the crane scheduling problem. [*24*]{}(3), 159–172.
Psaraftis, H. N., M. M. Solomon, T. L. Magnanti, and T.-U. Kim (1990). Routing and scheduling on a shoreline with release times. [*36*]{}(2), 212–223.
Sun, D. and L. Tang (2013). Benders approach for the raw material transportation scheduling problem in steel industry. In [*Control and Automation (ICCA), 2013 10th IEEE International Conference on*]{}, pp. 481–484.
Tsitsiklis, J. N. (1992). Special cases of traveling salesman and repairman problems with time windows. [*22*]{}(3), 263–282.
Zhang, C., Y.-w. Wan, J. Liu, and R. J. Linn (2002). Dynamic crane deployment in container storage yards. [*36*]{}(6), 537–555.
Zhu, Y. and A. Lim (2006). Crane scheduling with non-crossing constraint. [ *57*]{}(12), 1464–1471.
[^1]: This research was supported by ARC Linkage Grant nos. LP0990739 and LP110200524, and by the HVCCC and Triple Point Technology.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We provide a method of constructing better-quasi-orders by generalising a technique for constructing operator algebras that was developed by Pouzet. We then generalise the notion of $\sigma$-scattered to partial orders, and use our method to prove that the class of $\sigma$-scattered partial orders is better-quasi-ordered under embeddability. This generalises theorems of Laver, Corominas and Thomassé regarding $\sigma$-scattered linear orders and trees, countable forests and $N$-free partial orders respectively. In particular, a class of *countable* partial orders is better-quasi-ordered whenever the class of indecomposable subsets of its members satisfies a natural strengthening of better-quasi-order.'
address: 'School of Mathematics, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK'
author:
- Gregory McKay
title: 'On better-quasi-ordering classes of partial orders'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#Section:Intro}
============
Some of the most striking theorems in better-quasi-order (bqo) theory are that certain classes of partial orders, often with colourings, are bqo under embeddability. Indeed, the notion of bqo was first used by Nash-Williams to prove that the class $\mathscr{R}$ of rooted trees of height at most $\omega$ has no infinite descending chains or infinite antichains under the embeddability quasi-order [@NWInfTrees]. Another contribution from Nash-Williams comes in [@nashwilliamsseqs]. He proved that if $Q$ is bqo, then the class $\tilde{Q}$ of transfinite sequences of members of $Q$ is bqo (see [@simpson]). This theorem can be viewed as an embeddability result on a class of coloured partial orders; since it is equivalent to saying that the ordinals *preserve bqo* (which is to say that if $Q$ is bqo, then the class of ordinals coloured by $Q$ is also bqo under a natural embeddability ordering; see Definition \[Defn:Preservesbqo\]). In fact Nash-Williams proved a technical strengthening of this statement, equivalent to saying that the ordinals are *well-behaved* (see Definition \[Defn:WellBehaved\]). This is an important generalisation of bqo that will be crucial in this paper, because it is much more useful than bqo or even preserving bqo when constructing large bqo classes. Perhaps the most well known result of this kind comes from Laver, who proved that the class ${\mathscr{M}}$ of $\sigma$-scattered linear orders preserves bqo, a positive result for a generalisation of Fraïssé’s conjecture [@LaverFrOTconj]. A few years after his paper on $\sigma$-scattered linear orders, Laver also showed that the class ${\mathscr{T}}$ of $\sigma$-scattered trees preserves bqo [@LaverClassOfTrees]. Initially we notice that there should be some connection between the theorems of $\sigma$-scattered linear orders and $\sigma$-scattered trees. In each, we first take all partial orders of some particular type (linear orders, trees) that do not embed some particular order (namely $\mathbb{Q}$ and $2^{<\omega}$). In both cases, the class of countable unions of these objects turn out to preserve bqo. We prove a general theorem of this type (Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\]) which states that given well-behaved classes $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ of linear orders and partial orders respectively, the class of ‘generalised $\sigma$-scattered partial orders’ ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ will be well-behaved (see Definition \[Defn:PPL\]). We define our general ‘scattered’ partial orders to be those orders $X$ such that:
- Every indecomposable subset of $X$ is contained in $\mathbb{P}$. (See Definition \[Defn:Indecomp\].)
- Every chain of intervals of $X$ under $\supseteq$ has order type in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. (See definitions \[Defn:Lclosure\] and \[Defn:Interval\].)
- No ‘pathological’ order $2^{<\omega}$, $-2^{<\omega}$ or ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ embeds into $X$. (See definitions \[Defn:2\^<omega\] and \[Defn:Qhat\]).
Our class ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ is then the class of *countable increasing unions* or *limits* of such $X$.
Applying this theorem with classes known to be well-behaved yields generalisations of many other known results in this area. For example, Corominas showed that the class of countable ${\mathscr{C}}$-trees[^2] preserves bqo [@Corominas] (see Definition \[Defn:LTree\]) and Thomassé showed that the class of countable $N$-free partial orders preserves bqo [@Nfree] (see Definition \[Defn:Nfree\]). We summarise known results as applications of Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\] in the following table.[^3] In each case Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\] tells us that the given class is well-behaved.[^4]
Class Description $\mathbb{P}$ $\mathbb{L}$ Limits
----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------- --
$\mathbb{N}$ Finite numbers under injective maps $1$, ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$ 1
${\mathscr{S}}$ Scattered linear orders [@LaverFrOTconj] $1$, ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$ ${\mathrm{On}}\cup {\mathrm{On}}^*$
${\mathscr{M}}$ $\sigma$-scattered linear orders [@LaverFrOTconj] $1$, ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$ ${\mathrm{On}}\cup {\mathrm{On}}^*$
${\mathscr{U}}^{{\mathrm{On}}}$ Scattered trees [@LaverClassOfTrees] $1$, ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$, ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$ ${\mathrm{On}}$
${\mathscr{T}}^{{\mathrm{On}}}$ $\sigma$-scattered trees [@LaverClassOfTrees] $1$, ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$, ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$ ${\mathrm{On}}$
${\mathscr{T}}^{{\mathscr{C}}}$ Countable $\mathscr{L}$-trees [@Corominas] $1$, ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$, ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$ ${\mathscr{C}}$
${\mathscr{C}}_{\{1,{\mathrm{A}_{2}},{\mathrm{C}_{2}}\}}$ Countable $N$-free partial orders [@Nfree] $1$, ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$, ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$ ${\mathscr{C}}$
Applying this theorem with the largest known well-behaved classes $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ gives that some very large classes of partial orders are well-behaved (Theorem \[Thm:POTHM\]). For example, let $\mathbb{P}$ be the set of indecomposable partial orders of cardinality less than some $n\in \omega$, and $\mathbb{L}={\mathscr{M}}$. Then for $n>2$ the well-behaved class ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ contains the $\sigma$-scattered linear orders, $\sigma$-scattered ${\mathscr{M}}$-trees, countable $N$-free partial orders, and generalisations of such objects.
Crucial to the ideas in this paper are those of constructing objects with so called ‘structured trees’. Put simply, these are trees with some extra structure (usually a partial order) given to the set of successors of each element. Embeddings between structured trees are then required to induce embeddings of this extra structure.
Theorems on structured trees also appear throughout the literature on bqo theory (cf. [@Nfree; @Corominas; @Kriz; @PouzetApps; @Kruskal; @LouveauStR]). The rationale for their usefulness is explained by Pouzet in [@PouzetApps]. His method is to take a ‘simple’ class of objects (e.g. partial orders) and a bqo class of multivariate functions sending a list of objects to a new object (so called ‘operator algebras’). Closing the class under these functions then yields a new class, which one can prove to be bqo. The crucial step is to show that this construction can be encoded as a structured tree, contained inside a class which is known to preserve bqo. Pouzet’s method however was limited in that the structured trees that he used were only ‘chain-finite’ (i.e. those trees for which every chain is finite).
Since then, larger classes of structured trees have been shown to be preserve bqo. In particular, using a modification of the Minimal Bad Array Lemma (see [@simpson]), Kříž managed to prove that if $Q$ is well-behaved then $\mathscr{R}_Q$ (the class of $Q$-structured trees of $\mathscr{R}$, see Definition \[Defn:StructTrees\]) is well-behaved [@Kriz]. We give a generalisation of Pouzet’s method, that incorporates these larger classes of structured trees. This allows for iterating functions over a general linear order and for taking countable limits. Using this coding, these more complex classes can be shown to be bqo (even well-behaved).
So we aim to show that some large classes of partial orders are well-behaved, the main theorem being Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\] and its main application Theorem \[Thm:POTHM\]. The general method of the proof will be as follows. In Section \[Section:OpConstruction\] we define an operator algebra construction, similar to ideas explained in [@PouzetApps] but with our two generalisations. We also give an example of how to construct partial orders. In Section \[Section:StructTrees\] we encode this construction in terms of structured trees. In Section \[Section:WBConstruction\] we prove that such a construction, under the correct conditions, will be bqo. In Section \[Section:StructuredRTrees\], using the structured tree theorem of Kříž from [@Kriz] (Theorem \[Thm:Kriz\]), in conjunction with our construction theorem, we construct a more general well-behaved class of ‘$\sigma$-scattered structured $\mathbb{L}$-trees’. This serves to supercharge the construction theorem. In Section \[Section:PO\] we prove a generalisation of Hausdorff’s theorem on scattered order types, which characterises the class of partial orders that we constructed as precisely ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$. This completes the proof of our main theorem, that this class is well-behaved. Finally in Section \[Section:Cors\] we explain how this result expands all known bqo results on embeddability of coloured partial orders.
Preliminaries
=============
Basic bqo theory
----------------
If $A$ is an infinite subset of $\omega$, let $[A]^\omega=\{X\subseteq A\mid |X|=\aleph_0\}$ and $[A]^{<\omega}=\{X\subseteq A\mid |X|< \aleph_0\}$. We equate $X\in [A]^\omega$ with the increasing enumeration of elements of $X$.
- A class $Q$ with a binary relation ${\leqslant}_Q$ on $Q$ is called a *quasi-order* whenever ${\leqslant}_Q$ is transitive and reflexive.
- If $Q$ is a quasi-order with ${\leqslant}_Q$ antisymmetric, then we call $Q$ a *partial order*.
- For $a,b\in Q$ we write $a<_Q b$ iff $a{\leqslant}_Q b$ and $b\not {\leqslant}_Q a$. We write $a\perp_Q b$ and call $a$ and $b$ *incomparable* iff $a\not {\leqslant}_Q b$ and $b\not {\leqslant}_Q a$.
- We write ${\leqslant}$, $<$ and $\perp$ in place of ${\leqslant}_Q$, $<_Q$ and $\perp_Q$ when the context is clear.
- A function $f:[\omega]^\omega \rightarrow Q$ is called a *$Q$-array* (or simply an *array*) if $f$ is continuous (giving $[\omega]^\omega$ the product topology and $Q$ the discrete topology).
- An array $f:[\omega]^\omega \rightarrow Q$ is called *bad* if $\forall X\in [\omega]^\omega$ we have $$f(X)\not {\leqslant}f(X\setminus\{ \min X\}).$$
- An array $f:[\omega]^\omega \rightarrow Q$ is called *perfect* if $\forall X\in [\omega]^\omega$ we have $$f(X) {\leqslant}f(X\setminus\{ \min X\}).$$
- A quasi-order $Q$ is called a *better-quasi-order* (bqo) if there is no bad $Q$-array.
We note that we could replace ‘continuous’ in the definition of a $Q$-array with ‘Borel measurable’ and this would make no difference to the definition of bqo (see [@simpson]). We can also consider bad arrays with domain $[A]^\omega$ for some $A\in [\omega]^\omega$.
The following is a well-known Ramsey-theoretic result due to Galvin and Prikry.
\[Thm:GalvinPrikry\] Given $X\in [\omega]^\omega$ and a Borel set $B$ in $[X]^\omega$, there exists $A\in [X]^\omega$ such that either $[A]^\omega\subseteq B$ or $[A]^\omega \cap B=\emptyset$.
See [@GalvinPrikry] or [@simpson].
\[Thm:BadOrPerfect\] If $f$ is a $Q$-array, then there is $A\in [\omega]^\omega$ such that $f\restriction [A]^\omega$ is either bad or perfect.
Let $B=\{X\in[\omega]^\omega\mid f(X){\leqslant}f(X\setminus \{\min X\})\}$. If $B$ is Borel, then by Theorem \[Thm:GalvinPrikry\] we will be done. Let $S:[\omega]^\omega\rightarrow [\omega]^\omega$ be the function $S(X)=X\setminus \{\min X\}$ and let $g=f\times (f\circ S)$. Then $g$ is continuous, since $f$ and $S$ are continuous. We also have that $B=g^{-1}({\leqslant})$, considering the relation ${\leqslant}$ as a subset of the discrete space $ Q\times Q$. Therefore $B$ is open and we are done.
Given two sets $x$ and $y$ we write $x\sqcup y$ for the disjoint union of $x$ and $y$. And given a set $X$ of sets, we define $\bigsqcup_{x\in X}x$ as the disjoint union of the sets in $X$.
Let $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ be quasi-orders, we define new quasi-orders:
- $Q_0\cup Q_1=(Q_0\sqcup Q_1,{\leqslant})$ where for $p,q\in Q_0\cup Q_1$, we have $p{\leqslant}q$ iff both $p$ and $q$ are in the same $Q_i$ for $i\in \{0,1\}$, and $p{\leqslant}_{Q_i}q$;
- $Q_0\times Q_1=\{\langle q_0,q_1\rangle\mid q_0\in Q_0, q_1\in Q_1\}$ where for $\langle p_0,p_1\rangle,\langle q_0,q_1\rangle\in Q_0\times Q_1$ we have $$\langle p_0,p_1\rangle{\leqslant}\langle q_0,q_1\rangle \mbox{ iff }(p_0{\leqslant}_{Q_0}q_0)\wedge(p_1{\leqslant}_{Q_1}q_1).$$
\[Thm:U bqo\] If there is a bad $Q_0\cup Q_1$-array $f$ then there is $A\in[\omega]^\omega$ such that $f\restriction [A]^{\omega}$ is either a bad $Q_0$-array, or a bad $Q_1$-array.
Apply Theorem \[Thm:GalvinPrikry\] with $B=f^{-1}(Q_0)$.
\[Thm:times bqo\] If there is a bad $Q_0\times Q_1$-array $f$, then there is $A\in[\omega]^\omega$ and either a bad $Q_0$-array, or a bad $Q_1$-array $g$ with ${\mbox{dom}}(g)=[A]^{\omega}$ and such that $g(X)$ is either the first or second component of $f(X)$ for all $X\in [A]^\omega$.
Define the $Q_0$-array $f_0$ and the $Q_1$-array $f_1$ so that for every $X\in [\omega]^\omega$ we have $$f(X)=\langle f_0(X),f_1(X)\rangle.$$ Now apply Theorem \[Thm:BadOrPerfect\] twice to restrict so that $f_0$ and $f_1$ are both either bad or perfect. Then either we are done or they are both perfect, which contradicts that $f$ was bad.
Concrete categories
-------------------
Usually we will be interested in quasi-ordering classes of partial orders under embeddability, however we can keep the results more general with no extra difficulty by considering the notion of a *concrete category*. The idea is to add a little more meat to the notion of a quasi-order, considering classes of structures quasi-ordered by existence of some kind of embedding. This allows us to generate more complicated orders by colouring the elements of these structures with a quasi-order; enforcing that embeddings must increase values of this colouring. Then we can construct complicated objects from simple objects in a ranked way by iterating this colouring process, and the notion of *well-behaved* allows us to reduce back down through the ranks. We shall now formalise these notions, similar to the definitions of [@Kriz] and [@wqoforbpl].
\[Defn:QOcat\] A *concrete category* is a pair $\mathcal{O}=\langle {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}},{\mathrm{hom}{(\mathcal{O})}}\rangle$ such that:
1. \[item:QOcat1\] each $\gamma\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$ has an associated *underlying set* $U_\gamma$;
2. \[item:QOcat2\] for each $\gamma,\delta\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$ there are sets of *embeddings* ${\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\delta)$ consisting of some functions from $U_\gamma$ to $U_\delta$;
3. \[item:QOcat3\] ${\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\gamma)$ contains the identity on $\gamma$ for any $\gamma\in \mathcal{O}$;
4. \[item:QOcat4\] for any $\gamma,\delta,\beta\in \mathcal{O}$, if $f\in {\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma, \delta)$ and $g\in {\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\delta, \beta)$ then $f\circ g\in {\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\beta)$;
5. \[item:QOcat5\] ${\mathrm{hom}{(\mathcal{O})}}=\{{\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\delta)\mid \gamma,\delta\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}\}$.
Elements of ${\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$ are called *objects* and elements of $\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\delta)$ are called $\mathcal{O}$-*morphisms* or *embeddings*. To simplify notation we write $\gamma\in \mathcal{O}$ for $\gamma\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$ and equate $\gamma$ with $U_\gamma$ .
Similar definitions to \[Defn:QOcat\] appear in [@Kriz], [@wqoforbpl] and [@LouveauStR]. The first two enjoy a more category theoretic description, and the last is in terms of structures and morphisms.
With the following definition, concrete categories will turn into quasi-ordered sets under *embeddability*; (\[item:QOcat3\]) and (\[item:QOcat4\]) of Definition \[Defn:QOcat\] guaranteeing the reflexivity and transitivity properties respectively. This allows us to consider the bqo properties of concrete categories.
For $\gamma,\delta \in \mathcal{O}$, we say that $$\gamma {\leqslant}_\mathcal{O} \delta\mbox{ iff }{\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\delta)\neq \emptyset$$ i.e. $\gamma {\leqslant}_\mathcal{O} \delta$ iff there is an embedding from $\gamma$ to $\delta$. If $f\in {\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{O}(\gamma,\delta)$ then we call $f$ a *witnessing embedding* of $\gamma{\leqslant}_\mathcal{O}\delta$.
\[Ex:POcat\] Let ${\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{P})}}$ be the class of partial orders. For any two partial orders $x,y$, let:
1. $U_x=x$,
2. ${\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{P}(x,y)=\{\varphi:x\rightarrow y \mid (\forall a,b\in x), a{\leqslant}_x b \longleftrightarrow \varphi(a){\leqslant}_y\varphi(b)\},$
3. ${\mathrm{hom}{(\mathcal{P})}}=\{{\mathrm{hom}}_\mathcal{P}(\gamma,\delta)\mid \gamma,\delta\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{P})}}\}$,
4. $\mathcal{P}=\langle {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{P})}},{\mathrm{hom}{(\mathcal{P})}}\rangle$.
The category $\mathcal{P}$ of partial orders with embeddings is then a pragmatic example of a concrete category, and the order ${\leqslant}_\mathcal{P}$ is the usual embeddability ordering on the class of partial orders. We keep this example in mind since the majority of concrete categories used in this paper are either subclasses of $\mathcal{P}$ or are derived from $\mathcal{P}$. We note that all $\mathcal{P}$-morphisms are injective.
Given a quasi-order $Q$ and a concrete category $\mathcal{O}$, we add *colours* to $\mathcal{O}$, by defining the new concrete category $\mathcal{O}(Q)$ as follows.
- The objects of $\mathcal{O}(Q)$ are pairs $\langle \gamma, c\rangle$ for $\gamma\in \mathcal{O}$ and $c:\gamma\rightarrow Q$.
- For $\langle \gamma,c\rangle\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O}(Q))}}$, we let $V_{\langle \gamma,c\rangle}=V_\gamma$, we call $c$ a $Q$-*colouring* of $\gamma$ and for each $v\in \gamma$, we call $c(v)$ the *colour* of $v$. To simplify notation we equate $\langle \gamma, c \rangle$ with $\gamma$, and write ${\mathbf{c}}_\gamma=c$ and $\gamma\in \mathcal{O}(Q)$.
- We define morphisms of $\mathcal{O}(Q)$ from $\gamma$ to $\delta$ to be embeddings $\varphi:\gamma\rightarrow \delta$ such that $${\mathbf{c}}_\gamma(x){\leqslant}_Q {\mathbf{c}}_\delta(\varphi(x))$$ for every $x\in \gamma$.
Given $\gamma\in \mathcal{O}(Q)$ and $v\in \gamma$, we will sometimes write ${\mathbf{c}}(v)$, to be read as ‘the colour of $v$’, in place of ${\mathbf{c}}_\gamma(v)$ when this is unambiguous.
We are now able to define the bqo preservation properties mentioned in Section \[Section:Intro\], allowing us to pass from bad $\mathcal{O}(Q)$-arrays to bad $Q$-arrays.
\[Defn:Preservesbqo\] Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a concrete category, then $\mathcal{O}$ *preserves bqo* iff $$Q\mbox{ is a bqo }\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}(Q)\mbox{ is a bqo.}$$
Unfortunately, this simple definition fails to be particularly useful. Given a bad $\mathcal{O}(Q)$-array, preservation of bqo ensures the existence of a bad $Q$-array, but no link between these two arrays is guaranteed. The following definition remedies this situation and is extremely important for the rest of the paper.
\[Defn:WellBehaved\] Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a concrete category, then $\mathcal{O}$ is *well-behaved* iff for any quasi-order $Q$ and any bad array $f:[\omega]^\omega \rightarrow \mathcal{O}(Q),$ there is an $M\in [\omega]^\omega$ and a bad array $$g:[M]^\omega\rightarrow Q$$ such that for all $X\in [M]^\omega$ there is some $v\in f(X)$ with $$g(X)={\mathbf{c}}_{f(X)}(v).$$ We call $g$ a *witnessing bad array* for $f$.
Warning: this notion of well-behaved is the same as from [@Kriz]; it is different from the definition of well-behaved that appears in [@wqoforbpl] which is in fact equivalent to Louveau and Saint-Raymond’s notion of reflecting bad arrays [@LouveauStR].
\[Lemma:FinitePosWB\] Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a finite set of finite partial orders, then $\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved.
Let $Q$ be an arbitrary quasi-order and let $f$ be a bad $\mathbb{P}(Q)$-array. Then since $\mathbb{P}$ is finite, we can repeatedly apply the Galvin and Prikry Theorem \[Thm:GalvinPrikry\] to find $A\in [\omega]^\omega$ such that for each $X,Y\in [A]^\omega$, we have that $f(X)$ and $f(Y)$ have the same underlying finite partial order $P$. Then applying Theorem \[Thm:BadOrPerfect\] at most $|P|$ many times, restrict in turn so that the colours of each point of $f(X)$ give either a bad array or a perfect array. They cannot all be perfect otherwise $f$ would also be perfect on some restriction to an infinite set. Therefore one of these arrays is bad, and this is clearly a witnessing array for $f$.
\[Prop:WB->Preserves\] $\mathcal{O}$ is well-behaved $\longrightarrow$ $\mathcal{O}$ preserves bqo $\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}$ is bqo.
If $\mathcal{O}$ is well-behaved then given a bad $\mathcal{O}(Q)$-array $f$, we have a bad $Q$-array. If $Q$ were bqo this would give a contradiction and hence there is no such bad array $f$.
Now let $1=\{0\}$ be the singleton quasi-order, clearly then $1$ is bqo. Thus if $\mathcal{O}$ preserves bqo then $\mathcal{O}(1)$ is bqo. Clearly $\mathcal{O}(1)$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}$, therefore $\mathcal{O}$ is also bqo.
Note that the converse $\mathcal{O}$ is bqo $\longrightarrow$ $\mathcal{O}$ preserves bqo does not hold. For a counter example let $Z$ be the partial order consisting of points $0_n$ and $1_n$ for $n\in \omega$; ordered so that for $a,b\in Z$, we have $a{\leqslant}b$ iff there is some $n\in \omega$ such that $a\in\{0_n,0_{n+1}\}$ and $b=1_n$. Then $\{Z\}$ is clearly bqo but it does not preserve bqo.
It is not known whether or not the other converse holds, i.e. is it the case that $$\mathcal{O}\mbox{ preserves bqo }\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}\mbox{ is well-behaved}?$$ This is an interesting technical question, which was asked by Thomas in [@wqoforbpl].
\[Defn:Colours\^q\] We give some notation for the set of all of possible coloured copies of some $\gamma\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$. Given a concrete category $\mathcal{O}$, a quasi-order $Q$ and $\gamma\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$ we define $$Q^\gamma=\{\langle \gamma,c\rangle\mid c:\gamma \rightarrow Q\}\subseteq \mathcal{O}(Q).$$ If $\gamma_0,\gamma_1\in \mathcal{O}(Q)$ are such that there is some $\gamma\in \mathcal{O}$ with $\gamma_0,\gamma_1\in Q^\gamma$, then we say that $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_1$ *have the same structure*.
Partial orders
--------------
We define ${\mathrm{Card}}$ as the class of cardinals, ${\mathrm{On}}$ as the class of ordinals and ${\mathrm{On}}^*=\{\alpha^*:\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}\}$, where $\alpha^*$ is a reversed copy of $\alpha$ for every $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$.
\[Thm:OnWB\] ${\mathrm{On}}$ is well-behaved.
See [@simpson; @nashwilliamsseqs].
If $P$ is a partial order, a *chain* of $P$ is a subset with no incomparable elements. An *antichain* of $P$ is a pairwise incomparable subset.
We let $1=\{0\}$ be the partial order consisting of a single point. For $\kappa\in {\mathrm{Card}}$ we let ${\mathrm{A}_{\kappa}}$ be the antichain of size $\kappa$. For $n\in \omega$ we let ${\mathrm{C}_{n}}$ be the chain of length $n$.
We will now define some notation for traversing partial orders.
\[Defn:TraversingPOs\] Let $P$ be a partial order and $x\in P$, we define: $${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}x=\{y\in P\mid y{\leqslant}x\},\hspace{10pt}
{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}x=\{y\in P\mid y{\geqslant}x\},$$ $${\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}x=\{y\in P\mid y< x\},\hspace{10pt}
{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}x=\{y\in P\mid y> x\}.$$ For $x,y\in P$, if it exists, we define the meet $x\wedge y$ to be the supremum of ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}x\cap {\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}y$.
Let $P$ be a partial order and $P'\subseteq P$. Then:
- we call $P'$ ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed if $(\forall x\in P')$, ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}x=\{y\in P\mid y{\leqslant}x\} \subseteq P'$,
- we call $P'$ ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed if $(\forall x\in P')$, ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}x=\{y\in P\mid y{\geqslant}x\} \subseteq P'$.
\[Defn:Nfree\] We define the partial order $N=\{0,1,2,3\}$ as follows. For $a,b\in N$ we let $a<b$ iff $a=1$ and $b\in \{0,2\}$ or $a=3$ and $b=2$, (see Figure \[Fig:N\]). A partial order is called *$N$-free* if it contains no subset isomorphic to $N$.
(0,0) – (0,1); (0,1) – (1,0); (1,0) – (1,1); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0,0) [$0$]{}; at (0,1) [$1$]{}; at (1,0) [$2$]{}; at (1,1) [$3$]{};
\[Fig:Antichain\]
\[Defn:LOBasics\]
- A *linear order* is a partial order $L$ with no incomparable elements.
- A linear order $L$ is *well-founded* if it has no infinite descending sequence.
- A linear order $L$ is *scattered* if $\mathbb{Q}\not {\leqslant}L$.
- A linear order $L$ is *$\sigma$-scattered* iff $L$ can be partitioned into countably many scattered linear orders.
- We denote the class of all linear orders as $\mathscr{L}$.
- We denote the class of scattered linear orders as ${\mathscr{S}}$.
- We denote the class of $\sigma$-scattered linear orders as ${\mathscr{M}}$.
- We denote the class of countable linear orders as ${\mathscr{C}}$.
Given $r,r'\in \mathscr{L}$ and linear sequences $k=\langle k_i:i\in r\rangle$ and $k'=\langle k'_j:j\in r'\rangle$, we denote by ${\sqsubseteq}$ the initial segment relation, and ${\sqsubset}$ the strict initial segment relation. That is $$k{\sqsubseteq}k'\mbox{ iff }k=k'\mbox{ or } k=\langle k'_i:i<j\rangle \mbox{ or } k=\langle k'_i:i{\leqslant}j\rangle\mbox{ for some } j\in r'$$ and $k{\sqsubset}k'\mbox{ iff } k{\sqsubseteq}k'\mbox{ and } k\neq k'.$ We denote by $k{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}k'$ the concatenation of $k$ and $k'$. We also define ${\mathrm{ot}}(k)=r$, set $k'\setminus k=\langle k'_i:i\in r'\setminus r\rangle$, and call $k_i$ the *$i$th element* of $k$.
\[Defn:Sums\] Let $P$ be a partial order, and for each $p\in P$, let $P_p$ be a partial order. We define the $P$-sum of the $P_p$ denoted by $\sum_{p\in P}P_p$ as the set $\bigsqcup_{p\in P}P_p$ ordered by letting $a{\leqslant}b$ iff
- there is some $p\in P$ such that $a,b\in P_p$ and $a{\leqslant}_{P_p}b$, or
- there are $p,q\in P$ such that $a\in P_p$, $b\in P_q$ and $p<_{P} q$.
\[Defn:Lclosure\] If $\mathbb{L}$ is a class of linear orders, we define ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ as the least class containing $\mathbb{L}\cup \omega$ and closed under $L$-sums for all $L\in {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$.
\[Thm:Hausdorff\] If $\mathbb{L}={\mathrm{On}}\cup{\mathrm{On}}^*$ then ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}={\mathscr{S}}$.
See [@Hausdorff; @simpson].
\[Defn:LTree\] A partial order $T$ is called a *tree* iff $(\forall t\in T)$, ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}t$ is a well-founded linear order. If $\mathbb{L}$ is a class of linear orders, we call $T$ a $\mathbb{L}$-tree iff every chain of $T$ has order type in $\mathbb{L}$ and for every $x,y\in T$, we have ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}x$ is a linear order and the meet $x\wedge y$ exists.
Note that ${\mathrm{On}}$-trees are simply trees, and $\mathscr{L}$-trees are the most general ‘tree-like’ partial orders.
We make explicit the definition of $\mathbb{L}$-tree, in order to clarify because in the literature on bqo theory, the term ‘tree’ has varied quite significantly. Indeed, the historical time line of bqo results for trees in the authors’ terminology is as follows: Nash-Williams proved that the class of *all* trees is bqo [@NWInfTrees], Laver proved that the class of countable increasing unions of trees that do not embed $2^{<\omega}$ is bqo [@LaverClassOfTrees], then Corominas proved that the class of all countable trees is bqo [@Corominas]. This is perplexing since each successive breakthrough seems to be a subclass of the previous! However the differences become clear when we use this notation. Nash-Williams proved that a class of $\omega+1$-trees[^5] is bqo, Laver proved that a class of ${\mathrm{On}}$-trees are bqo, and Corominas proved that a class of ${\mathscr{C}}$-trees is bqo.
\[Defn:TreeHeight\]\[Defn:TreeBasics\] For a tree $T$ we call $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$ the *height* of $T$ iff $\alpha=\sup_{x\in T}\{{\mathrm{ot}}({\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}x)\}$.
\[Defn:WBScatteredTrees\] Let $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders and $T$ be an $\mathscr{L}$-tree, then we define as follows:
- $t\in T$ is called a *leaf* of $T$ if there is no $t'\in T$ such that $t'>t$.
- $T$ is *rooted* iff $T$ has a minimal element, denoted ${\mbox{root}(T)}$.
- $T$ is *chain-finite* iff every chain of $T$ is finite.
Given a rooted chain-finite tree $T$, and some $t\in T$ we define inductively[^6] $${\mbox{rank}}(t)=\sup\{{\mbox{rank}}(s)+1\mid t<_Ts\}.$$ We then define the tree rank of $T$ as ${\mbox{rank}}(T)={\mbox{rank}}({\mbox{root}(T)})$.
Operator construction {#Section:OpConstruction}
=====================
In this section we give the definitions required to translate more complicated structured trees (i.e. not necessarily chain-finite) into an operator algebra construction similar to Pouzet’s [@PouzetApps].
First we must give the parameters of our construction. We will always let:
- ${\mathcal{Q}}$ be concrete category;
- ${\mathcal{B}}$ be a subset of ${\mathcal{Q}}$;
- ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a concrete category;
- ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a quasi-ordered class of functions $f$ with range in ${\mathcal{Q}}$;
- ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a non-empty class of linear orders that is closed under taking non-empty subsets;
- ${\mathcal{C}}$ denote the whole system $\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$.
Intuitively, ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is going to be the class of objects for which we will be constructing a bqo subclass; ${\mathcal{B}}$ will be a class of ‘simple’ objects that we will start the construction from; ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a class of possible *arities* which we will use to generalise the notion of a multivariate function; ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a class of functions which we will be applying to elements of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ in order to construct more complex elements of ${\mathcal{Q}}$; and ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a class of linear orders which we will allow iteration of functions from ${\mathcal{F}}$ over. We will keep these standard symbols when using this construction.
We restrict our attention to such ${\mathcal{Q}}, {\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}$, so that for every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ there is some ${\mathbf{a}}(f)\in {\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{b}(f)}\subseteq {\mathbf{a}}(f)$ with $${\mbox{dom}}(f)=\{a\in {\mathcal{Q}}^{{\mathbf{a}}(f)}\mid (\forall i\in {\mathbf{b}(f)}), {\mathbf{c}}_a(i)\in {\mathcal{B}}\}.$$ (Here ${\mathcal{Q}}^{{\mathbf{a}}(f)}$ is as from Definition \[Defn:Colours\^q\].) We call ${\mathbf{a}}(f)$ the *arity* of $f$. We think of the functions of ${\mathcal{F}}$ as having arguments structured by ${\mathbf{a}}(f)$. For example, if ${\mathbf{a}}(f)$ is a finite linear order of length $n$ then the arguments of $f$ are linearly ordered and $f$ has the form $f(x_1,...,x_n)$; if ${\mathbf{a}}(f)$ were an antichain, then the order on the $x_i$ would not matter; and if ${\mathbf{a}}(f)$ was the binary tree of height $2$ then we think of $f$ having form
at (-1.5,0.2) [$f$]{}; at (-1.1,0.2) [$\Big ($]{}; at (0,0.4) [$x$]{}; at (-0.5,0) [$y$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$z$]{}; at (1.1,0.2) [$\Big )$]{}; at (1.2,-0.05) [.]{};
We do this because for some functions it will be more convenient to think of the arguments arranged in some general partial order (particularly the sums of Definition \[Defn:Sums\]). We include ${\mathbf{b}(f)}$ in the definition, since in Section \[Section:StructuredRTrees\] it will be more convenient to only allow elements of ${\mathcal{B}}$ into some arguments of our functions. All other constructions used in this paper will have ${\mathbf{b}(f)}=\emptyset$ for every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$, in which case ${\mbox{dom}}(f)={\mathcal{Q}}^{{\mathbf{a}}(f)}$.
Let $Q$ be a quasi-order and $\mathbb{L}$ be some class of linear orders. Now we let
- ${\mathcal{Q}}=\mathscr{L}(Q)$ be the class of all $Q$-coloured linear orders;
- ${\mathcal{B}}=Q^1$, i.e. single points coloured by elements of $Q$;
- ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{L}\cup \omega$;
- ${\mathcal{F}}$ be the set of $L$-sums for all $L\in{\mathcal{A}}$, as defined in Definition \[Defn:Sums\], inheriting colours;
- ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$.
We order ${\mathcal{F}}$ by letting $\sum_A{\leqslant}_{\mathcal{F}}\sum_B$ iff $A{\leqslant}B$. For $\sum_L\in {\mathcal{F}}$ we have ${\mathbf{a}}(\sum_L)=L$ and ${\mathbf{b}(\sum_L)}=\emptyset$. Now define ${\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L}}^Q=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$. This relatively simple example will construct the class ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(Q)$, which will ultimately allow us to prove that if $\mathbb{L}$ is well-behaved, then ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is well-behaved.
\[Ex:POCONSTRUCTION\] Let $Q$ be a quasi-order; $Q'$ be $Q$ with an added minimal element $-\infty$; let $\mathbb{L}$ be some class of non-empty linear orders; and let $\mathbb{P}$ be some class of partial orders. Now we let
- ${\mathcal{Q}}$ be the class all of $Q'$-coloured partial orders;
- ${\mathcal{B}}=Q'^1$;
- ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{P}$;
- ${\mathcal{F}}$ be the set of $P$-sums for all $P\in \mathbb{P}$, inheriting colours;
- ${\mathcal{L}}={\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$.
We order ${\mathcal{F}}$ by letting $\sum_A{\leqslant}_{\mathcal{F}}\sum_B$ iff $A{\leqslant}B$. Now define ${\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}^Q=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$. This example will construct our class of $Q'$-coloured partial orders, that we will characterise in Section \[Section:PO\].
We wish to generalise Pouzet’s operator algebra construction in two ways. The first way will allow us to iterate functions over a linear order from ${\mathcal{L}}$, and the second way will allow us to take countable limits.
Iterating over ${\mathcal{L}}$
------------------------------
First we will define what is required for iteration. This will allow us to represent complicated functions in terms of simpler ones. For a basic example, suppose we would like to construct the $\omega$-sum as from Definition \[Defn:Sums\]. Given two linear orders $L_0$ and $L_1$, we can define the simple function $+$, so that $L_0+L_1$ is a copy of $L_0$ followed by a copy of $L_1$. Now suppose we iterate this function; we can easily define $L_0+L_1+L_2$ and $L_0+L_1+L_2+L_3$ and so on. This is easily done finitely many times (which is what Pouzet was doing when he used chain-finite trees [@PouzetApps]). But it is possible to iterate $+$ over a more complex linear order. Naturally, its $\omega$ iteration would be $\bigcup_{i\in \omega}L_i$ ordered by $a<b$ if $a\in L_i$, $b\in L_j$, $i<j$ or $i=j$ and $a<_{L_i}b$ (i.e. the $\omega$-sum). We need not stop there though, we could define this iteration over a larger linear order, e.g. its $\mathbb{Q}$ iteration could be defined similarly.
Here $+$ is really the function $\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}$. We think of this function as having arguments arranged in arity ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$. At each successive stage of the iteration we apply the next function into argument corresponding to the larger of the two points in ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$.[^7] If we repeatedly compose $\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}$ in this way, we get the functions $\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{3}}}$, $\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{4}}}$, and so on. If we allowed ourselves to compose over a linear order we could get $\sum_{\omega}$ or $\sum_\mathbb{Q}$ as in the previous paragraph. So in general we want to be able to turn linearly ordered lists of functions, each with a distinguished argument, into a new function that acts as their composition. This gives rise to the definition of a *composition sequence*, which will be a list of functions $f_i$ indexed by a linear order $r$, each with a distinguished argument $s_i$.
\[Defn:Iterable1\] We call $\eta$ a *composition sequence* iff $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ where $r\in {\mathcal{L}}$, and for all $i\in r$, we have $f_i\in {\mathcal{F}}$ and $s_i\in {\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$ such that if $i\neq \max(r)$ then $s_i\notin {\mathbf{b}(f)}$.
We call $r$ the *length* of the sequence $\eta$. For $i\in r$ let $$a^\eta_i=\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)\setminus \{s_i\} & \mbox{if} &i \neq \max (r) \\
{\mathbf{a}}(f_i) &\mbox{if}& i = \max (r)
\end{array}\right. .$$ We also define $A^\eta=\bigsqcup_{i\in r} a^\eta_i$ and $B^\eta=\bigsqcup_{i\in r}{\mathbf{b}(f_i)}$ so that $B^\eta\subseteq A^\eta$. For any $j\in r$, let $$\eta^-_j=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i{\leqslant}j\rangle$$ $$\eta^+_j=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i> j\rangle.$$
For each composition sequence $\eta$ we will define a function $f^\eta$ that will act as the composition of the functions $f_i$ (in order type $r$). We want $f_j$ to be applied to the composition of all of the $f_i$ (for $i>j$) in the argument $s_j$.
We require that for $i\in r$, if $i\neq \max(r)$ then $s_i\notin {\mathbf{b}(f)}$, because otherwise it could be that the composition of the $f_j$ for $j>i$ is not allowed into the domain of $f_i$ in position $s_i$.
\[Ex:Heta\] Suppose we want to define iteration of the sums of Definition \[Defn:Sums\] over a general linear order. Let $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ be a composition sequence, and for each $i\in r$, suppose ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$ is a partial order, $f_i$ is the ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$-sum, and $s_i\in {\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$. We turn this composition sequence into a new function $f^\eta$ that acts as the composition of the $f_i$ as follows. First define the partial order $H_\eta$ as the set $\bigsqcup_{i\in r} a_i^\eta$ ordered so that for $u,v\in H_\eta$ we let $u<v$ iff $u\in a_i^\eta$, $v\in a_j^\eta$ one of the following occurs:
- $i=j$ and $u<_{{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)}v$;
- $i<j$ and $u<_{{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)}s_i$;
- $i>j$ and $v>_{{\mathbf{a}}(f_j)}s_j$.
(See Figure \[Fig:Heta\].) We can then define our composition $f^\eta$ to be the $H_\eta$-sum. Notice that for finite $r$, this is equivalent to the usual finite composition of sums, each composed in the argument $s_i$.
(0,0)–(0,6); (0,6)–(16,0); (16,0)–(12,8); (16,0)–(20,8); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.4\]; (0,6) circle \[radius=0.4\]; (16,0) circle \[radius=0.4\]; at (0,3) [$\Bigg \{$]{}; at (-2.3,3) [$a^\eta_0$]{};
(12,8)– (12,11); (12,11)–(20,8); (20,8)–(18,12); (20,8)–(22,12); (12,8) circle \[radius=0.2\]; (12,11) circle \[radius=0.2\]; (20,8) circle \[radius=0.2\]; at (12,9.5) [$\Bigg \{$]{}; at (11,9.5) [$a^\eta_1$]{};
(18,12)–(18,13.5); (18,13.5)–(22,12); (22,12)–(21,14); (22,12)–(23,14); (18,12) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (18,13.5) circle \[radius=0.1\]; (22,12) circle \[radius=0.1\]; at (18,12.7) [$\Big \{$]{}; at (17,12.7) [$a^\eta_2$]{};
(21,14)–(21,14.75); (21,14.75)–(23,14); (23,14)–(22.5,15); (23,14)–(23.5,15); (21,14) circle \[radius=0.05\]; (21,14.75) circle \[radius=0.05\]; (23,14) circle \[radius=0.05\]; at (21,14.3) [$\big \{$]{}; at (20,14.3) [$a^\eta_3$]{};
(22.5,15)–(22.5,15.375); (22.5,15.375)–(23.5,15); (22.5,15) circle \[radius=0.025\]; (22.5,15.375) circle \[radius=0.025\]; (23.5,15) circle \[radius=0.025\];
(24,16) circle \[radius=0.01\]; (23.75,15.75) circle \[radius=0.01\]; (23.5,15.5) circle \[radius=0.01\];
The next definition allows us, in a general setting, to turn composition sequences into functions that will act as the linear composition of the functions in the composition sequence.
\[Defn:Riterable\] ${\mathcal{F}}$ is called ${\mathcal{L}}$-*iterable* if we distinguish a class ${\mathcal{F}}^{\mathcal{L}}$ consisting of *composition functions* $f^\eta$, for every composition sequence $\eta=\langle \langle f_i, s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ where $$f^\eta:\{\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mathcal{Q}}^{A^\eta} \mid (\forall u\in B^\eta),q_u\in {\mathcal{B}}\}\longrightarrow {\mathcal{Q}},$$ and ${\mathcal{F}}^{\mathcal{L}}$ satisfies the following properties.
(i) \[Item:Riterable4\] For all $f_0\in {\mathcal{F}}$ and $s_0\in {\mathbf{a}}(f_0)$, we have $f^{\langle \langle f_0,s_0\rangle \rangle}=f_0$.
(ii) \[Item:Riterable2\] Given $\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ and some $j\in r$, set $q_{s_j}=f^{\eta^+_j}(\langle q_u:u\in a^\eta_i, i>j\rangle)$, then $$f^\eta(\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle)=f^{\eta^-_j}(\langle q_u:u\in A^{\eta^-_j}\rangle).$$
So we require that when we split $\eta$ up into initial and final sections $\eta^-_j$ and $\eta^+_j$, the composition will behave as expected (i.e. $f^\eta$ is $f^{\eta^-_j}$ applied to $f^{\eta^+_j}$). The remaining arguments of $f_i$ are then those in positions corresponding to elements of $a^\eta_i$ (see Figure \[Fig:feta\_args\]), so we consider $f^\eta$ as a multivariate function from ${\mathcal{Q}}$, which has arguments for each element of $a_i^\eta$, $(i\in r)$, and only allows values admissible into ${\mbox{dom}}(f_i)$ (i.e. those respecting that if $u\in {\mathbf{b}(f_i)}$ then $q_u\in {\mathcal{B}}$).
at (1,5) [$r$]{}; (0.1,0.5) – (1,5); (0.8,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0.8,4) [$i$]{}; (0.8,4) – (1.16,3.3); (0.8,4) – (1.66,3.3); (0.8,4) – (2.16,3.3); (0.8,4) – (2.66,3.3); (0.66,3.3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0.66,3.3) [$s_i$]{}; at (1.93,3.1) [$\Bigg \{$]{}; at (1.93,2.75) [$a^\eta_i$]{};
(0.6,3) – (-0.04,2.3); (0.6,3) – (0.96,2.3); (0.6,3) – (1.46,2.3); (0.6,3) – (1.96,2.3); (0.6,3) – (2.46,2.3); (0.6,3) – (-0.44,2.3); (0.4,2) – (-0.24,1.3); (0.4,2) – (0.76,1.3); (0.4,2) – (1.26,1.3); (0.4,2) – (1.76,1.3); (0.4,2) – (2.26,1.3); (0.4,2) – (2.76,1.3);
For a composition sequence $\eta$ of length $r$, notice that elements of $A^\eta$ can be indexed by $i\in r$ and $u\in a^\eta_i$, so we will sometimes write elements of ${\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ as $\langle q_{i,u}:i\in r, u\in a^\eta_i\rangle$.
\[Lemma:PORiterable\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}^Q=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$ for some quasi-order $Q$, some class of linear orders $\mathbb{L}$ and some class of partial orders $\mathbb{P}$. Then ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-*iterable*.
Given a composition sequence $\eta$, define $f^\eta=\sum_{H_\eta}$ as in Example \[Ex:Heta\]. Consider Definition \[Defn:Riterable\], clearly $f^\eta$ satisfies (\[Item:Riterable4\]). It remains to show (\[Item:Riterable2\]), so let $\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ and for some $i\in r$, let $q_{s_i}=f^{\eta^+_i}(\langle q_u:u\in a^\eta_i, j>i\rangle)$. We have that $H_{\eta^+_i}=\bigsqcup_{j>i}a^\eta_j$ and $H_{\eta^-_i}=\{s_i\}\sqcup\bigsqcup_{j{\leqslant}i}a^\eta_j$. So that the $H_{\eta^-_i}$-sum of $H_{\eta^+_i}$ in position $s_i$ and single points everywhere else is precisely $H_\eta$. Similarly, we see that $$f^\eta(\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle)=\sum_{u\in H_\eta}q_u=\sum_{u\in H_{\eta^-_i}}q_u=f^{\eta^-_i}(\langle q_u:u\in a^\eta_i, j{\leqslant}i\rangle).$$ So we have (\[Item:Riterable2\]) as required.
Let $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ and $\nu=\langle \langle f'_i,s'_i\rangle:i\in r'\rangle$ be composition sequences. We define $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$ iff there is an embedding $\varphi:r\rightarrow r'$ such that for every $i\in r$ we have $f_i{\leqslant}_{\mathcal{F}}f'_{\varphi(i)}$ and an embedding $\varphi_i$ witnessing ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i){\leqslant}{\mathbf{a}}(f'_{\varphi(i)})$, such that whenever $i\neq \max(r)$, we have $\varphi_i(s_i)=s'_{\varphi(i)}$ . If $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$ we define $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}:A^\eta\rightarrow A^\nu$ so that when $u\in a^\eta_i$ we have $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)=\varphi_i(u)$.
We call $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ *extensive* if for all $q\in {\mathcal{Q}}$ and $x\in {\mbox{dom}}(f)$ with $i\in x$ such that ${\mathbf{c}}(i)=q$, we have that $q{\leqslant}_{\mathcal{Q}}f(x)$.
The idea of the next definition is to express the notion that applying ‘short’ lists of ‘small’ functions to ‘small’ objects will give a smaller result than applying ‘long’ lists of ‘large’ functions to ‘large’ objects.
\[Defn:InfExtensive\] We call ${\mathcal{C}}=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$ *infinitely extensive* iff:
- ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable;
- every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is extensive;
- for any two composition sequences $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$ and any $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$, $k'=\langle q'_u:u\in A^\nu\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\nu)$, if for all $u\in A^\eta$ we have embeddings $\varphi_u$ witnessing $q_u{\leqslant}q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$, then we have a corresponding embedding $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k,k'}$ witnessing $f^\eta(k){\leqslant}_{\mathcal{Q}}f^\nu(k')$.
\[Lemma:LOinfExt\] Let $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders and $Q$ be an arbitrary quasi-order, then ${\mathcal{C}}^Q_{\mathbb{L}}$ is infinitely extensive.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}^Q_{\mathbb{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$. Since ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$ it is clear that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable. We have that every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is extensive, because if we take the sum of some linear orders, then each of the linear orders embeds into the sum. Now suppose as in Definition \[Defn:InfExtensive\] we have composition sequences $$\eta=\langle \langle \sum_A,s\rangle\rangle \mbox{ and }\nu=\langle \langle \sum_B,s'\rangle\rangle$$ with $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$ and $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$, $k'=\langle q'_u:u\in A^\nu\rangle\in{\mbox{dom}}(f^\nu)$ such that $q_u{\leqslant}q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$ for each $u\in A^\eta$, with $\varphi_u$ a witnessing embedding.
So we have that $f^\eta(k)=\sum_{u\in A}q_u$ and $f^\nu(k)=\sum_{u\in B}q'_u$. Moreover, $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}$ is an embedding from $A$ to $B$. So we define $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k,k'}:f^\eta(k)\rightarrow f^\nu(k')$ so that for $a\in f^\eta(k)$, with $a\in q_u$ we have $$\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k,k'}(a)=\varphi_u(a)\in q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}\subseteq f^\nu(k').$$ Then $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k,k'}$ is clearly an embedding. Hence ${\mathcal{C}}^Q_{\mathbb{L}}$ is infinitely extensive.
\[Lemma:RealInfExtensive\] Suppose ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive. Let $\eta$ be a composition sequence and $k=\langle q_u :u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$. Then for any $u\in A^\eta$, we have $q_u{\leqslant}f^\eta(k)$.
Let $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle : i\in r\rangle$. Pick some $u\in A^\eta$ and let $i\in r$ be such that $u\in a^\eta_i$. Set $\eta'=\langle\langle f_i,s_i\rangle\rangle$ and $q_{s_i}=f^{\eta^+_i}(\langle q_v:v\in a^\eta_j, j>i\rangle)$. Since $f_i\in {\mathcal{F}}$ we have $f_i$ is extensive, therefore $$q_u{\leqslant}f_i(\langle q_v:v\in {\mathbf{a}}(f_i)\rangle)= f^{\eta'}(\langle q_v:v\in A^{\eta'}\rangle).$$ Then by a simple application of the infinite extensivity of ${\mathcal{C}}$, we see that $$f^{\eta'}(\langle q_v:v\in A^{\eta'}\rangle) {\leqslant}f^{\eta^-_i}(\langle q_v:v\in A^{\eta^-_i}\rangle).$$ Now by ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterability of ${\mathcal{F}}$, we have $$f^{\eta^-_i}(\langle q_v:v\in A^{\eta^-_i}\rangle)=f^\eta(k).$$ So that $q_u{\leqslant}f^\eta(k)$, which gives the lemma.
\[Defn:amrs\] When ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable we define ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\subseteq {\mathcal{Q}}$ as the smallest class containing ${\mathcal{B}}$ and closed under applying $f^\eta$ for any composition sequence $\eta$.
\[Ex:ScatLO\] Following Definitions \[Defn:LOBasics\] and \[Defn:Sums\]. Let ${\mathcal{Q}}$ be the class of linear orders; ${\mathcal{B}}=\{1\}\subseteq {\mathcal{Q}}$; ${\mathcal{A}}={\mathrm{On}}\cup {\mathrm{On}}^*$ and ${\mathcal{F}}=\{\sum_\alpha\mid \alpha\in {\mathcal{A}}\}$ be the class of ordinal sums and reversed ordinal sums; finally set ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$. Then ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}={\mathscr{S}}$ the class of scattered linear orders. This is precisely Theorem \[Thm:Hausdorff\], Hausdorff’s theorem on scattered order types [@Hausdorff].
\[Rk:amrs\] We can construct ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ level by level. Starting with ${\mathcal{B}}$; at successor stages applying $f^\eta$ (for every composition sequence $\eta$) to every element of the previous level; and at limit stages taking unions. This allows the definition of an ordinal rank of an element of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. So for $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, we denote by ${\mbox{rank}}(x)$ the least $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$ such that $x$ appears at level $\alpha$ of this construction.
We define ${\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha=\{x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\mid {\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha\}$ and ${\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}=\{x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\mid {\mbox{rank}}(x)<\alpha\}$. For each composition sequence $\eta$ we also define, $${\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}=\{\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)\mid (\forall u\in A^\eta), {\mbox{rank}}(q_u)<\alpha\}.$$
Limits
------
Now we will define limits, which will allow us to extend the construction further. For example, when we choose our parameters so that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ gives us scattered linear orderings (Example \[Ex:ScatLO\]), taking limits will give us the $\sigma$-scattered linear orderings of [@LaverFrOTconj]. The next definition will allow us to chain together many embeddings eventually allowing us to produce embeddings between limits.
\[Defn:Extendible\] We call ${\mathcal{C}}$ *extendible* iff ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive and satisfies the following property. For any two composition sequences $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$, and any $k_0=\langle q^0_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in{\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$, $k_1=\langle q^1_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in{\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$, and $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\nu\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\nu)$; if for all $u\in A^\eta$ we have:
- $q^0_u{\leqslant}q^1_u$ with $\mu_u$ a witnessing embedding;
- $q^0_u{\leqslant}q_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$ with $\varphi_u$ a witnessing embedding;
- $q^1_u{\leqslant}q_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$ with $\psi_u$ a witnessing embedding;
- $\varphi_u=\psi_u\circ \mu_u$;
then we have $$\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k_0,k}=\psi_{\eta,\nu}^{k_1,k}\circ\mu_{\eta,\eta}^{k_0,k_1}.$$
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}^Q=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$ for some quasi-order $Q$, some class of linear orders $\mathbb{L}$ and some class of partial orders $\mathbb{P}$. Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible.
By Lemma \[Lemma:PORiterable\] we know that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable. If we take the sum of some partial orders, then each of these partial orders embeds into the sum and therefore every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is extensive.
Suppose now as in Definition \[Defn:InfExtensive\] that we have composition sequences $$\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle \mbox{ and }\nu=\langle \langle g_i,s'_i\rangle:i\in r'\rangle$$ with $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$ and $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ and $k'=\langle q'_u:u\in A^{\nu}\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\nu})$ such that $q_u{\leqslant}q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$ for each $u\in A^{\eta}$, with $\varphi_u$ a witnessing embedding.
We have that $f^\eta(k)=\sum_{u\in H_\eta}q_u$ and $f^\nu(k')=\sum_{u\in H_\nu}q'_u$. Moreover $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}$ is an embedding from $H_\eta$ to $H_\nu$. So we define $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k,k'}:f^\eta(k)\rightarrow f^\nu(k')$ so that for $a\in f^\eta(k)$, with $a\in q_u$ we have $$\varphi_{\eta,\nu}^{k,k'}(a)=\varphi_u(a)\in q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}.$$ Which is clearly an embedding, hence ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive.
Now suppose that $\hat{k}=\langle \hat{q}_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle$ is such that $q_u{\leqslant}\hat{q}_u$ for all $u\in A^\eta$, with some witnessing embedding $\mu_u$. Suppose also that $\hat{q}_u{\leqslant}q'_{\varphi(\eta,\nu)}$ for each $u\in A^\eta$, with $\psi_u$ a witnessing embedding, and that $\varphi_u=\psi_u\circ \mu_u$. Then for $a\in f^\eta(k)$, with $a\in q_u$ we have $$\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)=\varphi_u(a)=\psi_u\circ\mu_u(a)\in q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$$ and $\mu^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)=\mu_u(a)\in \hat{q}_u$, so that $$\psi^{\hat{k},k'}_{\eta,\nu}\circ \mu^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)=\psi_u\circ \mu_u(a)\in q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}.$$ Thus we have verified the conditions of Definition \[Defn:Extendible\], and ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible.
\[Rk:composition\] Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ with ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha$. So for some composition sequence $\eta$, we have that $x=f^\eta(\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta \rangle)$, with $q_u\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ for all $u\in A^\eta$. Applying the same reasoning to each of the $q_u$, it is then possible to view $x$ as a composition of some more composition functions, applied to further lower ranked elements or *fragments* (see Figure \[Fig:CompArgs\]).
at (1,5) [$f^\eta$]{}; (0.1,0.5) – (1,5); (0.8,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0.8,4) [$i$]{}; (0.8,4) – (0.16,3.3); (0.8,4) – (1.16,3.3); (0.8,4) – (1.66,3.3); (0.8,4) – (2.16,3.3); (0.8,4) – (2.66,3.3); (2.16,3.3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (2.16,3.3) [$f^\nu$]{}; (0.6,3) – (-0.04,2.3); (0.6,3) – (0.96,2.3); (0.6,3) – (1.46,2.3); (0.6,3) – (-0.44,2.3); (0.4,2) – (-0.24,1.3); (0.4,2) – (0.76,1.3); (0.4,2) – (1.26,1.3); (0.4,2) – (1.76,1.3); (2.16,3.3) – (2.92,-0.5); (2.4,2) – (2.08,1.3); (2.4,2) – (3.08,1.3); (2.4,2) – (3.58,1.3); (2.4,2) – (4.08,1.3);
(2.6,1) – (1.78,0.3); (2.6,1) – (2.28,0.3); (2.6,1) – (3.28,0.3); (2.6,1) – (3.78,0.3);
We repeat this process, splitting fragments into more fragments. Because the ranks are well-founded we will eventually obtain $g$, a composition of many $f^\eta$, and an element $d$ of ${\mbox{dom}}(g)$, which is a configuration of elements of ${\mathcal{B}}$ such that $g(d)=x$. Since $g$ is just a composition of $f^\eta$, it will usually be possible to compose further still.
We now make precise the notion of composing many $f^\eta$.
\[Defn:Composing\] Let ${\mathfrak{I}}$ be a tree of finite sequences of elements of $\bigcup {\mathcal{L}}\times \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}$ under ${\sqsubseteq}$, and let ${\mathfrak{D}}$ be the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}$. Suppose that ${\mathfrak{I}}$ has a ${\sqsubseteq}$-minimal element,[^8] and that we have ${\mathfrak{F}}=\{\eta(\vec{p}):\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}\}$ with each $\eta(\vec{p})$ a composition sequence. We write $r(\vec{p})$ for the length of $\eta(\vec{p})$. Now suppose that for each $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}$ we have $$\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle\in {\mathfrak{I}}\mbox{ iff }i\in r(\vec{p}) \mbox{ and }u\in a^{\eta(\vec{p})}_i$$ then we call ${\mathfrak{F}}$ an *composition set* and ${\mathfrak{I}}$ a set of *position sequences* of ${\mathfrak{F}}$. If additionally ${\mathfrak{I}}$ is a chain-finite tree under ${\sqsubseteq}$ then we call ${\mathfrak{F}}$ *admissible*.
If ${\mathfrak{F}}$ is admissible we define the *composition of ${\mathfrak{F}}$*, a new function $g^{\mathfrak{F}}:{\mathcal{Q}}^{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{Q}}$. To do so, we determine the value of $g^{\mathfrak{F}}(\langle q_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle )$. When $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}$ we define inductively $$k^{\vec{p}}=\langle k_{i,u}^{\vec{p}}:i\in r(\vec{p}),u\in a^{\eta(\vec{p})}_i\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta(\vec{p})}),$$ such that for each $i\in r(\vec{p})$ and each $u\in a_i^{\eta(\vec{p})}$ we have $$k^{\vec{p}}_{i,u}=
\left \{ \begin{array}{lcl}
f^{\eta(\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle)}(k^{\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle}) & : & \vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle\notin {\mathfrak{D}}\\
q_{\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle} & : & \vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle\in {\mathfrak{D}}\end{array}
\right ..$$ Since ${\mathfrak{I}}$ was a chain-finite tree, these $k^{\vec{p}}$ are well-defined. Now when ${\mathfrak{F}}\neq \emptyset$, we define $$g^{\mathfrak{F}}(\langle q_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle )=f^{\eta(\langle \rangle)}(k^{\langle \rangle}),$$ and when ${\mathfrak{I}}={\mathfrak{D}}=\{\langle \rangle\}$ so that ${\mathfrak{F}}=\emptyset$, we define $g^{\mathfrak{F}}(\langle x \rangle)=x$ for every $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}$.
Let ${\mathfrak{F}}$ be an admissible composition set and ${\mathfrak{I}}$ be a set of position sequences of ${\mathfrak{F}}$. For $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}$ we define $${\mathfrak{F}}(\vec{p})=\{\eta(\vec{u})\in {\mathfrak{F}}\mid \vec{p}{\sqsubseteq}\vec{u}\}$$ and ${\mathfrak{I}}(\vec{p})=\{\vec{u}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\mid \vec{p}{\sqsubseteq}\vec{u}\}$. We notice that ${\mathfrak{F}}(\vec{p})$ is an admissible composition set and ${\mathfrak{I}}(\vec{p})$ is a set of position sequences of ${\mathfrak{F}}(\vec{p})$. We also define ${\mathfrak{D}}(\vec{p})$ to be the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}(\vec{p})$.
Let ${\mathfrak{F}}$ be an admissible composition set. We call $g^{{\mathfrak{F}}}$ a *decomposition function* for $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, whenever there is some $\langle q_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle \in {\mbox{dom}}(g^{{\mathfrak{F}}})$, such that $(\forall \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}})$, $q_{\vec{p}}\in {\mathcal{B}}$ and $$x=g^{{\mathfrak{F}}}(\langle q_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle).$$
\[Prop:Reduction\] Let $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha$ then for some composition sequence $\eta$ and $k\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$, we have $x=f^\eta(k)$.
Clear by Remark \[Rk:amrs\].
\[Lemma:decompfn\] For any $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, there is a decomposition function $g$ for $x$.
Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, then we will define a decomposition function $g$ for $x$ inductively on the rank of $x$ as follows. If ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=0$ then $x\in {\mathcal{B}}$ so set ${\mathfrak{F}}=\emptyset$ and ${\mathfrak{I}}={\mathfrak{D}}=\{\langle \rangle\}$, so that $g^{\mathfrak{F}}(\langle x\rangle)=x$ is a decomposition function for $x$.
Suppose for induction that for every $q\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ there is a decomposition function for $x$. If ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha>0$, then $x=f^\eta(k)$ for some composition sequence $\eta$ of length $r$, and $$k=\langle q_{i,u}:i\in r,u\in a^\eta_i\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}.$$ So by the induction hypothesis, for each $i\in r$ and $u\in a^\eta_i$, we see that $q_{i,u}=g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_{i,u}}(d_{i,u})$ for some admissible composition set ${\mathfrak{F}}_{i,u}=\{\eta_{i,u}(\vec{p})\mid \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}_{i,u}\}$ with ${\mathfrak{I}}_{i,u}$ a set of position sequences for ${\mathfrak{F}}_{i,u}$ and some $d_{i,u}=\langle d^{i,u}_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_{i,u}\rangle$, where ${\mathfrak{D}}_{i,u}$ is the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}_{i,u}$. Let $${\mathfrak{I}}=\{\langle i,u\rangle{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\vec{p}:i\in r, u\in a^\eta_i, \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{F}}_{i,u}\}\cup \{\langle \rangle\},$$ and let ${\mathfrak{D}}$ be the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}$. We set $\eta(\langle \rangle)=\eta$ and for $i\in r$ and $u\in a^\eta_i$, we set $\eta(\langle i,u\rangle{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\vec{p})=\eta_{i,u}(\vec{p})$. Now let ${\mathfrak{F}}=\{\eta(\vec{p})\mid \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\}$, so that clearly ${\mathfrak{F}}$ is an admissible composition set. Finally we set $d_{\langle i,u\rangle{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\vec{p}}=d^{i,u}_{\vec{p}}$ and $d=\langle d_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle$ now we have by construction $$g^{\mathfrak{F}}(d)=f^\eta(\langle g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_{i,u}}(d_{i,u}):i\in r, u\in a^\eta_i\rangle)=f^\eta(k)=x.$$ Thus $g^{\mathfrak{F}}$ is a decomposition function for $x$, which completes the induction.
We call a decomposition function *standard* if it can be constructed by the method of Lemma \[Lemma:decompfn\].
\[Defn:LimitSequence\] Let $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ be a sequence of elements of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{Q}}$ has a minimal element $q_0$ and for every $n\in \omega$, there is a standard decomposition function $g_n=g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_n}$ for $x_n$, and some $k_n=\langle k_n^{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_n\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_n})$ with $g_n(k_n)=x_n$. Let ${\mathfrak{I}}_n$ be the set of position sequences of ${\mathfrak{F}}_n$ and ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ be the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}_n$. Then we call $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ a *limiting sequence* if there are such ${\mathfrak{I}}_n$, ${\mathfrak{F}}_n$, ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ and $k_n$ such that the following properties hold for every $n\in \omega$.
1. \[Item:LimitSeq1\] ${\mathfrak{I}}_{n}$ is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed subset of ${\mathfrak{I}}_{n+1}$.
2. \[Item:LimitSeq2\] ${\mathfrak{F}}_{n+1}=\{\eta_n(\vec{p})\mid \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}_{n}\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}_{n}\}$.
3. \[Item:LimitSeq3\] $\eta_n(\vec{p}){\sqsubseteq}\eta_{n+1}(\vec{p})$ for every $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}_{n}\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}_{n}$.
4. \[Item:LimitSeq4\] If $\vec{u}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_m$ for all $m{\geqslant}n$, then for all $m{\geqslant}n$ we have $k_{n}^{\vec{u}}=k_m^{\vec{u}}$.
5. \[Item:LimitSeq5\] If $\vec{u}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_n$ and $\vec{v}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_m$ with $n<m$ and $\vec{u}{\sqsubset}\vec{v}$, then $k_n^{\vec{u}}=q_0$, and $\forall \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_{n+1}$ such that $\vec{u}{\sqsubseteq}\vec{p}$ we have in fact $\vec{u}{\sqsubset}\vec{p}$.
Limiting sequences $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ are those sequences with an increasing construction; that is to say that $x_{n+1}$ is produced by *the same* set of functions as $x_n$ applied to increasingly more functions. We could perhaps be slightly less restrictive in the definition, particularly in conditions (\[Item:LimitSeq4\]) and (\[Item:LimitSeq5\]), however these conditions simplify some of the work later on and do not reduce the set of limits we can produce.[^9] This condition determines the characteristics of limits, in particular it enforces that our bqo class of $\sigma$-scattered trees will be those covered by *${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed* scattered trees (as opposed to any scattered trees).
\[Rk:Mu\] Suppose ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive, let $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ be a limiting sequence, and $\eta=\eta(\langle \rangle)$. So for each $n\in \omega$ we have $x_n=f^{\eta}(k^n)$ and $x_{n+1}=f^{\eta}(k^{n+1})$, for some $k^n=\langle q^n_u:u\in A^{\eta}\rangle$, $k^{n+1}=\langle q^{n+1}_u:u\in A^{\eta}\rangle$. It can be seen by an easy induction[^10] that $q^n_u{\leqslant}q^{n+1}_u$ with $\psi_u$ a witnessing embedding, for all $u\in A^{\eta}$. So to simplify notation, we let $\mu_n=\psi_{\eta,\eta}^{k^n,k^{n+1}}$.
Note that in all of the applications in this paper, we consider $x_n$ as a subset of $x_{n+1}$, in this case $\mu_n$ just acts as the identity on elements of $x_n$, and we can define the limit to be the union.
\[Defn:HasLimits\] Suppose that to every limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ we associate a unique *limit* $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}$. Let $\eta$ be a composition sequence, and for each $n\in \omega$ let $\eta_n{\sqsubseteq}\eta$ be a composition sequence so that $\eta_n{\sqsubseteq}\eta_{n+1}$, and $\eta=\bigcup_{n\in \omega} \eta_n$. Also let $k_n=\langle q_u^n:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta_n})$ be such that for every $u\in A^\eta$ we have $(q_u^n)_{n\in \omega}$ is a limiting sequence with limit $q_u$. We say that ${\mathcal{C}}$ *has limits* if the limit of $(f^{\eta_n}(k_n))_{n\in \omega}$ is precisely $f^\eta(\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle)$ for all such $\eta$, $\eta_n$ and $k_n$ $(n\in \omega)$.
\[Rk:PoLimits\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}^Q=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$ for some quasi-order $Q$, some class of linear orders $\mathbb{L}$ and some class of partial orders $\mathbb{P}$.
Given a limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$, we have by Remark \[Rk:Mu\] that $\mu_n$ was the embedding given by infinite extensiveness of ${\mathcal{C}}$ using the construction of each $x_n$. Each $x_{n+1}$ is $x_n$ with some elements coloured by $-\infty$ replaced by a larger partial order. The embedding $\mu_n$ then acts as the identity on everything that is not changed, and maps a point $a$ coloured by $-\infty$ that is replaced, into some element $b$ of the order that replaces it. Since it makes no difference to the order, we equate $a$ and $b$, and consider the underlying set of $x_n$ as a subset of the underlying set of $x_{n+1}$, possibly with some colours changing from $-\infty$. In this way each $\mu_n$ $(n\in \omega)$ becomes the identity map from the underlying set of $x_n$ to the underlying set of $x_{n+1}$.
Now given a limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ we have that $x_n\subseteq x_{n+1}$ for all $n\in \omega$. Hence we can define the limit $x$ to be the union of all of the $x_n$. This means that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits, because an $H_\eta$-sum of limits, is the limit of the $H_\eta$-sums of the elements of the limiting sequence.
Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits. Let ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}\subseteq {\mathcal{Q}}$ be the class containing all elements of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and all limits of limiting sequences in ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. We also define ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}={\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}\setminus {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}.$
Finally the following condition allows us to produce embeddings between limits.
\[Defn:NiceLimits\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits. Then we say that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has *nice limits* iff for any $x,y\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ with $x$ the limit of $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$, and for any $n\in \omega$; if there are embeddings $\varphi_n:x_n\rightarrow y$ such that $\varphi_{n}=\varphi_{n+1}\circ \mu_n$, then $x{\leqslant}y$.[^11]
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}^Q=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$ for some quasi-order $Q$, some class of linear orders $\mathbb{L}$ and some class of partial orders $\mathbb{P}$. Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ has nice limits.
Let $x,y\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ be such that $x$ is the limit of $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ and for any $n\in \omega$ we have embeddings $\varphi_n:x_n\rightarrow y$ such that $\varphi_n=\varphi_{n+1}\circ\mu_n$. We want to show that $x{\leqslant}y$.
By Remark \[Rk:PoLimits\] we consider each $x_n\subseteq x_{n+1}$ and each $\mu_n$ ($n\in \omega$) to be the identity map. So $\varphi_n=\varphi_{n+1}\circ\mu_n$ is equivalent to $a\in x_n$ implies $\varphi_{n+1}(a)=\varphi_n(a)$. Hence it is possible to define $\varphi:x\rightarrow y$ as the union of all of the $\varphi_n$. We claim that $\varphi$ is an embedding.
Let $a,b\in x=\bigcup_{n\in \omega}x_n$, and let $n$ be least such that $a,b\in x_n$ and ${\mathbf{c}}_{x_n}(a)={\mathbf{c}}_x(a)$ (such an $n$ exists since either the colour of $a$ is always $-\infty$ or changes at some $n$, but then stays this colour in $x$). In order to show that $x{\leqslant}y$ we need to verify the following properties of $\varphi$.
1. $a{\leqslant}b$ iff $\varphi_n(a){\leqslant}\varphi_n(b)$ iff $\varphi(a){\leqslant}\varphi(b)$ (since $\varphi_n$ is an embedding).
2. ${\mathbf{c}}_x(a)={\mathbf{c}}_{x_n}(a){\leqslant}{\mathbf{c}}_y(\varphi_n(a))={\mathbf{c}}_y(\varphi(a))$.
So indeed $\varphi$ is an embedding from $x$ to $y$, and thus $x{\leqslant}y$ as required.
Decomposition trees {#Section:StructTrees}
===================
The aim of this section is to encode the elements of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ in terms of structured trees. This reduces the problem of showing that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is bqo to showing that a class of structured trees is bqo.
Scattered and structured $\mathscr{L}$-trees
--------------------------------------------
\[Defn:2\^<omega\] We define the tree $2^{<\omega}$, (the infinite binary tree of height $\omega$), as the tree of finite sequences of elements of $2=\{0,1\}$ ordered by ${\sqsubseteq}$.
\[Defn:WBScatteredTrees\] Let $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders and $T$ be an $\mathscr{L}$-tree, then we define as follows:
- $T$ is *scattered* iff $2^{<\omega}\not {\leqslant}T$.
- $T$ is *$\mathbb{L}$-$\sigma$-scattered* iff there are countably many ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed subsets of $T$ that are each scattered $\mathbb{L}$-trees, and every point of $T$ is contained in one of these subsets.
- We let ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}$ be the class of scattered $\mathbb{L}$-trees.
- We let ${\mathscr{T}}^\mathbb{L}$ be the class of $\mathbb{L}$-$\sigma$-scattered $\mathscr{L}$-trees.
- We let $\mathscr{R}$ be the class of rooted $\omega+1$-trees.
When the context is clear we will call elements of ${\mathscr{T}}^\mathbb{L}$ $\sigma$-scattered. Notice that elements of ${\mathscr{T}}^\mathbb{L}$ are not necessarily $\mathbb{L}$-trees as they could contain chains with order type not in $\mathbb{L}$.[^12] We note also that different classes of linear orders can generate the same classes of $\sigma$-scattered trees, for example ${\mathscr{T}}^\omega={\mathscr{T}}^{\omega+1}$.
Given a chain $\zeta$, and $\mathscr{L}$-trees $T^\gamma_i$ for each $i\in \zeta$, and $\gamma< \kappa_i\in {\mathrm{Card}}$, we define the *$\zeta$-tree-sum* of the $T_i^\gamma$ (see Figure \[Fig:ZetaTreeSum\]) as the set $\zeta\sqcup\bigsqcup_{i\in \zeta, \gamma<\kappa_i}T_i^\gamma$ ordered by letting $a{\leqslant}b$ iff
- $a,b\in \zeta$ with $a{\leqslant}_\zeta b$;
- or for some $i\in \zeta$, $\gamma<\kappa_i$ we have $a,b\in T^\gamma_i$ with $a{\leqslant}_{T_i^\gamma}b$;
- or $a\in \zeta$ and $b\in T_i^\gamma$ for some $i\in \zeta$ with $a<_\zeta i$ and $\gamma<\kappa_i$.
Let $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders that is closed under finite sums. Let ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_0=\{\emptyset,1\}$, and for $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$ let ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+1}$ be the class of $\zeta$-tree-sums of trees of ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_{\alpha}$ for $\zeta\in \mathbb{L}$. For limit $\lambda\in {\mathrm{On}}$ we let ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\lambda=\bigcup_{\gamma<\lambda} {\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\gamma$, and finally set ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\infty=\bigcup_{\gamma\in {\mathrm{On}}} {\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\gamma$. For $T\in {\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\infty$ define the *scattered rank* of $T$, denoted ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)$ as the least ordinal $\alpha$ such that $T\in {\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\alpha$. (See Figure \[Fig:ScatTrees\].)
\[Thm:ScatteredRank\] Let $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders that is closed under non-empty subsets and finite sums. Then ${\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}={\mathscr{U}}^\mathbb{L}_\infty$.
We leave the proof as an exercise since it is similar to Theorem \[Thm:TreesAreAMR\].
(8,4) – (0,0); at (4,2) [$\zeta$]{}; (6,3) – (4.9,0); (6,3) – (7.1,0); (6,3) – (5.9,0); (6,3) – (6.1,0); (6,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (6,3) [$i$]{}; at (5.54,0.4) [$T_i^0$]{}; at (6.5,0.4) [$T_i^1$]{}; at (7.5,0.4) [$...$]{}; (2,1) – (1.666666,0); (2,1) – (2.333333,0); (4,2) – (3.333333,0); (4,2) – (4.666666,0);
(2,4) – (0,0); at (3,0) ;
(2,4) – (0,0); (1,2) – (2,0); (1.5,3) – (3,0); (0.5,1) – (1,0);
(2,4) – (0,0); (1,2) – (2,0); (1.5,1) – (1.25,0.5); (1.25,1.5) – (1,1); (1.75,0.5) – (1.5,0); (1.5,3) – (3,0);
(1.75,2.5) – (1.5,2); (2,2) – (1.75,1.5); (2.25,1.5) – (2,1); (2.5,1) – (2.25,0.5); (2.75,0.5) – (2.5,0);
(0.5,1) – (1,0); (0.75,0.5) – (0.5,0);
at (0,2) [$\dots$]{}; at (0,0) ;
(2,4) – (0,0); (1,2) – (2,0); (1.5,1) – (1.25,0.5); (1.25,1.5) – (1,1); (1.75,0.5) – (1.5,0); (1.5,3) – (3,0);
(1.75,2.5) – (1.5,2); (2,2) – (1.75,1.5); (2.25,1.5) – (2,1); (2.5,1) – (2.25,0.5); (2.75,0.5) – (2.5,0);
(0.5,1) – (1,0); (0.75,0.5) – (0.5,0); (0.625,0.25) – (0.75,0); (0.6875,0.125) – (0.625,0); (0.65625,0.0625) – (0.6875,0);
(1.625,0.25) – (1.75,0); (1.6875,0.125) – (1.625,0); (1.65625,0.0625) – (1.6875,0);
(1.625-0.25,0.25+0.5) – (1.75-0.25,0+0.5); (1.6875-0.25,0.125+0.5) – (1.625-0.25,0+0.5); (1.65625-0.25,0.0625+0.5) – (1.6875-0.25,0+0.5);
(1.625-0.5,0.25+1) – (1.75-0.5,0+1); (1.6875-0.5,0.125+1) – (1.625-0.5,0+1); (1.65625-0.5,0.0625+1) – (1.6875-0.5,0+1);
(2.625,0.25) – (2.75,0); (2.6875,0.125) – (2.625,0); (2.65625,0.0625) – (2.6875,0);
(2.625-0.25,0.25+0.5) – (2.75-0.25,0+0.5); (2.6875-0.25,0.125+0.5) – (2.625-0.25,0+0.5); (2.65625-0.25,0.0625+0.5) – (2.6875-0.25,0+0.5);
(2.625-0.5,0.25+1) – (2.75-0.5,0+1); (2.6875-0.5,0.125+1) – (2.625-0.5,0+1); (2.65625-0.5,0.0625+1) – (2.6875-0.5,0+1);
(2.625-0.75,0.25+1.5) – (2.75-0.75,0+1.5); (2.6875-0.75,0.125+1.5) – (2.625-0.75,0+1.5); (2.65625-0.75,0.0625+1.5) – (2.6875-0.75,0+1.5);
(2.625-1,0.25+2) – (2.75-1,0+2); (2.6875-1,0.125+2) – (2.625-1,0+2); (2.65625-1,0.0625+2) – (2.6875-1,0+2);
\[Defn:StructTrees\] Let $\mathbb{T}$ be a class of $\mathscr{L}$-trees, and let $\mathcal{O}$ be a concrete category. We define the new concrete category of *$\mathcal{O}$-structured trees of $\mathbb{T}$*, denoted $\mathbb{T}_\mathcal{O}$ as follows. The objects of $\mathbb{T}_\mathcal{O}$ consist of pairs $\langle T,l \rangle$ such that:
- $T\in \mathbb{T}$.
- $U_{\langle T,l\rangle}=T$.
- $l=\{l_v \mid v\in T\}$, where for each $v\in T$ there is some ${\gamma}_v\in {\mathrm{obj}{(\mathcal{O})}}$ such that $$l_v:{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}v \longrightarrow {\gamma}_v$$ and if $x,y\in T$ with $x>y>v$ then $l_v(x)=l_v(y)$.
For $\mathcal{O}$-structured trees $\langle T,l\rangle$ and $\langle T',l'\rangle$, we let $\varphi:T\rightarrow T'$ be an embedding whenever:
1. $x{\leqslant}y $ iff $ \varphi(x){\leqslant}\varphi(y)$,
2. $\varphi(x\wedge y)=\varphi(x)\wedge \varphi(y)$,
3. \[Item:StructTrees4\] for any $v\in T$, set $\theta:{\mbox{range}}(l_v)\rightarrow {\mbox{range}}(l'_{\varphi(v)})$ such that $$\theta(l_v(x))=l'_{\varphi(v)}(\varphi(x));$$ then $\theta$ is an embedding of $\mathcal{O}$.
We call $l_v(x)$ the *$v$-label* of $x$. To simplify notation, we write $T$ in place of $\langle T,l\rangle$ and always use $l_v(x)$ to denote the $v$-label of $x$, regardless of which $T\in \mathbb{T}_Q$ we are considering (it will be unambiguous since $v\in T$).
Intuitively $\mathbb{T}_\mathcal{O}$ is obtained by taking $T\in \mathbb{T}$ and for each vertex $v\in T$, and ordering the successors of $v$ by some order in $\mathcal{O}$ as in Figure \[Fig:StrucTree\]. Embedding for $\mathbb{T}_\mathcal{O}$ is then tree embedding that preserves this ordering on the successors of $v$ for every $v\in \mathbb{T}$. However, general $\mathscr{L}$-trees may contain points with no immediate successors. To accommodate this, our labelling functions $l_v$ have domain ${\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}v$ and we enforce that if $x,y\in T$ with $x>y>v$ then $l_v(x)=l_v(y)$.
(9+0,5-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+0,5-6) – (9+-2,4-6); (9+-2,4-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+0,5-6) – (9+2,4-6); (9+2,4-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+2,4-6) – (9+3,3-6); (9+3,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-2,4-6) – (9+-3,3-6); (9+-3,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+2,4-6) – (9+1,3-6); (9+1,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-2,4-6) – (9+-1,3-6); (9+-1,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1,3-6) – (9+1.5,2-6); (9+1.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1,3-6) – (9+-1.5,2-6); (9+-1.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1,3-6) – (9+0.5,2-6); (9+0.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1,3-6) – (9+-0.5,2-6); (9+-0.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3,3-6) – (9+3.5,2-6); (9+3.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-3,3-6) – (9+-3.5,2-6); (9+-3.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+3,3-6) – (9+2.5,2-6); (9+2.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-3,3-6) – (9+-2.5,2-6); (9+-2.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3.5,2-6) – (9+3.25,1-6); (9+3.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+2.5,2-6) – (9+2.25,1-6); (9+2.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+2.5,2-6) – (9+2.75,1-6); (9+2.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+0.5,2-6) – (9+0.25,1-6); (9+0.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+0.5,2-6) – (9+0.75,1-6); (9+0.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+-0.5,2-6) – (9+-0.25,1-6); (9+-0.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-0.5,2-6) – (9+-0.75,1-6); (9+-0.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+-3.5,2-6) – (9+-3.25,1-6); (9+-3.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3.5,2-6) – (9+3.75,1-6); (9+3.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-3.5,2-6) – (9+-3.75,1-6); (9+-3.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1.5,2-6) – (9+1.25,1-6); (9+1.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1.5,2-6) – (9+-1.25,1-6); (9+-1.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1.5,2-6) – (9+1.75,1-6); (9+1.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1.5,2-6) – (9+-1.75,1-6); (9+-1.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+0.25,1-6) – (9+0.125,0-6); (9+0.25,1-6) – (9+0.375,0-6); (9+0.75,1-6) – (9+0.625,0-6); (9+0.75,1-6) – (9+0.875,0-6);
(9+1.25,1-6) – (9+1.125,0-6); (9+1.25,1-6) – (9+1.375,0-6); (9+1.75,1-6) – (9+1.625,0-6); (9+1.75,1-6) – (9+1.875,0-6);
(9+-1.25,1-6) – (9+-1.125,0-6); (9+-1.25,1-6) – (9+-1.375,0-6); (9+-1.75,1-6) – (9+-1.625,0-6); (9+-1.75,1-6) – (9+-1.875,0-6);
(9+-3.25,1-6) – (9+-3.125,0-6); (9+-3.25,1-6) – (9+-3.375,0-6); (9+-3.75,1-6) – (9+-3.625,0-6); (9+-3.75,1-6) – (9+-3.875,0-6);
at (9+0,4-6) [$<$]{}; at (9+2,3-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-2,3-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+1,2-6) [$<$]{}; at (9+3,2-6) [$<$]{}; at (9+-1,2-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-3,2-6) [$\perp$]{};
at (9+3.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (9+1.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+0.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (9+2.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{};
at (9+-3.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-1.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (9+-0.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{};
Let $T$ be an $\mathcal{O}$-structured $\mathscr{L}$-tree, with $x\in T$ and $p\in {\mbox{range}}(l_x)$ then we define $${}^{p}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}x=\{y\in T\mid (y>x)\wedge (l_x(y)=p)\}.$$
It is clear that $\mathbb{T}_Q$ is a concrete category and hence we also have defined the $Q$-coloured, $\mathcal{O}$-structured $\mathscr{L}$-trees of $\mathbb{T}$, denoted $\mathbb{T}_\mathcal{O}(Q)$. Finally we mention a theorem of Kříž that is fundamental to the results of this paper.
\[Thm:Kriz1\] If $\mathcal{O}$ is a well-behaved concrete category with injective morphisms, then $\mathscr{R}_\mathcal{O}$ is well-behaved.
See [@Kriz].
Louveau and Saint-Raymond proved, using a modification of Nash-Williams’ original method, that if $Q$ satisfies a slight weakening of well-behaved (that is stronger than preserving bqo) then $\mathscr{R}_Q$, the class of $Q$-structured trees of $\mathscr{R}$, satisfies this same property [@LouveauStR]. They were unable to attain full well-behavedness and Nash-Williams’ method seems to be insufficient.
\[Thm:Kriz\] If $\mathcal{O}$ is a well-behaved concrete category with injective morphisms, then ${\mathscr{T}}_\mathcal{O}^\omega$ is well-behaved.
Notice that any $T\in {\mathscr{T}}_\mathcal{O}^\omega$ is a tree of height at most $\omega$, but not necessarily rooted. Consider $\{t\mid \forall s\in T, s\not < t\}$, let $\kappa$ be the cardinality of this set, and enumerate its elements as $t_i$ for $i\in \kappa$. Given a quasi-order $Q$, let $\tau:{\mathscr{T}}_\mathcal{O}^\omega(Q)\rightarrow {\mathrm{On}}(\mathscr{R}_\mathcal{O}(Q))$ be the function sending $T$ to $\langle \kappa, c\rangle$ where $c(i)={\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}t_i$ for each $i\in \kappa$. Thus we have that if $\tau(S){\leqslant}\tau(T)$ then $S{\leqslant}T$. So given a bad ${\mathscr{T}}^\omega_\mathcal{O}(Q)$-array $f$, we see that $\tau \circ f$ is a bad ${\mathrm{On}}(\mathscr{R}_\mathcal{O})$-array, then by Theorem \[Thm:OnWB\] we have a witnessing bad $\mathscr{R}_\mathcal{O}(Q)$-array, and by Theorem \[Thm:Kriz1\] we have a witnessing bad $Q$-array for $f$.
Encoding with structured $\mathscr{L}$-trees
--------------------------------------------
We now want to take an element $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ and construct from it a structured $\mathscr{L}$-tree $T_x$ that contains all of the information required to describe how $x$ is built up from elements of ${\mathcal{B}}$, using functions from ${\mathcal{F}}$. We assume for the rest of this section that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable and ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits.
\[Defn:Tx\] Let ${\mathfrak{F}}$ be an composition set with ${\mathfrak{I}}$ a set of position sequences for ${\mathfrak{F}}$, and $d=\langle d^{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(g^{\mathfrak{F}})$. Suppose that for each $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}$ we have $\eta(\vec{p})=\langle \langle f^{\vec{p}}_i,s^{\vec{p}}_i\rangle:i\in r(\vec{p})\rangle$. We define the ${\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$-coloured ${\mathcal{A}}$-structured ${\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}$-tree $T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ whose underlying set is $$\{\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle\mid \vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}, i\in r(\vec{p})\}\cup {\mathfrak{D}};$$ ordering $\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle{\leqslant}\vec{q}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle j\rangle$ or $\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle{\leqslant}\vec{q}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle j,u\rangle\in {\mathfrak{D}}$ iff either:
1. $\vec{p}=\vec{q}$ and $j{\geqslant}i$.
2. $\vec{p}{\sqsubset}\vec{q}$ and the first element of $\vec{q}\setminus \vec{p}$ is $\langle j',u'\rangle$ with $j'{\geqslant}i$.
We colour all $\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle\in T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ by letting $${\mathbf{c}}(\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle)=f_i^{\vec{p}},$$ and for $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\subseteq T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ we let $${\mathbf{c}}(\vec{p})=d^{\vec{p}}.$$ For all $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}$, $i\in r(\vec{p})$ and $t>\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle$ we define the labels $l_{\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}(t)\in {\mathbf{a}}(f_i^{\vec{p}})$ so that $$l_{\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
s_i^{\vec{p}}&:&\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle j\rangle{\sqsubseteq}t \mbox{ or } \vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle j,u\rangle{\sqsubseteq}t \mbox{ for some }j>i \mbox{ and }u\in a^{\eta(\vec{p})}_j \\
u &:&\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle {\sqsubseteq}t
\end{array}
\right. .$$
\[Defn:Tx1\] If $g^{\mathfrak{F}}$ is a standard decomposition function for $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and $d$ is such that $g^{\mathfrak{F}}(d)=x$, then we call $T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ a *decomposition tree* for $x$.
Let $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ be a limiting sequence and $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}$ be the limit of this sequence. Let $q_0$, ${\mathfrak{F}}_n$ and $k^{\vec{p}}_n$ be as in Definition \[Defn:LimitSequence\]. We set ${\mathfrak{F}}=\bigcup_{n\in \omega}{\mathfrak{F}}_n$ (so ${\mathfrak{F}}$ is a composition set). Let $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}$ then there must be some least $m$ such that $k^{\vec{p}}_m\in {\mathfrak{D}}$, and we let $d^{\vec{p}}=k^{\vec{p}}_m$.[^13] Set $d=\langle d^{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle$. When ${\mathfrak{F}}$ and $d$ are defined in this way we call $T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ a *decomposition tree* for $x$.
\[Lemma:TreeRanksTheSame\] If $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ then there is a decomposition tree $T=T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ for $x$ such that $T\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$. Moreover if $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ then there is a decomposition tree $T\in {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$ for $x$ with ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)={\mbox{rank}}(x)$.
Suppose $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ then let $g^{\mathfrak{F}}$ be the decomposition function for $x$ as in Lemma \[Lemma:decompfn\], and let $d=\langle q_{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(g^{\mathfrak{F}})$ be such that $x=g^{\mathfrak{F}}(d)$ and $q_{\vec{p}}\in {\mathcal{B}}$ for each $\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}$. In this case we set $T=T^{{\mathfrak{F}}}_d$, so $T$ is a decomposition tree for $x$. We claim that ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)={\mbox{rank}}(x)$, and prove this by induction on the rank of $x$.
If ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=0$ then $x\in {\mathcal{B}}$ so that $T$ is just a single point coloured by $x$, and hence ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)=0$. Suppose that ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha$ and for each $y\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$, and each decomposition tree $T'$ for $y$ that was constructed from the decomposition function given by Lemma \[Lemma:decompfn\], that we have ${\mbox{rank}}(y)={\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T')$. Then let $\zeta=\{\langle i\rangle\mid i\in r(\langle \rangle)\}\subseteq T$ so that $T$ is a $\zeta$-tree-sum of decomposition trees $T_i^u$ for some $q_{i,u}\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ $(i\in \zeta, u\in a^{\eta(\langle \rangle)}_i)$. Then using the induction hypothesis, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)&=&\sup\{{\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T^u_i)+1\mid i\in \zeta, u\in a^{\eta(\langle \rangle)}_i\}\nonumber\\
&=&\sup\{{\mbox{rank}}(q_{i,u})+1\mid i\in \zeta, u\in a^{\eta(\langle \rangle)}_i\}\nonumber\\
&=&{\mbox{rank}}(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This completes the induction, and the lemma holds for all $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$.
If $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}$ then a decomposition tree $T$ for $x$ was of the form $T=T_d^{\mathfrak{F}}$ for some $d$ and ${\mathfrak{F}}=\bigcup_{n\in \omega} {\mathfrak{F}}_n$, with the ${\mathfrak{F}}_n$ as from Definition \[Defn:LimitSequence\]. By what we just proved, we have that the underlying set of $T$ is covered by ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed subsets consisting of the underling sets of $T_n=T^{{\mathfrak{F}}_n}_{d_n}\in {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$ for some $d_n$; hence $T\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$.
\[Lemma:x(t,p)\] Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ and $T=T^{\mathfrak{F}}_d$ be a decomposition tree for $x$. For any $t=\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle \in T$ and $u\in {\mbox{range}}(l_t)$, there exists some $x(t,u)\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ with a decomposition tree $T_{x(t,u)}$ such that $${}^u{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t=T_{x(t,u)}.$$ Moreover if $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and $\vec{p}\neq\langle \rangle$ or $u\neq s^{\langle \rangle}_i$; then $x(t,u)\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ with ${\mbox{rank}}(x(t,u))<{\mbox{rank}}(x)$.
Let ${\mathfrak{I}}$ be a set of position sequences for ${\mathfrak{F}}$ and fix $t=\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle \in T$ and $u\in {\mbox{range}}(l_t)$. We will find $x(t,p)$. First, if $u\neq s_i^{\vec{p}}$ we define:
- ${\mathfrak{I}}_{t,u}=\{\vec{q}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\mid \vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle{\sqsubseteq}\vec{q}\}$,
- ${\mathfrak{F}}_{t,u}=\{\eta(\vec{q})\mid \vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle{\sqsubseteq}\vec{q}\}\subseteq {\mathfrak{F}}$,
and if $u=s_i^{\vec{p}}$ we define:
- $\eta'(\vec{p})=\eta(\vec{p})^+_{i}$, and $\eta'(\vec{q})=\eta(\vec{q})$ whenever $\vec{p}\neq\vec{q}\in {\mathfrak{I}}$,
- ${\mathfrak{I}}_{t,u}=\{\vec{q}\in {\mathfrak{I}}\mid (\exists j>i )(\exists v\in a^{\eta(\vec{p})}_j),\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle j,v\rangle {\sqsubseteq}\vec{q} \}\cup \{\vec{p}\}$,
- ${\mathfrak{F}}_{t,u}=\{\eta'(\vec{q})\mid \vec{q}\in{\mathfrak{I}}_{t,u}\}$.
Now let
- ${\mathfrak{D}}_{t,u}$ be the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}_{t,u}$,
- $d_{t,u}=\langle d^{\vec{q}}:\vec{q}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_{t,u}\rangle$, (where $d=\langle d^{\vec{q}}:\vec{q}\in {\mathfrak{D}}\rangle$),
- $T_{t,u}=T^{{\mathfrak{F}}_{t,u}}_{d_{t,u}}$.
Then in either case, by construction we have that $T_{t,u}={}^u{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t$.
If $g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_{t,u}}(d_{t,u})\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ then set $x(t,u)=g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_{t,u}}(d_{t,u})$, so we have that $T_{t,u}$ is by definition a decomposition tree for $x(t,u)$. Moreover if $\vec{p}\neq \langle \rangle$ or $u\neq s_i^{\langle \rangle}$ then there is some $i_0\in r(\langle \rangle)$ and $u_0\in {\mbox{range}}(l_{\langle i_0\rangle})$ such that $T_{t,u}\subseteq {}^{u_0}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}i_0$ and hence by Lemma \[Lemma:TreeRanksTheSame\] we have $${\mbox{rank}}(x(t,u))={\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T_{t,u}){\leqslant}{\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}({}^{u_0}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}i_0)<{\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)={\mbox{rank}}(x).$$
It just remains to find $x(t,u)$ when $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}$. First suppose that $x$ is the limit of $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$, then consider $x_n(t,u)$ for every $n$ large enough so that $t\in T^{{\mathfrak{F}}_n}$. Then since $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ was a limiting sequence; for some $m\in \omega$ we have that $(x_n(t,u))_{n{\geqslant}m}$ is a limiting sequence. We let $x(t,u)$ be its limit, then by construction $x(t,u)$ has a decomposition tree equal to $$T_{d_{t,u}}^{\bigcup_{n\in \omega}{\mathfrak{F}}^n_{t,u}}=T^{{\mathfrak{F}}_{t,u}}_{d_{t,u}}=T_{t,u}={}^u{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t.$$
For a given $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ and a decomposition tree $T$ for $x$, let $\zeta$ be a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed chain of $T$ that contains no leaf. For each $i\in \zeta$, if $i$ is not the maximum element of $\zeta$ then let $j_i$ be an arbitrary element of $\zeta\cap {\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}i$, otherwise let $j_i$ be an arbitrary element of ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}i$. We then define $$\eta(\zeta)=\langle \langle {\mathbf{c}}(i),l_i(j_i)\rangle :i\in \zeta\rangle$$ which is a composition sequence since for each $i\in \zeta$ we have ${\mathbf{c}}(i)$ is a function of ${\mathcal{F}}$, and since the labels below $i$ are elements of ${\mathbf{a}}({\mathbf{c}}(i))$. We note that the choice of $j_i$ made no difference to $l_i(j_i)$, except possibly when $i$ is maximal, in which case only $s_i$ is ambiguous - but this makes no difference to $f^{\eta(\zeta)}$.
To simplify notation, for each $i\in \zeta$, we let $f^\zeta_i={\mathbf{c}}(i)$, $s^{\zeta}_i=l_i(j_i)$ and $a_i^\zeta=a_i^{\eta(\zeta)}$. We also define $k^\zeta=\langle x(i,u):i\in \zeta, u\in a^{\eta(\zeta)}_i\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta(\zeta)})$, where $x(i,u)$ is as from Lemma \[Lemma:x(t,p)\].
We now require the following lemma, which will allow us to swap composition sequences.
\[Lemma:ChangeOfPos\] Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable, $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ have a decomposition tree $T=T_d^{\mathfrak{F}}$ and let $\zeta$ be a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed chain of $T$, that is either maximal or has a maximum element, then $$x=f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta).$$ Moreover if ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits, then the conclusion holds for all $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
Let $\xi=\{\langle i\rangle\mid i\in r(\langle \rangle)\}$ be the chain satisfying $\eta(\xi)=\eta(\langle \rangle)$. We assume without loss of generality that $\zeta \not {\sqsubseteq}\xi$, since otherwise the lemma follows from a simple application of ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterability (noticing that $\eta(\zeta)=\eta(\xi)^-_{\max(\zeta)}$). We also assume that $\xi\not {\sqsubseteq}\zeta$ since $\xi{\sqsubseteq}\zeta$ is impossible unless $\xi$ has a maximum element,[^14] in which case the lemma follows similarly by ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterability. Clearly the Lemma holds when ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=0$ so suppose for induction that ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha$ and the lemma holds for all $y\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$.
By Lemma \[Lemma:TreeRanksTheSame\] we have $T\in{\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$ and thus $\xi\cap \zeta$ has a maximal element $m$. By Proposition \[Prop:Reduction\], we have that $x=f^{\eta(\xi)}(k^\xi)$ and $k^\xi\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta(\xi)})_{<\alpha}$. For each $\chi\in \{\zeta,\xi\}$ and $u\in A^{\eta(\chi)}$ we define $w^\chi_{u}=x(i,u)$ whenever $i$ is such that $u\in a_i^{\eta(\chi)}$, and $$w^\chi_{s^\chi_m}=f^{\eta(\chi)^+_m}(\langle w^\chi_u:u\in A^{\eta(\chi)^+_m}\rangle).$$ We then set $w^\chi=\langle w^\chi_{u}:u\in A^{\eta(\chi)^-_m}_i\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta(\chi)})$. Thus, since ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable, we have $$f^{\eta(\xi)}(k^\xi)=f^{\eta(\xi)^-_m}(w^\xi) \hspace{10pt}\mbox{ and }\hspace{10pt} f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)=f^{\eta(\zeta)^-_m}(w^\zeta).$$ Clearly $\eta(\xi)^-_m=\eta(\xi\cap \zeta)=\eta(\zeta)^-_m$ since $m$ was the maximal element of $\xi\cap \zeta$. It remains to verify that $w^\xi=w^\zeta$. By definition of $m$, for all $i< m$ and $u\in a^\xi_i=a^\zeta_i$, we have $w_{u}^\xi =x(i,u)=w_{u}^\zeta$. We also have $w_{u}^\xi=x(i,u)=w_{u}^\zeta$ for $u\in a^\xi_m\cap a^\zeta_m$. So the only possible cases in which $w_{u}^\xi\neq w_{u}^\zeta$ are when $u\in \{s^\zeta_m,s^\xi_m\}$, hence it only remains to verify that they agree here too. Since $\xi \not {\sqsubseteq}\zeta$ and $\zeta \not {\sqsubseteq}\xi$ we have $s^\xi_m\neq s^\zeta_m$, and therefore $s^\xi_m\in a^\zeta_m$. Thus $$w_{s^\xi_m}^{\zeta}=x(m,s^\xi_m).$$ We also know $$w^\xi_{s^\xi_m}=f^{\eta(\xi)^+_m}(\langle w^\xi_u:u\in A^{\eta(\xi)^+_m}\rangle)=f^{\eta(\xi)^+_m}(\langle x(i,u):i\in \xi, i> m, u\in a^{\eta(\xi)^-_m}_i\rangle)$$ and hence by the construction of $x(m,s^\xi_m)$ from Lemma \[Lemma:x(t,p)\], we see that $$w^\xi_{s^\xi_m}=x(m,s^\xi_m).$$ Hence indeed we have $w^{\xi}_{s^\xi_m}=w^{\zeta}_{s^\xi_m}$.
Similarly, we have that $w_{s^\zeta_m}^\xi=x(m,s_m^\zeta)$ and $w^\zeta_{s^\zeta_m}=f^{\eta(\zeta)^+_m}(\langle w^\zeta_u:u\in A^{\eta(\zeta)^+_m}\rangle)$. It remains only to show that these are equal. Note that by Lemma \[Lemma:x(t,p)\], since $s_m^\zeta\neq s_m^\xi$ we have that ${\mbox{rank}}(x(m,s_m^\zeta))<\alpha$. We also have that $\eta(\zeta)^+_m=\eta(\zeta\cap {\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}m)$ and $\zeta\cap {\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}m$ is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed chain of ${}^{s_m^\zeta}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}m$, which is a decomposition tree for $x(m,s_m^\zeta)$. So by the induction hypothesis we have $$w_{s^\zeta_m}^\xi=x(m,s_m^\zeta)=f^{\eta(\zeta)^+_m}(\langle w^\zeta_u:u\in A^{\eta(\zeta)^+_m}\rangle)=w^\zeta_{s^\zeta_m}.$$ So we have verified that $f^{\eta(\xi)^-_m}(w^\xi)=f^{\eta(\zeta)^-_m}(w^\zeta)$, and therefore $x=f^{\eta(\xi)}(k^\xi)=f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)$.
Now suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits and let $x$ be the limit of $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$. For each $n\in \omega$ let $T_n$ be the corresponding decomposition tree for $x_n$, such that the underlying set of $T$ is the union of the underlying sets of the $T_n$ $(n\in \omega)$. Then $\zeta=\bigcup_{n\in \omega}\zeta_n$ where for each $n\in \omega$, $\zeta_n$ is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed, chain of $T_n$ which is either maximal or has a maximal element. So by what we just proved, we have that $x_n=f^{\eta(\zeta_n)}(k^{\zeta_n})$. But we know by Definition \[Defn:HasLimits\], that the limit of the limiting sequence $(f^{\eta(\zeta_n)}(k^{\zeta_n}))_{n\in \omega}$ is precisely $f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)$. Therefore since limits were unique, we have $f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)= x$ as required.
at (0,5) [$x$]{}; (0,5) – (-2.5,0); (0,5) – (2.5,0); (-1.25,2.5) – (-0.1,0); (1.25,2.5) – (0.1,0); (-1.875,1.25) – (-1.26,0); (1.875,1.25) – (1.35,0); (-0.675,1.25) – (-1.15,0); (0.675,1.25) – (1.15,0); at (-0.625,3.75) [$T$]{};
at (5.5,5) [$f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)$]{}; (5.5+0,5) – (5.5-2.5,0); (5.5+0,5) – (5.5+2.5,0); (5.5-1.25,2.5) – (5.5-0.1,0); (5.5+1.25,2.5) – (5.5+0.1,0); (5.5-1.875,1.25) – (5.5-1.26,0); (5.5+1.875,1.25) – (5.5+1.35,0); (5.5-0.675,1.25) – (5.5-1.15,0); (5.5+0.675,1.25) – (5.5+1.15,0); at (5.5-1.25,2.5) [$\zeta$]{};
at (0,5-6) [$f^{\eta(\zeta)^-_m}(w^\zeta)$]{}; (0,5-6) – (-2.5,0-6); (0,5-6) – (-1.25,2.5-6); (0,5-6) – (2.5,0-6); (-1.25,2.5-6) – (-0.1,0-6); (1.25,2.5-6) – (0.1,0-6); (-1.875,1.25-6) – (-1.26,0-6); (1.875,1.25-6) – (1.35,0-6); (-0.675,1.25-6) – (-1.15,0-6); (0.675,1.25-6) – (1.15,0-6); (-1.25,2.5-6) circle \[radius=0.08\]; at (-1.25,2.5-6) [$m$]{};
at (5.5,5-6) [$f^{\eta(\xi)}(k^\xi)$]{}; (5.5+0,5-6) – (5.5-2.5,0-6); (5.5,5-6) – (5.5-1.25,2.5-6); (5.5+0,5-6) – (5.5+2.5,0-6); (5.5-1.25,2.5-6) – (5.5-0.1,0-6); (5.5-1.25,2.5-6) – (5.5-0.675,1.25-6); (5.5+1.25,2.5-6) – (5.5+0.1,0-6); (5.5-1.875,1.25-6) – (5.5-1.26,0-6); (5.5+1.875,1.25-6) – (5.5+1.35,0-6); (5.5-0.675,1.25-6) – (5.5-1.15,0-6); (5.5+0.675,1.25-6) – (5.5+1.15,0-6); at (5.5-1.25,2.5-6) [$\xi$]{};
The construction is bqo {#Section:WBConstruction}
=======================
Now we aim to prove that if $x,y\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ have decomposition trees $T_x$ and $T_y$ respectively, then $x{\leqslant}y$. This will allow us to reflect bad ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$-arrays to bad arrays for the trees. Then we can use a structured tree theorem such as Theorem \[Thm:Kriz\] or Theorem \[Thm:TLPWell-Behaved\] in order to show that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is bqo.
The non-limit case
------------------
\[Thm:Non-Limit\] Suppose ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive. If $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and $y\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ have decomposition trees $T_x$ and $T_y$ respectively such that $T_x{\leqslant}T_y$, then $x{\leqslant}y$.
Suppose $x,y$ are as in the statement of the theorem. We prove $x{\leqslant}y$ by induction on ${\mbox{rank}}(x)$. So for the base case we assume ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=0$, i.e. that $x\in {\mathcal{B}}$, so we have that $T_x$ is just a single point coloured by $x$. If $T_x{\leqslant}T_y$, then there must be some $t_0\in T_y$ such that $x{\leqslant}{\mathbf{c}}(t_0)$ and thus necessarily $t_0=\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle$ is a leaf of $T_y$. Let $\xi={\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}t_0$, thus by Lemma \[Lemma:ChangeOfPos\] we have that $y=f^{\eta(\xi)}(\langle y(j,u):j\in \xi, u\in a^{\xi}_j\rangle)$. Now since $y(\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle,u)={\mathbf{c}}(t_0)$ we have by Lemma \[Lemma:RealInfExtensive\] that $$x{\leqslant}{\mathbf{c}}(t_0){\leqslant}f^{\eta(\xi)}(k^\xi)=y$$ which gives the base case.
Now suppose that ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha$ and whenever ${\mbox{rank}}(x')<\alpha$, $T_{x'}{\leqslant}T_{y'}$ and $y'\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ we have $x'{\leqslant}y'$. We set $\eta=\eta(\langle \rangle)$ as from Proposition \[Prop:Reduction\], so for some $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in{\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$, we have that $x=f^\eta(k)$. We also let $\chi=\{\langle i\rangle\mid i\in r(\langle \rangle)\}\subseteq T_x$, $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ and $\varphi$ be an embedding witnessing $T_x{\leqslant}T_y$. We notice that $\eta=\eta(\chi)$.
For $\langle i\rangle \in \chi$ we denote by $\varphi_i$ the embedding from ${\mbox{range}}(l_{\langle i\rangle})$ to ${\mbox{range}}(l_{\varphi(\langle i\rangle)})$ induced by the structured tree embedding $\varphi$. We have, since $\varphi$ was an embedding, that for each $p\in {\mbox{range}}(l_{\langle i\rangle})$, $$\varphi({}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\langle i\rangle )\subseteq {}^{\varphi_{ i}(p)}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\varphi(\langle i\rangle).$$ By Lemma \[Lemma:x(t,p)\], this implies $T_{x(\langle i\rangle ,p)}{\leqslant}T_{y(\varphi(\langle i\rangle),\varphi_i(p))}$ where $T_{x(\langle i\rangle ,p)}$ and $T_{y(\varphi(\langle i\rangle),\varphi_i(p))}$ are decomposition trees for $x(\langle i\rangle ,p)$ and $y(\varphi(\langle i\rangle),\varphi_i(p))$ respectively. Moreover, whenever $p\neq s_i$, or $\langle i\rangle$ is the maximum element of $\chi$, we have ${}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}i\cap \chi=\emptyset$; hence ${\mbox{rank}}(x(i,p))<\alpha$ by Lemma \[Lemma:x(t,p)\]. Therefore, by the induction hypothesis, whenever $p\in a^\eta_i$ we have that $$\label{Eqn:Non-Limit LowerRanks}
x(\langle i\rangle ,p) {\leqslant}y(\varphi(\langle i\rangle),\varphi_i(p))$$
Now let $$\zeta=\bigcup_{t\in \chi}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}\varphi(t)$$ so that by Lemma \[Lemma:ChangeOfPos\] we have that $y=f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)$. Let $\varphi'$ be the embedding from ${\mathrm{ot}}(\chi)$ to ${\mathrm{ot}}(\zeta)$ induced by $\varphi$. It then simple to verify that $\varphi'$ and the $\varphi_i$ witness the fact that $\eta=\eta(\chi){\leqslant}\eta(\zeta)$. Then using (\[Eqn:Non-Limit LowerRanks\]) and since ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive, we have $$x=f^\eta(k){\leqslant}f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)=y$$ as required.
We immediately obtain the following bqo result.
Suppose ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive. Also suppose that ${\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is well-behaved, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo and ${\mathcal{B}}$ is bqo. Then ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ is bqo.
Suppose we had a bad array $f:[\omega]^\omega\rightarrow{\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Let $g:[\omega]^\omega\rightarrow {\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$ be defined by letting $g(X)$ be a decomposition tree for $f(X)$. Then by Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\], $g$ must be bad. Thus since ${\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is well-behaved there must be a bad ${\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$-array, which is a contradiction of Theorem \[Thm:U bqo\] since ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ were bqo.
We now present a simple application of Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\]. We will show that if a class of linear orders $\mathbb{L}$ is well-behaved, then ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is well-behaved. This will allow us to give nicer descriptions of the classes that we will construct in section \[Section:PO\], as well as expanding on some classical results. So for the rest of this subsection we let $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders and $Q$ be a quasi-order.
We define $\mathbb{L}_0=\mathbb{L}\cup \omega$, and for $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$, $$\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+1}=\left\{\sum_{i\in L}L_i\mid L\in \mathbb{L}_0,L_i\in \mathbb{L}_\alpha\right\}$$ and for limit $\lambda$, $\mathbb{L}_\lambda=\bigcup_{\gamma<\lambda}\mathbb{L}_\gamma$ finally set $\mathbb{L}_\infty=\bigcup_{\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}}\mathbb{L}_\alpha$. For $x\in \mathbb{L}_\infty$ we say that ${\mbox{rank}}_{\mathbb{L}}(x)=\alpha$ iff $\alpha$ is least such that $x\in \mathbb{L}_\alpha$.
\[Prop:Linfty=amrs\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}^Q_\mathbb{L}$, then $\mathbb{L}_\infty(Q)={\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$.
This is by construction, considering Remark \[Rk:amrs\].
\[Lemma:Lbar=Linfty\] ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}=\mathbb{L}_\infty$.
Clearly $\mathbb{L}\cup \omega\subseteq \mathbb{L}_\infty\subseteq {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. So if we can show that $\mathbb{L}_\infty$ is closed under sums, we will have the lemma. So let $y\in \mathbb{L}_\infty$, and $y_j \in \mathbb{L}_\infty$ for each $j\in y$, and we claim that $\sum_{j\in y}y_j\in \mathbb{L}_\infty$. Let $y_{\langle \rangle}=y$ and suppose inductively that we have defined $y_s\in \mathbb{L}_\infty\setminus \mathbb{L}_0$ for some sequence $s$. Then we can find $y'_s\in \mathbb{L}_0$ and for each $i\in y'_s$, we find $y_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}\in \mathbb{L}_\infty$ with ${\mbox{rank}}_\mathbb{L}(y_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle})<{\mbox{rank}}_\mathbb{L}(y_s)$; such that $y_s=\sum_{i\in y'_s}y_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}$. Thus $\sum_{j\in y_s}y_j=\sum_{i\in y'_s}\sum_{j\in y_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}}y_j$. So if every $y_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}\in \mathbb{L}_0$ then $\sum_{i\in y_s}y_i\in \mathbb{L}_\infty$. Since the ranks are well-founded $y_s\in \mathbb{L}_0$ for all of the longest sequences $s$ generated by this induction. So by induction, $\sum_{j\in y}y_j\in \mathbb{L}_\infty$, which gives the lemma.
\[Thm:LbarWB\] If $\mathbb{L}$ is well-behaved, then ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is well-behaved.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}^Q_{\mathbb{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$. By Lemma \[Lemma:Lbar=Linfty\] and Proposition \[Prop:Linfty=amrs\] we have that ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(Q')={\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Suppose we have a bad ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$-array $f$, then define $g(X)$ to be a decomposition tree for $f(X)$. First we note that by Definition \[Defn:Tx\], it is clear that the leaves of the tree $g(X)$ are coloured by some element of ${\mathcal{B}}$ used to construct $f(X)$. Thus the colours of the linear order $f(X)$ are colours of colours of elements of $g(X)$. Now using Lemma \[Lemma:LOinfExt\] we can apply Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\], in order to see that $g$ is a bad array with range in ${\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$.
We know that ${\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}=\omega$ and hence is well-behaved. We also have that ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved and has injective morphisms; hence by Theorem \[Thm:Kriz\], there is a witnessing bad ${\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$-array $g'$. Since the order on ${\mathcal{F}}$ is isomorphic to the order on $\mathbb{L}$, we know that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo. Hence by Theorem \[Thm:U bqo\], we can find a witnessing bad ${\mathcal{B}}$-array $f'$. Since the colours from each $g(X)$ that were in ${\mathcal{B}}$ were points of $f(X)$ we now know that $f'$ is a witnessing bad array for $f$. Then since ${\mathcal{B}}=Q^1$ this clearly gives a witnessing bad $Q$-array just passing to colours. Hence any bad ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(Q)$-array admits a witnessing bad $Q$-array, i.e. ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is well-behaved.
Without much more difficulty, using we could show that the class of countable unions of elements of ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is also well-behaved, by considering limiting sequences $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ to be such that $x_n\subseteq x_{n+1}$ for each $n\in \omega$ and defining limits as the countable union. Then it is relatively simple to verify that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive and has nice limits. The result then follows similarly to Theorem \[Thm:LbarWB\] (using Theorem \[Thm:Limit\] in place of Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\]). We omit the proof because this is implied by Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\].
The limit case
--------------
\[Thm:Limit\]Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be extendible and have nice limits. If $x,y\in{\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ have decomposition trees $T_x$ and $T_y$ respectively such that $T_x{\leqslant}T_y$, then $x{\leqslant}y$.
By Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\], it only remains to check that the theorem holds when $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}$. So suppose that $x$ is a limit of the limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$. For each $n\in \omega$ let $T_{n}=T^{{\mathfrak{F}}_n}_{d_n}$ be a decomposition tree for $x_n$. Since $T_{n}\subseteq T_x{\leqslant}T_y$ and each $x_n\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ we have by Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\] that $x_n{\leqslant}y$ for every $n$. Let $\varphi_n:x_n\rightarrow y$ be the embedding granted by infinite extensivity that was used in the final line of the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Non-Limit\].
By the definition of a limiting sequence, we see that for each $n\in \omega$ there are $k,k'\in {\mbox{dom}}(g_n)$ such that $x_n=g_n(k)$ and $x_{n+1}=g_n(k')$. If $k=\langle q_u:u\in {\mathfrak{D}}_n\rangle$ and $k'=\langle q'_u:u\in {\mathfrak{D}}_n\rangle$ then for each $u\in {\mathfrak{D}}_n$ we have $q_u{\leqslant}q'_u$ since either $q_u=q'_u$ or $q_u$ is the minimum element $q_0$. Set $\eta=\eta(\langle \rangle)\in {\mathfrak{F}}$, then we can inductively find, using $k$ and $k'$, elements $k^n,k^{n+1}$ of ${\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ such that $x_n=f^\eta(k^n)$, $x_{n+1}=f^\eta(k^{n+1})$. Thus we have that if $k^n=\langle q_u^n:u\in A^\eta\rangle$ and $k^{n+1}=\langle q^{n+1}_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle$ then $q^n_u{\leqslant}q^{n+1}_u$, by repeated applications of Lemma \[Lemma:RealInfExtensive\]. So let $\psi_u$ be the embedding witnessing $q^n_u{\leqslant}q^{n+1}_u$ for $u\in A^\eta$, granted by this induction. Then since ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible, we see that $$\varphi_n=\varphi_{n+1}\circ \psi_{\eta,\eta}^{k^n,k^{n+1}}=\varphi_{n+1}\circ \mu_n$$ with $\mu_n$ as from Remark \[Rk:Mu\]. Therefore, since ${\mathcal{Q}}$ has nice limits we have $x{\leqslant}y$.
Again we immediately obtain a bqo result, we also mention some further corollaries.
\[Cor:LimitBqo\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be extendible and have nice limits. Suppose that ${\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is well-behaved, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo and ${\mathcal{B}}$ is bqo. Then ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is bqo.
Suppose we had a bad ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$-array $f$. Let define the bad ${\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$-array $g$ by letting $g(X)$ be a decomposition tree for $f(X)$. Then by Theorem \[Thm:Limit\], $g$ must be bad. Thus since ${\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is well-behaved there must be a bad function to ${\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$, which is a contradiction of Theorem \[Thm:U bqo\] since ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ were bqo.
\[Cor:sscat\] ${\mathscr{M}}$, the class of $\sigma$-scattered linear orders is bqo.
Set ${\mathcal{Q}}, {\mathcal{B}}, {\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}$ as in Example \[Ex:ScatLO\]. For a limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$, we consider $x_n\subseteq x_{n+1}$ and define the limit to be the union, in this way $\mu_n$ acts as the identity on elements of $x_n$. We then have that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{M}}$. We have ${\mathcal{A}}={\mathrm{On}}\cup {\mathrm{On}}^*$ and ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$ hence ${\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}=\omega$ so since ${\mathcal{A}}$ has injective morphisms and by theorems \[Thm:OnWB\], \[Thm:U bqo\] and \[Thm:Kriz\] we know ${\mathscr{T}}_{\mathcal{A}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is well-behaved. By Corollary \[Cor:LimitBqo\] it just remains to show that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible and has nice limits. Since ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$ it is easily verified that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible. Finally if we have embeddings $\varphi_n$ for $n\in \omega$ as in the definition of nice limits, then we let $\varphi$ be the union of the $\varphi_n$, this clearly satisfies the definition of nice limits. The result now follows from Corollary \[Cor:LimitBqo\].
${\mathscr{T}}^{{\mathrm{On}}}$, the class of $\sigma$-scattered trees is bqo.
Let ${\mathcal{Q}}$ be the class of all trees, ${\mathcal{B}}=\{\emptyset\}\subseteq {\mathcal{Q}}$, ${\mathcal{A}}={\mathrm{On}}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$. We let ${\mathcal{F}}=\{c_\alpha:\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}\}\cup \{d_\kappa:\kappa\in {\mathrm{Card}}\}$, ordered so that $c_\alpha<c_\beta$ and $d_\alpha<d_\beta$ for $\alpha<\beta$; where we define:
- $c_\alpha:{\mathcal{Q}}^\alpha\rightarrow {\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $c_\alpha(\langle T_\gamma:\gamma< \alpha \rangle)$ is the $\alpha$-tree-sum of the $T_\gamma$ $(\gamma<\alpha)$.
- $d_\kappa:{\mathcal{Q}}^\kappa\rightarrow {\mathcal{Q}}$ such that $d_\kappa(\langle T_\gamma:\gamma<\kappa\rangle)$ is the disjoint union of the $T_\gamma$.
Then ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ is ${\mathscr{U}}^{\mathrm{On}}$, the class of scattered trees (as in [@LaverClassOfTrees]) by Theorem \[Thm:ScatteredRank\]. Define the limit of a limiting sequence to be the union so that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{T}}^{{\mathrm{On}}}$. Now proceed similarly to Corollary \[Cor:sscat\].
The following theorem is our main application of Theorem \[Thm:Limit\], which is the crucial step in showing that the large classes of partial orders in Section \[Section:PO\] are well-behaved.
\[Thm:MLPisWB\] Let $Q$ be a quasi-order, $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders, $\mathbb{P}$ be a bqo class of partial orders and ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}^Q$. If ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ is well-behaved, then any bad ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$-array admits a witnessing bad $Q$-array.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$. Suppose we have a bad ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$-array $f$ then for each $X\in[\omega]^\omega$, let $g(X)$ be a decomposition tree for $f(X)$. First we note that by Definition \[Defn:Tx\], it is clear that the leaves of the tree $g(X)$ are coloured by some element of ${\mathcal{B}}$ used to construct $f(X)$. Thus the colours of the partial order $f(X)$ are colours of colours of leaves of $g(X)$. Now by Theorem \[Thm:Limit\] we have that $g$ is a bad ${\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$-array.
Since we assumed that ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ is well-behaved, there is a witnessing bad ${\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$-array $g'$. Since the order on ${\mathcal{F}}$ is isomorphic to the order on $\mathbb{P}$, we know that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo. Hence we can restrict $g'$ as in the proof of Theorem \[Thm:U bqo\], to find a witnessing bad ${\mathcal{B}}$-array $f'$. Since the colours from each $g(X)$ that were in ${\mathcal{B}}$ were points of $f(X)$ we now know that $f'$ is a witnessing bad array for $f$. Then since ${\mathcal{B}}=Q'^1$ we can restrict again to be inside the complement of $f'^{-1}(-\infty)$ in order to find a witnessing bad $Q^1$-array. This clearly gives a witnessing bad $Q$-array just passing to colours. Hence any bad ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$-array admits a witnessing bad $Q$-array.
Constructing structured $\mathscr{L}$-trees {#Section:StructuredRTrees}
===========================================
The aim of this section is to show that whenever $\mathbb{L}$ is a class of linear orders and $\mathbb{P}$ is a class of partial orders both of which are well-behaved, then we have ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}$ is also well-behaved. We can then combine this result with Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB\]. The proof will consist of an application of Theorem \[Thm:Limit\], but now we will construct structured trees instead of partial orders.
We define $\mathbb{E}\subseteq{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{A}_{2}}))$ such that whenever $\langle E_i:i\in r\rangle \in \mathbb{E}$ and $i\in r$ there is a unique $e\in E_i$ with ${\mathbf{c}}(e)=1$. We define from $\mathbb{E}$ the new concrete category $\mathbb{E}'$ of ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$-coloured $\mathbb{P}$-structured ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$-trees. Let $E\in \mathbb{E}$ be such that $E=\langle E_i:i\in r\rangle$, for each $i\in r$ we let
- $E'_i=E_i$ if $i$ is not the maximum element of $r$,
- $E'_i=E_i\cup\{\varepsilon\}$ if $i$ is the maximum element of $r$.
Then we define $$E'=\bigsqcup_{i\in r}E'_i$$ and let $\mathbb{E}'=\{E':E\in \mathbb{E}\}$. We order $E'$ as in Figure \[Fig:E’\] by letting $\varepsilon>e\in E'$ iff ${\mathbf{c}}(e)=1$; and for $d,e\in E'$ we have $d<e$ iff $d\neq \varepsilon$ and either
- $d,e\in E_i$, ${\mathbf{c}}(d)=1$, ${\mathbf{c}}(e)=0$.
- $d\in E_i$, $e\in E_j$, $i<j$ and ${\mathbf{c}}(d)=1$.
The colouring of elements of the $E_i$ induces a colouring of $E'$ (with colours in ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$), we also set ${\mathbf{c}}(\varepsilon)=0$ when $\varepsilon\in E'$. For each $i\in r$ and $d\in E_i$ with ${\mathbf{c}}(d)=1$ and $d<e$ we define the label $l_d(e)$ to be $d$ if ${\mathbf{c}}(e)=1$ and $e$ otherwise. This gives us a $\mathbb{P}$-structured $\mathbb{L}$-tree $E'$. We call the chain of elements of $E'$ coloured by $1$ the *central chain* of $E'$.
We define morphisms of $\mathbb{E}'$ to be maps induced by embeddings of $\mathbb{E}$ (we can also find a place for the possibly new maximum $\varepsilon$). Thus morphisms of $\mathbb{E}'$ will also be structured tree embeddings.
at (0.5,4.5) [$E$]{}; (0,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.2,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.4,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.6,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (1,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0,4) – (1,4); at (0,4) [$E_0$]{}; (0.8,4) circle \[radius=0.04\];
(0,3) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.4,2.9) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.6,3.05) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.8,3) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (1,3.1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0,3) – (0.2,3); (0.2,3) – (0.4,2.9); (0.4,2.9) – (0.6,3.05); (0.6,3.05) – (0.8,3); (0.8,3) – (1,3.1); (0.2,3) circle \[radius=0.04\]; at (0,3) [$E_1$]{};
(0,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.2,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.4,2.1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.6,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (1,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.4,2.1) – (0.2,2); (0.4,2.1) – (0.6,2); (0.8,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; at (0,2) [$E_2$]{};
(0,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.2,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.6,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.8,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (1,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0,1) – (0.4,1); (0.4,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; at (0,1) [$E_3$]{};
(0,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.2,0.1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.2,-0.1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.6,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0.8,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (1,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (0,0) – (0.2,0.1); (0,0) – (0.2,-0.1); (0.4,0) – (0.2,0.1); (0.4,0) – (0.2,-0.1); (0.8,0) – (1,0); at (0,0) [$E_4$]{}; (0.4,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; at (3+0.5,4.5) [$E'$]{}; (3+0,4) – (3+1,4); (3+0,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.2,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.4,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.6,4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+1,4) circle \[radius=0.04\];
at (3+0,4) [$E'_0$]{};
(3+0.8,4.4) – (3+0,4); (3+0.8,4.4) – (3+0.2,4); (3+0.8,4.4) – (3+0.4,4); (3+0.8,4.4) – (3+0.6,4); (3+0.8,4.4) – (3+0.8,4); (3+0.8,4.4) – (3+1,4); (3+0.8,4.4) circle \[radius=0.04\];
(3+0.8,4) – (3+0.2,3.3);
(3+0,3) – (3+0.2,3); (3+0.2,3) – (3+0.4,2.9); (3+0.4,2.9) – (3+0.6,3.05); (3+0.6,3.05) – (3+0.8,3); (3+0.8,3) – (3+1,3.1);
(3+0,3) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.4,2.9) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.6,3.05) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.8,3) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+1,3.1) circle \[radius=0.04\];
(3+0.2,3.3) – (3+0,3); (3+0.2,3.3) – (3+0.4,2.9); (3+0.2,3.3) – (3+0.6,3.05); (3+0.2,3.3) – (3+0.8,3); (3+0.2,3.3) – (3+1,3.1);
(3+0.2,3.3) – (3+0.2,3); (3+0.2,3) – (3+0.8,2.4);
(3+0.2,3.3) circle \[radius=0.04\]; at (3+0,3) [$E'_1$]{}; (3+0.4,2.1) – (3+0.2,2); (3+0.4,2.1) – (3+0.6,2); (3+0,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.2,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.4,2.1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.6,2) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+1,2) circle \[radius=0.04\];
(3+0.8,2.4) – (3+0,2); (3+0.8,2.4) – (3+0.2,2); (3+0.8,2.4) – (3+0.4,2.1); (3+0.8,2.4) – (3+0.6,2); (3+0.8,2.4) – (3+0.8,2); (3+0.8,2.4) – (3+1,2);
(3+0.8,2.4) circle \[radius=0.04\];
at (3+0,2) [$E'_2$]{}; (3+0,1) – (3+0.4,1); (3+0,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.2,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.6,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.8,1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+1,1) circle \[radius=0.04\];
(3+0.8,2) – (3+0.4,1.4);
(3+0.4,1.4) – (3+0,1); (3+0.4,1.4) – (3+0.2,1); (3+0.4,1.4) – (3+0.4,1); (3+0.4,1.4) – (3+0.6,1); (3+0.4,1.4) – (3+0.8,1); (3+0.4,1.4) – (3+1,1);
(3+0.4,1.4) circle \[radius=0.04\]; at (3+0,1) [$E'_3$]{}; (3+0,0) – (3+0.2,0.1); (3+0,0) – (3+0.2,-0.1); (3+0.4,0) – (3+0.2,0.1); (3+0.4,0) – (3+0.2,-0.1); (3+0.8,0) – (3+1,0); (3+0,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.2,0.1) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.2,-0.1) circle \[radius=0.04\];
at (3+0.4,0) [$\varepsilon$]{}; (3+0.6,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.8,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+1,0) circle \[radius=0.04\];
at (3+0,0) [$E'_4$]{};
(3+0.4,1) – (3+0.4,0.4);
(3+0.4,0.4) – (3+0,0); (3+0.4,0.4) – (3+0.2,0.1); (3+0.4,0.4) – (3+0.2,-0.1); (3+0.4,0.4) – (3+0.4,0); (3+0.4,0.4) – (3+0.6,0); (3+0.4,0.4) – (3+0.8,0); (3+0.4,0.4) – (3+1,0);
(3+0.4,0) circle \[radius=0.04\]; (3+0.4,0.4) circle \[radius=0.04\];
We will now define the parameters of our construction. Throughout this section, we let:
1. $Q$ be an arbitrary quasi-order;
2. $Q'$ be $Q$ with an added minimal element $-\infty$;
3. $\mathbb{P}$ be an arbitrary concrete category;
4. $\mathbb{L}$ be an arbitrary class of linear orders;
5. ${\mathcal{Q}}={\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$;
6. ${\mathcal{B}}=Q^1\cup \{\emptyset\}\subseteq {\mathcal{Q}}$;
7. ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{E}'$;
8. ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$.
It remains to define ${\mathcal{F}}$, now we will define its functions.
For each $E=\langle E_i:i\in r\rangle \in \mathbb{E}$ we define the function $S_E:{\mbox{dom}}(S_E)\rightarrow {\mathcal{Q}}$ as follows. First let ${\mathbf{a}}(S_E)=E'$ and ${\mathbf{b}(S_E)}=\{e\in E'\mid {\mathbf{c}}(e)=1\}$ be the central chain of $E'$. Define the function $\tau:{\mbox{dom}}(S_E)\rightarrow {\mathcal{Q}}^{E'}$ so that $\tau(\langle x_i:i\in E'\rangle)=\langle x'_i:i\in E'\rangle$ where $x'_i$ is a single point coloured by $-\infty$ if $x_i=\emptyset$ and $i$ is on the central chain of $E'$; and $x'_i=x_i$ otherwise. Now we let $S_E=\sum_{E'}\circ \tau$. We inherit labels and colours in this sum. We define $S_E{\leqslant}_{\mathcal{F}}S_F$ iff $E{\leqslant}_{\mathbb{E}} F$.
Throughout this section we will also let ${\mathcal{F}}=\{S_E:E\in \mathbb{E}\}$.
\[Rk:TreeSubsetLimits\] Clearly the minimal element of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is $\emptyset$. Therefore elements of limiting sequences are constructed by replacing $\emptyset$ arguments with larger $\mathscr{L}$-trees. So limiting sequences will be sequences of coloured and structured $\mathscr{L}$-trees, whose underlying sets are each ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed subsets of the next (as in Figure \[Fig:ScatTrees\]). Thus it is possible to define limits as unions of such sequences.
We now have two goals. Firstly we will show that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$, and secondly we will verify the conditions of Theorem \[Thm:Limit\]. Using this theorem we will then see that ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved whenever $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ are well-behaved.
The constructed trees are $\sigma$-scattered
--------------------------------------------
Now we aim to show that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$.
Let $T\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q')$, $\xi$ be a chain of $T$ and $t\in \xi$. We define $l_t(\xi)$ to be $\emptyset$ whenever $t$ is the maximal element of $\xi$, and if there is some $t'\in \xi$ with $t'>t$ then we let $l_t(\xi)=\{l_t(t')\}$. This is well-defined by the definition of $l_t$.
\[Lemma:CombReduce\] Suppose that $T\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q')\setminus {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, and $\xi$ is an ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed chain of $T$ that contains no leaves. Then either $\bigcap_{j\in\xi}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ or there is some $t\in \xi$ and $p\in {\mbox{range}}(l_t)\setminus l_t(\xi)$ such that ${}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$.
Let $T$ and $\xi\subseteq T$ be as described. Suppose $\bigcap_{j\in\xi}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and there are no such $t$ and $p$. Pick a maximal chain $\zeta$ of $\bigcap_{j\in\xi}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j$, and let $\xi'=\zeta\cup \xi$. Then for each $i\in {\mathrm{ot}}(\xi')$ let $\xi'_i$ be the $i$th element of $\xi'$ and we define $E_i$ as an ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$-coloured copy of ${\mbox{range}}(l_{\xi'_i})\in \mathbb{P}$, that we colour as follows. When ${\mathrm{ot}}(\xi')$ has a maximum element $m$, we let every colour of $E_m$ be $0$. For non-maximal $i\in {\mathrm{ot}}(\xi')$ we let $u\in E_i$ be coloured with $1$ iff there is some $j\in {\mathrm{ot}}(\xi')$ with $i<j$ and $l_{\xi'_i}(\xi'_j)=u$. We set $E=\langle E_i:i\in {\mathrm{ot}}(\xi')\rangle$, then we have that $E\in \mathbb{E}$.
Now for $a\in E'$ we define $K_a\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$ as follows. If $a$ is the $i$th point on the central chain of $E'$ and ${\mathbf{c}}_T(\xi'_i)\neq -\infty$ we let $K_a$ be a single point coloured by ${\mathbf{c}}_T(\xi'_i)$, if ${\mathbf{c}}_T(\xi'_i)=-\infty$ then we let $K_a=\emptyset$, hence $K_a\in {\mathcal{B}}$. Otherwise $a$ is not on the central chain of $E'$ and we can let $i$ be largest such that the $i$th point $w$ of the central chain of $E'$ is $<a$ (there was such a largest element, by definition of the order on $E'$). Now let $u\in {\mbox{range}}(l_w)$ be such that $l_w(a)=u$. Then we set $$K_a={}^u{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\xi'_i\subseteq T.$$ We then have by construction that $$S_E(\langle K_a:a\in E'\rangle)=T.$$ But we know that each $K_a$ was in ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ by our original assumption. Hence since ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ was closed under applying any function in ${\mathcal{F}}$ it must be that $T\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ which is a contradiction.
\[Lemma:NonScatteredTreeSplitting\] Suppose that $T\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q')\setminus {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, then there is some $u\in T$ and two disjoint ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed subtrees $S_1,S_2\subseteq {\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}u$ such that $S_1,S_2\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$.
Let $T\in {\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q')\setminus {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Pick a chain $\xi_0$ of $T$ that contains no leaves and is maximal. Then by Lemma \[Lemma:CombReduce\] there is some $t_0\in \xi_0$ and $p_0\in {\mbox{range}}(l_{t_0})\setminus l_{t_0}(\xi_0)$ such that ${}^{p_0}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_0\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Suppose for induction that for some $\alpha\in{\mathrm{On}}$ we have defined $t_0<...<t_\alpha\in T$ and $p_0,...,p_\alpha$ such that for any $\gamma<\alpha$ we have $l_{t_\gamma}(t_\alpha)=p_\gamma$ and ${}^{p_\gamma}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_\alpha\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. We now apply Lemma \[Lemma:CombReduce\] to a maximal chain $\xi_\alpha$ of ${}^{p_\alpha}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_\alpha$ that contains no leaves, whence we find $t_{\alpha+1}\in {}^{p_\alpha}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_\alpha$ and $p_{\alpha+1}$ such that ${}^{p_{\alpha+1}}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_{\alpha+1}\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, in other words $t_{\alpha+1}$ and $p_{\alpha+1}$ satisfy the induction hypothesis.
Now suppose for some limit $\lambda\in {\mathrm{On}}$ we have defined such $t_\gamma$ and $p_\gamma$ for every $\gamma<\lambda$. Let $\zeta_\lambda=\bigcup_{\gamma<\lambda}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}t_\gamma$, then $\zeta_\lambda$ is an ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed chain of $T$ that contains no leaves because every element has some $t_\gamma$ larger than it. By Lemma \[Lemma:CombReduce\] either $\bigcap_{j\in\zeta_\lambda}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ or there is some $t\in \zeta_\lambda$ and $p\in {\mbox{range}}(l_t)\setminus l_t(\zeta_\lambda)$ such that ${}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Suppose the latter, then let $\delta$ be least such that $t<t_\delta$. Since $t_\delta\in \zeta_\lambda$ we have that $l_t(t_\delta)\in l_t(\zeta_\lambda)\neq \emptyset$. Now we also had that $p\notin l_t(\zeta_\lambda)$, hence the trees $S_1={}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t$ and $S_2={}^{p_\delta}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_\delta$ are disjoint. Moreover each is clearly ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed and we also have $S_1,S_2\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ we now set $u=t$ and we are done. Finally suppose that $\bigcap_{j\in\zeta_\lambda}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, then pick a maximal chain $\xi_\lambda$ of $\bigcap_{j\in\xi}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j$, so by Lemma \[Lemma:CombReduce\] there is some $t_\lambda\in \xi_\lambda$ and $p_\lambda\in {\mbox{range}}(l_{t_\lambda})\setminus l_{t_\lambda}(\xi_\lambda)$ such that ${}^{p_\lambda}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t_\lambda\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, and we can continue the induction. Now the induction must stop at some point, otherwise for all limit $\lambda\in {\mathrm{On}}$ it must be that $\bigcap_{j\in\zeta_\lambda}{\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}j\neq \emptyset$, and therefore $T$ is a proper class! This contradiction ensures that we will always find $u$, $S_1$ and $S_2$ as required.
\[Thm:TreesAreAMR\] ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}={\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$.
First we will show that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\subseteq {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$. It is clear that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ consists of $Q'$-coloured, $\mathbb{P}$-structured ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$-trees, so we prove by induction on the rank of $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ that $2^{<\omega}\not {\leqslant}x$. Clearly if $x\in {\mathcal{B}}$ then $2^{<\omega}\not {\leqslant}x$, so we have the base case.
So let $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$. Then for some $E\in \mathbb{E}$ we have that $x=S_E(\langle x_i:i\in E'\rangle)$ with $x_i\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ for each $i\in E'$. Hence by the induction hypothesis, $x$ is a $\zeta$-tree-sum of the scattered trees $x_i$, $(i\in E')$ of lower rank for some chain $\zeta\subseteq x$.
Suppose $2^{<\omega}{\leqslant}x$ and let $\psi$ be a witnessing embedding. Then either ${\mbox{range}}(\psi)$ is contained entirely inside the chain $\zeta$ (which is a contradiction) or there is some $z\in 2^{<\omega}$ with $\psi(z)$ inside $x_i$ for some $i\in E'$. But each $x_i$ is ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed, hence $\psi({\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}z)\subseteq x_i$. But for any point $t\in 2^{<\omega}$ we have that ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}t$ is a copy of $2^{<\omega}$, and therefore $2^{<\omega}{\leqslant}x_i$ which contradicts that $x_i$ was scattered. Therefore $2^{<\omega}\not {\leqslant}x$, and hence we have ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\subseteq {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$.
For the other direction we want to show ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\supseteq {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$. So suppose that $T\in {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')\setminus{\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, we will show that $2^{<\omega}{\leqslant}T$. First we set $T^{\langle \rangle}=T$. Now suppose that we have already defined $T^s\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ for some $s\in 2^{<\omega}$. We apply Lemma \[Lemma:NonScatteredTreeSplitting\] to $T^s$ to obtain corresponding $u_s$, and $S^s_1, S^s_2$ $\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Now let $T^{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0\rangle}=S^s_1$ and $T^{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1 \rangle }=S^s_2$.
We now define the embedding $\varphi:2^{<\omega}\rightarrow T$ by letting $\varphi(s)=u_s$. We claim that this is a tree embedding. For any $s\in 2^{<\omega}$ we have that the ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed trees $T^{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0\rangle}$ and $T^{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1\rangle}$ are disjoint, hence $u_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0\rangle}$ and $u_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1\rangle}$ are incomparable elements of $T$. It remains to check that for $i\in \{0,1\}$ we have $u_s< u_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}$, but this is clear since we had that $$u_{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}\in T^{s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle}=S^s_i\subseteq {\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}u_{s}.$$ So indeed $\varphi$ is an embedding and $2^{<\omega}{\leqslant}T$. Therefore $T\notin {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$, and we conclude that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\supseteq {\mathscr{U}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}(Q')$. So we have shown both directions, which completes the proof.
The class ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_\mathbb{P}$ of structured trees is well-behaved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[Thm:TreesAritiesWellBehaved\] If $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ are well-behaved, then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is well-behaved and ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo.
Suppose $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ are well-behaved. We have that ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{E}'$ and $\mathbb{E}\subseteq {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{A}_{2}}))$. Consider the function $$\tau:\mathbb{E}'(Q)\rightarrow {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{A}_{2}}\times Q))\times Q'$$ defined as follows. First if $\hat{E}'\in \mathbb{E}'(Q)$, (so $\hat{E}'$ is an ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}\times Q$-coloured copy of $E'\in \mathbb{E}'$), then let $\hat{E}$ be a coloured copy of $E=\langle E_i:i\in r\rangle\in \mathbb{E}$ such that ${\mathbf{c}}_{\hat{E}_i}(z)={\mathbf{c}}_{\hat{E'}}(z)$ for every $i\in r$ and $z\in E_i$. If we added $\varepsilon$ to $E'$ then we let $\sigma={\mathbf{c}}(\varepsilon)$, otherwise we let $\sigma=-\infty$. Then we define $\tau(\hat{E'})=\langle \hat{E},\sigma\rangle$. Now if $\tau(E'){\leqslant}\tau(F')$ then there is an embedding of $\mathbb{E}$ that increases the colours that are in $Q$. Hence in this case $E'{\leqslant}F'$.
So suppose there were a bad $\mathbb{E}'$-array $f$, hence $\tau\circ f$ is a bad ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{A}_{2}}\times Q))\times Q'$-array and we notice that $\tau\circ f(X)$ has all of its colours in $Q$ from $f(X)$, and all its colours in $Q'$ either from $f(X)$ or $-\infty$. By Theorem \[Thm:times bqo\] we either get either a witnessing bad $Q'$-array or ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{A}_{2}}\times Q))$-array. In the first case applying the Galvin and Prikry Theorem \[Thm:GalvinPrikry\], restricting to be inside the complement of $f^{-1}(-\infty)$ would give a bad $Q$-array which would be witnessing for $f$.
So we have a witnessing bad ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}(\mathbb{P}({\mathrm{A}_{2}}\times Q))$-array. Since $\mathbb{L}$ is well-behaved, we have by Theorem \[Thm:LbarWB\] that ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is well-behaved, and hence since $\mathbb{P}$ is also well-behaved, we have a witnessing bad ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}\times Q$-array $f'$. But each of the colours in $Q$ of $f'(X)$ were from $f(X)$, hence using Theorem \[Thm:times bqo\] we find a witnessing bad $Q$-array for $f$. Therefore ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{E}'$ is well-behaved. Clearly this means that $\mathbb{E}$ is bqo, and hence also ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo.
We now verify the conditions of Theorem \[Thm:Limit\].
\[Lemma:TreesEveryfExtensive\] Every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is extensive.
Let $S_E\in {\mathcal{F}}$ and consider $x=S_E(\langle T_u:u\in E'\rangle)$. Either $u\in E'$ is on the central chain of $E'$ and $T_u$ is the minimal element $\emptyset$; or a copy of $T_u$ appears precisely in $x$.
\[Thm:TreeInfExtensive\] ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible.
Since ${\mathcal{L}}=\{1\}$ it is clear that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is ${\mathcal{L}}$-iterable. By Lemma \[Lemma:TreesEveryfExtensive\] we know that every $f\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is extensive. So suppose as in Definition \[Defn:InfExtensive\] that we are given composition sequences $$\eta=\langle \langle S_E,s\rangle\rangle \mbox{ and }\nu=\langle \langle S_F,s'\rangle\rangle$$ with $\eta{\leqslant}\nu$ and $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(S_E)$, $k'=\langle q'_u:u\in A^\nu\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(S_F)$ such that $q_u{\leqslant}q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$ for each $u\in A^\eta$ with $\varphi_u$ a witnessing embedding. So we have that $f^\eta(k)=S_E(k)$ and $f^\nu(k)=S_F(k')$. We also have that $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}$ is an embedding from $E'=A^\eta$ to $F'=A^\nu$. We define $\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}:f^\eta(k)\rightarrow f^\nu(k')$ as follows.
If $u$ is on the central chain of $E'$, then $u\in {\mathbf{b}(S_E)}$, so that $q_u\in {\mathcal{B}}$. We see that $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}$ sends elements of the central chain of $E'$ to the central chain of $F'$ since it was induced from an embedding of $\mathbb{E}$, thus also $q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}\in {\mathcal{B}}$. Let $a$ be the point of $f^\eta(k)$ that corresponds to $u$, i.e. either it is the single point of $q_u$ in the sum or $q_u=\emptyset$ and $a$ is a single point coloured by $-\infty$. In this case we let $\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)$ be the point $b\in f^\nu(k')$ that corresponds to $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)$. Notice that the embedding $\varphi_u$ gives us that ${\mathbf{c}}(a){\leqslant}{\mathbf{c}}(b)$.
Suppose $u$ is not on the central chain of $E'$ and that $a\in q_u\subseteq f^\eta(k)$, then we let $$\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)=\varphi_u(a)\in q_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}\subseteq f^\nu(k').$$ Then clearly $\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}$ is a structured tree embedding, since $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}$, and each of the $\varphi_u$ ($u\in A^\eta$) are embeddings. Therefore ${\mathcal{C}}$ is infinitely extensive.
Now suppose that $\hat{k}=\langle \hat{q}_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle$ is such that $q_u{\leqslant}\hat{q}_u$ for all $u\in A^\eta$, with some witnessing embedding $\mu_u$. Suppose also that $\hat{q}_u{\leqslant}q'_{\varphi(\eta,\nu)}$ for each $u\in A^\eta$, with $\psi_u$ a witnessing embedding, and that $\varphi_u=\psi_u\circ \mu_u$. Then for $a\in f^\eta(k)$, with $a\in q_u$, we have $$\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)=\varphi_u(a)=\psi_u\circ\mu_u(a)\in q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}$$ and $\mu^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)=\mu_u(a)\in \hat{q}_u$, so that $$\psi^{\hat{k},k'}_{\eta,\nu}\circ \mu^{k,\hat{k}}_{\eta,\eta}(a)=\psi_u\circ \mu_u(a)\in q'_{\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)}.$$ It remains to check when $q_u=\emptyset$ and $a$ is the point corresponding to $u$. In this case $\varphi^{k,k'}_{\eta,\nu}(a)$ is the point $b\in f^\nu(k')$ corresponding to $\varphi_{\eta,\nu}(u)$. Now $\mu^{k,\hat{k}}_{\eta,\eta}(a)$ is the point of $f^\eta(\hat{k})$ corresponding to $u$, so that $\psi^{\hat{k},k'}_{\eta,\nu}\circ \mu^{k,\hat{k}}_{\eta,\eta}(a)=b$. Thus we have verified the conditions of Definition \[Defn:Extendible\], and therefore ${\mathcal{C}}$ is extendible.
${\mathcal{C}}$ has nice limits.
First it is easily verified that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has limits. Let $x,y\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ be such that $x$ is the limit of $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ and for any $n\in \omega$ we have embeddings $\varphi_n:x_n\rightarrow y$ such that $\varphi_n=\varphi_{n+1}\circ \mu_n$. We want to show that $x{\leqslant}y$.
We have by Remark \[Rk:Mu\] that $\mu_n$ was the embedding given by the infinite extensiveness of ${\mathcal{F}}$, using the construction of each $x_n$. By the same argument as Remark \[Rk:TreeSubsetLimits\]; the underlying set of $x_n$ is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed subset of the underlying set of $x_{n+1}$ where we consider $\mu_n:x_n\rightarrow x_{n+1}$ acting as the identity on $x_n$. Now we have that $\varphi_n=\varphi_{n+1}\circ \mu_n$ is equivalent to saying that when $a\in x_n$ we have $\varphi_{n+1}(a)=\varphi_n(a)$. Hence it is possible to define $\varphi:x\rightarrow y$ as the union of all of the $\varphi_n$. We claim that $\varphi$ is an embedding.
Let $a,b\in x=\bigcup_{n\in \omega}x_n$, and let $n$ be least such that $a,b\in x_n$. Let $l_a^x$ be the $a$-label of $x$, and $l_a^{x_{n+1}}$ be the $a$-label of $x_{n+1}$. If $b> a$ we define $\theta:{\mbox{range}}(l^x_a)\rightarrow {\mbox{range}}(l_{\varphi(a)})$ such that if $l^x_a(b)=u$ then $\theta(u)=l_{\varphi(a)}(\varphi(b))$ (these are labels from $x$). In order to show that $x{\leqslant}y$ we verify the following properties of $\varphi$ (see Definition \[Defn:StructTrees\]).
1. $a{\leqslant}b$ iff $\varphi_n(a){\leqslant}\varphi_n(b)$ iff $\varphi(a){\leqslant}\varphi(b)$ (since $\varphi_n$ is an embedding).
2. $\varphi(a\wedge b)=\varphi(a)\wedge \varphi(b)$. Note that each $x_n$ is ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\downarrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\downarrow$}}}$-closed in $x$. So that $\varphi_n(a\wedge b)$ is defined, and hence since $\varphi_n$ is an embedding, we have $$\varphi(a\wedge b)=\varphi_n(a\wedge b)=\varphi_n(a)\wedge \varphi_n(b)=\varphi(a)\wedge \varphi(b).$$
3. If $a {\leqslant}b$ then $\theta$ is an embedding. By property (\[Item:LimitSeq5\]) of Definition \[Defn:LimitSequence\], we have ${\mbox{range}}(l_a^x)={\mbox{range}}(l_a^{x_{n+1}})$. So $\theta$ is an ${\mathcal{A}}$-morphism since it is a map induced by the embedding $\varphi_{n+1}$.
4. ${\mathbf{c}}(a){\leqslant}{\mathbf{c}}(\varphi(a))$. By property (\[Item:LimitSeq4\]) of Definition \[Defn:LimitSequence\], we have $${\mathbf{c}}_x(a)={\mathbf{c}}_{x_n}(a){\leqslant}{\mathbf{c}}_y(\varphi_n(a))={\mathbf{c}}_y(\varphi(a)).$$
Hence $\varphi$ is an embedding and $x{\leqslant}y$ as required.
\[Thm:TLPWell-Behaved\] Suppose that $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ are well-behaved, then ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ is well-behaved.[^15]
By Theorem \[Thm:TreesAreAMR\] we have that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q')$. Suppose we have a bad ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q')$-array $f$ then define $g(X)$ to be a decomposition tree for $f(X)$. First we note that by Definition \[Defn:Tx\], it is clear that the leaves of the tree $g(X)$ are coloured by some element of ${\mathcal{B}}$ used to construct $f(X)$. Thus the colours of the tree $f(X)$ are colours of colours of elements of $g(X)$. Now by Theorem \[Thm:Limit\] we have that $g$ is a bad array with range in ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}})$.
We know that ${\overline{{\mathcal{L}}}}=\omega$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ has injective morphisms. By Lemma \[Thm:TreesAritiesWellBehaved\] we know that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is well-behaved; hence by Theorem \[Thm:Kriz\], there is a witnessing bad ${\mathcal{F}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$-array $g'$. Using Lemma \[Thm:TreesAritiesWellBehaved\] we know that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is bqo, hence we can restrict $g'$ using Theorem \[Thm:U bqo\], to find a witnessing bad array $f'$ to ${\mathcal{B}}$. Since the colours from each $g(X)$ that were in ${\mathcal{B}}$ were points of $f(X)$ we now know that $f'$ is a witnessing bad array for $f$. Then since ${\mathcal{B}}=Q^1\cup \{\emptyset\}$ we can restrict again to find a witnessing bad array to $Q^1$, which clearly gives a witnessing bad array to $Q$ just passing to colours. Hence any bad array admits a witnessing bad array, i.e. ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ is well-behaved.
Constructing partial orders {#Section:PO}
===========================
In this section we aim to show that some large classes of partial orders are well-behaved. Theorems \[Thm:MLPisWB\] and \[Thm:TLPWell-Behaved\] together, essentially already give us that some classes of partial orders are well-behaved. The challenge now is to characterise the partial orders that we have constructed.
Our method is similar to Thomassé’s in [@Nfree], but expanded to make use of the two generalisations of section \[Section:OpConstruction\]. This allows us to generalise the bqo class of partial orders not only to allow embeddings of the $N$ partial order, but also into the transfinite. In order to prove his main result of [@Nfree], Thomassé used a structured tree theorem: that ${\mathscr{T}}^{\mathscr{C}}_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}({\mathrm{A}_{3}})$ preserves bqo. We will use what is essentially the same method, but with the more general trees ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\overline{\mathbb{L}}}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ for general well-behaved classes of partial orders $\mathbb{P}$ and linear orders $\mathbb{L}$. So that, in particular when $\mathbb{L}={\mathscr{M}}$ and $\mathbb{P}=\{1,{\mathrm{A}_{2}},{\mathrm{C}_{2}}\}$ we obtain a transfinite version of Thomassé’s result. We will prove the general theorem (Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\]) in this section, and explore applications of this theorem in Section \[Section:Cors\].
Intervals and indecomposable partial orders
-------------------------------------------
We will now borrow some definitions from [@Nfree]. We want to define the indecomposable partial orders which will serve as building blocks for larger partial orders, in order to do so we first require the notion of an interval.
Suppose that $a,b,c\in x\in {\mathcal{Q}}$. We say that $a$ *shares the same relationship* to $b$ and $c$, and write ${\mathrm{SSR}(a;b,c)}$ iff for all $R\in \{<,>,\perp\}$ we have $$a R b\mbox{ iff }a R c.$$
\[Defn:Interval\] Let $P$ be a partial order and $I\subseteq P$, then we call $I\neq \emptyset$ an *interval* of $P$ if $\forall x,y\in I$ and $\forall p\in P\setminus I$ we have ${\mathrm{SSR}(p;x,y)}.$
\[Defn:Indecomp\] Let $P$ be a partial order. Then $P$ is called *indecomposable* if every interval of $P$ is either $P$ itself, or a singleton. $P$ is called *decomposable* if it is not indecomposable.
\[Prop:HetaSSR\] Let $\eta$ be a composition sequence of length $r$ and $b_0,b_1,b_2\in H_\eta$, such that for each $i\in \{0,1,2\}$ we have $b_i\in a^\eta_{j_i}$ for $j_i\in r$ then $$j_0<j_1,j_2\longrightarrow{\mathrm{SSR}(b_0;b_1,b_2)}.$$
This is clear by the definition of $H_\eta$.
\[Lemma:UnionIntersectionIntervals\] Let $\langle I_j:j\in r\rangle$ be a chain of intervals of a partial order $P$ under $\supseteq$. Then $\bigcup_{j\in r}I_j$ and $\bigcap_{j\in r}I_j$ are intervals.
Let $a\in P\setminus \bigcup_{j\in r}I_j$ and $b,c\in \bigcup_{j\in r}I_j$. Then $b,c\in I_i$ for some $i\in r$, we know that $I_i$ is an interval hence ${\mathrm{SSR}(a;b,c)}$ as required. The case of intersection is similar.
Let $P$ be a partial order and $I\subseteq P$ be an interval. We define the new partial order $P/I$ to be the partial order obtained from $P$ by removing all but one point of $I$. This is well-defined since $I$ is an interval. If $\mathcal{I}$ is a set of disjoint intervals of $P$, then let $P/\mathcal{I}$ be the partial order obtained from $P$ by removing all but one point of each element of $\mathcal{I}$.
\[Defn:MaxCompSeq\] Let $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle: i\in r\rangle$ be a composition sequence, $k\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ and $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha$. We call $\langle \eta,k\rangle$ *maximal* for $x$ iff for each $i\in r$ we have ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$ is indecomposable and there is a maximal chain $\langle I_j:j\in r\rangle$ of intervals of $x$ under $\supseteq$ such that for some $$k=\langle q_{i,u}:i\in r, u\in a^\eta_i\rangle \in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta})_{<\alpha},$$ we have $x=f^{\eta}(k)$, and if $\eta_j=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i{\geqslant}j\rangle$ then we have for all $j\in r$, $$I_j= f^{\eta_j}(\langle q_{i,u}:i{\geqslant}j,u\in a^\eta_i\rangle).$$
\[Lemma:r’infimum\] Let $\eta$ be a composition sequence of length $r$, and $k\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ be such that $\langle \eta, k\rangle$ is maximal for $x=f^\eta(k)$. Then any $r'\subseteq r$ has an infimum and a supremum in $r$.
Let $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle: i\in r\rangle$, $\eta_j=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i{\geqslant}j\rangle$, $k=\langle q_{i,u}:i\in r, u\in a^\eta_i\rangle$ and $I_j=f^{\eta_j}(\langle q_{i,u}:i{\geqslant}j,u\in a^\eta_i\rangle)$. Consider $I=\bigcup_{i\in r'}I_i$, this is an interval by Lemma \[Lemma:UnionIntersectionIntervals\].
For any $j\in r$ we have that $I_j$ is comparable with $I$ under $\subseteq$, because if $j>i'$ for some $i'\in r'$ then $I\supseteq I_{i'}\supseteq I_j$, and if $j<i'$ for all $i'\in r'$ then for all such $i'$ we have $I_j\supseteq I_{i'}$ and this implies $I_j\supseteq I$. Thus since $\eta$ was maximal, we have that $\langle I_i:i\in r\rangle$ is a maximal chain and thus $I=I_{j_0}$ for some $j_0\in r$. Clearly then $j_0$ is a greatest lower bound of $r'$, i.e. $r'$ has an infimum in $r$.
For the supremum, consider $\bigcap_{i\in r'}I_i$, then the argument is similar.
Generalised $\sigma$-scattered partial orders
---------------------------------------------
We will now begin to characterise the partial orders that we were constructing earlier. For the rest of this section we let:
1. $Q$ be an arbitrary quasi-order;
2. $Q'$ be $Q$ with an added minimal element $-\infty$;
3. $\mathbb{P}$ be a class of non-empty partial orders that is closed under non-empty subsets;
4. $\mathbb{L}$ be a class of linear orders that is closed under subsets;
5. ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}^Q_{\mathbb{L},\mathbb{P}}=\langle {\mathcal{Q}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{L}}\rangle$ as in Example \[Ex:POCONSTRUCTION\].
\[Defn:Qhat\] We let $-2^{<\omega}$ be the partial order obtained by reversing the order on $2^{<\omega}$. We also define the partial order ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ as follows. Elements of ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ are finite sequences of elements of $2$, for $s,t\in {2^{<\omega}_\perp}$, we define $s< t$ iff there are some sequences $u,s',t'$ such that $s=u{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0 \rangle { \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}s'$ and $t=u{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1 \rangle { \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}t'$. (See Figure \[Fig:Qhat\].)
(1,4) – (-1,4); (-1.5,3) – (-0.5,3); (0.5,3) – (1.5,3); (-1.5,3) – (-0.5,3); (-0.5,3) – (0.5,3); (0.5,3) – (1.5,3);
(-1.75,2) – (-1.25,2); (-1.25,2) – (-0.75,2); (-0.75,2) – (-0.25,2); (-0.25,2) – (0.25,2); (0.25,2) – (0.75,2); (0.75,2) – (1.25,2); (1.25,2) – (1.75,2);
(-0.5,3) – (1,4); (-1.25,2) – (-0.5,3); (-0.25,2) – (0.5,3); (0.75,2) – (1.5,3);
(0,5) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1.5,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-0.5,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.5,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1.75,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1.25,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-0.75,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-0.25,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.75,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.25,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.75,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.25,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0,2) [$\vdots$]{};
\[Fig:Antichain\]
The following definition of ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ will characterise the orders of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ (see Theorem \[Thm:PPL=amrs\]). We think of these as a generalisation of scattered linear orders ${\mathscr{S}}$. We will think of ${\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ as a generalisation of $\sigma$-scattered orders ${\mathscr{M}}$. Our aim is to show that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}={\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ and ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$.
\[Defn:PPL\] We define ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ to be the class of non-empty partial orders $X$ with the following properties.
(i) \[PPL1\]If $Y{\leqslant}X$ is indecomposable, then $Y\in \mathbb{P}$.
(ii) \[PPL2\]Every chain of intervals of $X$ with respect to $\supseteq$ has order type in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$.
(iii) \[PPL3\]$2^{<\omega}$, $-2^{<\omega}$ and ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ do not embed into $X$.
We let ${\mathscr{P}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ be the class of those non-empty $X$ satisfying (\[PPL1\]) and (\[PPL2\]). We call a sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ *increasing* if for each $n\in \omega$, we have that $x_n\in {\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ and $x_{n+1}$ is an $x_n$-sum of some partial orders from ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ (so we consider $x_n\subseteq x_{n+1}$ similarly to Remark \[Rk:PoLimits\]). We let ${\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ be the class containing all of ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}$ and unions of increasing sequences.
\[Rk:MLPSeqs\] For any limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$, let $y_n$ be the underlying set of $x_n$ for each $n\in \omega$. Then $(y_n)_{n\in \omega}$ is an increasing sequence. Furthermore, for any union $y$ of an increasing sequence, we could construct a limiting sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$ with a limit $x$ whose underlying set is $y$ and has any $Q'$-colouring that we desire.
In order to prove that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}={\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$, we first require several lemmas. Firstly given an $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$, we now want to fine tune the construction of a decomposition tree for $x$ by making more explicit the choice of $\eta$ used to construct a decomposition function. (See Lemma \[Lemma:decompfn\] and Definition \[Defn:Tx\].) We want to only take $\eta$ that are maximal in the sense of Definition \[Defn:MaxCompSeq\].
\[Lemma:POsMaxChainsForTx\] Let $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha\cap {\mathscr{P}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)$. Then there is a composition sequence $\eta$ and $k\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$, such that $\langle \eta,k\rangle$ is maximal for $x$.
Let $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha$ so by Proposition \[Prop:Reduction\], there is some $\eta$ and $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$ such that $x=f^{\eta}(k)=\sum_{u\in H_\eta}q_u$. We will define a maximal chain $\langle I'_i:i\in r'\rangle$ of intervals of $x$, a composition sequence $\eta'$ and some $k'\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta'})$, so that $\langle \eta',k'\rangle$ is maximal for $x$.
Let $r$ be the length of $\eta$, then for $j\in r$ define $$I_j=\{d\in x\mid d\in q_u, u\in a^\eta_i, i{\geqslant}j\}.$$ By Proposition \[Prop:HetaSSR\] and since $x$ is an $H_\eta$-sum, we have for all $j\in r$ that $I_j$ is an interval of $x$; and for $i<j$ we have $I_i\supset I_j$. So $\langle I_j:j\in r\rangle$ is a chain of intervals under $\supseteq$. Consider a maximal chain $\langle I'_i:i\in r'\rangle$ of intervals under $\supseteq$ that includes all of the $I_j$. For $i\in r$ we define the set $$D_i=\sum_{u\in a^\eta_i}q_u=I_i\setminus\bigcup\{I_{i'}\mid i'<i\}$$ and for $j\in r'$ we define the set $$D'_j=I'_j\setminus\bigcup\{I'_{j'}\mid j'<j\}.$$ Then $D'_j\subseteq x=\bigcup_{i\in r}D_i$, and moreover since each of the $I_i$ were equal to some $I'_j$ it must be that each $D_i$ is a union of some of the $D'_j$. In particular, for all $j\in r'$ there is some $i\in r$ such that $D'_j\subseteq D_i$. Therefore, for some $b_j\subseteq a_i^\eta$ and some $q'_u\subseteq q_u$ for $u\in b_j$, we can write $$D'_j=\sum_{u\in b_j}q'_u.$$
For $j\in r'$, if $j=\max(r')$ we put $b'_j=b_j$, otherwise we can set $b'_j=b_j\sqcup\{s'_j\}$. We define the order on $b'_j$ by inheriting from $b_j$, and for $u\in b'_j$ with $u\neq s'_j$ we put
- $u< s'_j$ iff there is some $w\in x\setminus \bigcup_{j'{\leqslant}j}D'_{j'}$ and $v\in q'_w$ such that $v<w$ and
- $u> s'_j$ iff there is some $w\in x\setminus \bigcup_{j'{\leqslant}j}D'_{j'}$ and $v\in q'_w$ such that $v>w$.
This order is well-defined since $\langle I'_i:i\in r'\rangle$ was a chain of intervals.
Let $\mathcal{Z}=\{Z_\gamma:\gamma\in \kappa\}$ be the set of all non-singleton unions of maximal chains of intervals of $b'_j$ that do not contain $s'_j$; so by Lemma \[Lemma:UnionIntersectionIntervals\] for each $\gamma\in \kappa$ we have $Z_\gamma$ is an interval. Now let $a_j=b'_j/\mathcal{Z}$, letting $e_\gamma\in a_j$ be the point remaining from $Z_\gamma$. So the only non-singleton intervals of $a_j$ contain $s'_j$. For each $u\in a_j\setminus (\{e_\gamma\mid \gamma<\kappa\}\cup \{s'_j\})$ define $y_u=q'_u$ and for each $\gamma\in \kappa$ define $y_{e_\gamma}=\sum_{u\in Z_\gamma}q'_u$. Thus we can write $$D'_j=\sum_{u\in a_j\setminus \{s'_j\}}y_u.$$
We set $f'_j=\sum_{a_j}$ and $\eta'=\langle \langle f'_j,s'_j\rangle :j\in r'\rangle$. For each $i\in r$, $D_i$ was a union of some $D'_j$, so since $\langle I'_i:i\in r'\rangle$ was a maximal chain of intervals, we can see that $x=\bigcup_{j\in r'}D'_j$. We chose $\eta'$ precisely so that $H_{\eta'}$ consisted of copies of the $a_j$ arranged in the same order as the $D'_j$ were arranged; we also know that $D'_j$ was a sum of the $y_u$ and therefore $x$ is an $H_{\eta'}$ sum of the $y_{u}$. In other words $x=f^{\eta'}(\langle y_u:u\in A^{\eta'}\rangle)$. Since for each $u\in A^\eta$ we have $q'_u\subseteq q_u\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$, we know that $q'_u\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ (by applying the same construction to $q'_u$ as to $q_u$, taking smaller sums where necessary we see that $q'_u$ must have rank $<\alpha$). Let $\eta_j=\langle \langle f'_i,s'_i\rangle:i{\geqslant}j\rangle$ then we have $I'_j=f^{\eta_j}(\langle q'_u:u\in a^\eta_i, i{\geqslant}j\rangle)$, since the $I'_j$ were just the corresponding portion of the $H_{\eta'}$ sum.
Now we set $k'=\langle y_u:u\in A^{\eta'}\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{\eta'})$ and thus in order to show that $\langle \eta',k'\rangle$ is maximal, it remains only to show that $a_i$ is indecomposable for each $i\in r'$. So suppose for contradiction that there is an $i\in r'$ with $a_i$ decomposable, so we can let $Z$ be an interval of $a_i$ with $1<|Z|<|a_i|$. Thus we have from before that $s'_i\in Z$. Now set $$J=\left(\sum_{u\in Z\setminus \{s'_i\}}y_u \right) \cup \bigcup_{j>i} I'_j.$$ Since $Z$ is an interval of $a_i$ and we are taking the sum, it is simple to verify that $J$ is an interval of $x$. Moreover, $J$ is a strict subset of $I'_i=(\sum_{u\in a_i\setminus \{s'_i\}}y_u)\cup \bigcup_{j>i} I'_j$ which strictly contains $\bigcup_{j>i} I'_j$. But then existence of such a $J$ contradicts that $\langle I'_j:j\in r\rangle$ was a maximal chain of intervals. Thus no such $Z$ exists and each $a_i$ is indecomposable. This completes the proof.
\[Rk:POsMaxEtas\]When we constructed decomposition functions (Lemma \[Lemma:decompfn\]), the only condition on the composition sequence $\eta$ that we used at each stage is that when ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=\alpha$ we have $x=f^{\eta}(k)$ for some $k\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$. Hence by Lemma \[Lemma:POsMaxChainsForTx\], we can always assume without loss of generality that at every stage of the construction of a decomposition tree for $x$ (Definition \[Defn:Tx\]) we chose $\eta$ with a corresponding maximal chain of intervals so that $\eta$ was maximal. Doing so makes no difference to the results of Section \[Section:WBConstruction\], since the choice of $\eta$ was arbitrary so long as $\eta$ satisfies the condition above. For the rest of this section, we always assume that any decomposition tree was constructed by choosing such maximal composition sequences.
\[Lemma:IndecompLabels\] If $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap {\mathscr{P}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)$ has a decomposition tree $T$, then for every non-leaf $t\in T$, ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)$ is indecomposable.
Let $t\in T_x$ then either $t$ is a leaf or $t=\vec{p}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i\rangle$ for some $\vec{p}$ and $i$. If $\eta(\vec{p})=\langle \langle f_i^{\vec{p}},s_i^{\vec{p}}\rangle : i\in r(\vec{p})\rangle$ then ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathbf{a}}(f^{\vec{p}}_i)$. Following Remark \[Rk:POsMaxEtas\], we have assumed that $\eta(\vec{p})$ is maximal, and therefore ${\mathbf{a}}(f^{\vec{p}}_i)$ is indecomposable, which gives the lemma.
Pathological decomposition trees
--------------------------------
We now continue with lemmas that mainly address which types of embeddings of $2^{<\omega}$ can appear within decomposition trees, and what affect such embeddings will have on the partial order. First we have a lemma that tells us that we can always find a copy of $2^{<\omega}$ in decomposition trees for elements of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}$.
\[Lemma:XnotinAmrsThenDecompTreeNotScat\] Let $x\in {\mathscr{P}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)$ with $x\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$, then any decomposition tree for $x$ is not scattered.
We will prove this by induction on the scattered rank of possible decomposition trees for $x$. Since the only non-empty scattered tree of rank $0$ is a single point, clearly $x$ has no scattered decomposition tree of rank $0$. Suppose for any $y\in {\mathscr{P}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)\setminus {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ that $y$ has no decomposition tree $T'$ with ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T')<\alpha$ and that $x\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ has a scattered decomposition tree $T$ with ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T)=\alpha$. Thus there is a chain $\zeta$ of $T$ such that $T$ is a $\zeta$-tree-sum of the lower ranked trees ${}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t$ $(t\in \zeta, p\in a^\zeta_t)$. Then $x=f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)$ by Lemma \[Lemma:ChangeOfPos\]. For each $t\in \zeta$ and $p\in a^\zeta_t$ we have a decomposition tree $T_{x(t,p)}={}^p{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t$ for $x(t,p)$, with ${\mbox{rank}_{\mathscr{U}}}(T_{x(t,p)})<\alpha$. Thus by the induction hypothesis it must be that $x(t,p)\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. But then since $x=f^{\eta(\zeta)}(k^\zeta)$ we see that $x$ is $f^{\eta(\zeta)}$ applied to elements of ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ hence it must be that $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. This is a contradiction, therefore $x$ has no scattered decomposition tree of rank $\alpha$. This completes the induction and gives the lemma.
\[Lemma:POinDcompAppearinT\] Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$, and $T$ be a decomposition tree for $x$. If $y\subseteq x$ is indecomposable and $|y|>1$, then there exists $t\in T$ such that the underlying partial order of $y$ embeds into ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)$.
First we suppose $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. If ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=0$ then $x$ is a single point, hence $|y|{\leqslant}|x|=1$ which gives the base case. Suppose now that for some $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$ we have the lemma for all $x_0\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ and that some $x\in{\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha$ has an indecomposable subset $y\subset x$ with $|y|>1$. Then we know that $x=f^{\eta}(k)=\sum_{u\in H_\eta}q_u$ for some $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$. If any of these $q_u$ contains a subset isomorphic to a copy of $y$; then since a decomposition tree for $x$ is a $\zeta$-tree-sum of decomposition trees for the $q_u$ (for some chain $\zeta$), by the induction hypothesis we are done.
So suppose for every $u\in A^\eta$, $q_u$ does not have a subset isomorphic to $y$. We claim that if $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ then for some $i\in r$, and some partial order $P$ with $y{\leqslant}P$, we have $f_i=\sum_P$. If for some $i\in r$ at least two points of $y$ were in $\sum_{u\in a^\eta_i}q_u$ and another point of $y$ was in $\sum_{u\in a^\eta_j}q_{u}$ for $j<i$, then the interval $$y\cap \bigcup_{j'>j}\sum_{u\in a^\eta_i}q_u\subset y$$ shows that $y$ is decomposable. So we can let $i$ be least such that $y\cap a^\eta_i\neq \emptyset$, and we know that there is at most one point $v\in y$ contained inside some $q_u$ for $u\in a^\eta_j$ with $j>i$; in this case we let $\varphi(v)=s_i$. If two points of $y$ were in some $q_u\subset x$ then there is another point of $y$ not in here, so that the interval $q_u\cap y\subset y$ shows that $y$ is decomposable. Thus all $w\in y\setminus \{v\}$ are inside $\sum_{u\in a^\eta_i}q_u$, with at most one point in each $q_u$. So we let $\varphi(w)=u$ whenever $w\in q_u$. Thus we have defined $\varphi:y\rightarrow {\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$ and it is simple to verify that $\varphi$ is an embedding. Now without loss of generality we have $\eta=\eta(\langle \rangle)$ so that ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)={\mbox{range}}(l_{\langle i\rangle})$. This completes the proof for $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Suppose that $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_\infty}$ is the limit of $(x_n)_{n\in \omega}$. Then we claim that for some $n\in \omega$ there is some $y'\subseteq x_n$ such that the underlying orders of $y'$ and $y$ are isomorphic. Let $n$ be least such that $|y\cap x_n|>1$. If $y$ is not a subset of $x_n$ then for some $m>n$, some points of $x_n$ were replaced by larger partial orders; equating the original point to a point of this partial order as in Remark \[Rk:PoLimits\]. If at least two points of $y$ were in a partial order that replaced a single point, then these points form a proper interval of $y$ which contradicts that $y$ is indecomposable. So let $y'$ consist of those points of $x_n$ that are either in $y$ or are replaced by a partial order containing a point of $y$ in some $x_m$ $(m>n)$. Thus the underlying orders of $y'$ and $y$ are isomorphic. Hence for some $T_n$ a decomposition tree for $x_n$ we have $t\in T_{n}$ and the underlying partial order of $y'=y$ embeds into ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)$. Hence also $t\in T$. This completes the proof.
We next define the $\{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}, {\mathrm{A}_{2}}\}$-structured, $\{\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}, \sum_{{\mathrm{A}_{2}}}\}$-coloured trees ${\mathsf{B}}^+$, ${\mathsf{B}}^-$, ${\mathsf{C}}$, ${\mathsf{Q}}$ and ${\mathsf{A}}$ as in Figure \[Fig:PthTrees\]. These will be *pathological decomposition trees* for the partial orders $2^{<\omega}$, $-2^{<\omega}$, ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$, $\mathbb{Q}$ and ${\mathrm{A}_{\aleph_0}}$ respectively (we deal with these in \[SubSubSection:PathPOs\]). It will turn out that ${\mathsf{Q}}$ and ${\mathsf{A}}$ can never be decomposition trees under the assumption granted by Remark \[Rk:POsMaxEtas\].
at (0,5) [${\mathsf{B}}^+$]{}; (0,5) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,5) – (-2,4); (-2,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,5) – (2,4); (2,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,4) – (3,3); (3,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,4) – (1,3);
(1,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,3) – (1.5,2); (1.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,3) – (0.5,2);
(0.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3,3) – (3.5,2); (3.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3,3) – (2.5,2);
(2.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3.5,2) – (3.25,1); (3.25,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3.5,2) – (3.75,1);
(3.75,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,2) – (1.25,1); (1.25,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,2) – (1.75,1);
(1.75,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3.25,1) – (3.125,0); (3.25,1) – (3.375,0); (3.75,1) – (3.625,0); (3.75,1) – (3.875,0);
(1.25,1) – (1.125,0); (1.25,1) – (1.375,0); (1.75,1) – (1.625,0); (1.75,1) – (1.875,0); at (0,4) [$<$]{}; at (2,3) [$\perp$]{}; at (1,2) [$<$]{}; at (3,2) [$<$]{}; at (3.5,1) [$\perp$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$\perp$]{};
at (9-0,5) [${\mathsf{B}}^-$]{}; (9-0,5) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-0,5) – (9–2,4); (9–2,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-0,5) – (9-2,4); (9-2,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-2,4) – (9-3,3); (9-3,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-2,4) – (9-1,3); (9-1,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-1,3) – (9-1.5,2); (9-1.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-1,3) – (9-0.5,2); (9-0.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-3,3) – (9-3.5,2); (9-3.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-3,3) – (9-2.5,2); (9-2.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-3.5,2) – (9-3.25,1); (9-3.25,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-3.5,2) – (9-3.75,1); (9-3.75,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-1.5,2) – (9-1.25,1); (9-1.25,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-1.5,2) – (9-1.75,1); (9-1.75,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9-3.25,1) – (9-3.125,0); (9-3.25,1) – (9-3.375,0); (9-3.75,1) – (9-3.625,0); (9-3.75,1) – (9-3.875,0);
(9-1.25,1) – (9-1.125,0); (9-1.25,1) – (9-1.375,0); (9-1.75,1) – (9-1.625,0); (9-1.75,1) – (9-1.875,0); at (9-0,4) [$<$]{}; at (9-2,3) [$\perp$]{}; at (9-1,2) [$<$]{}; at (9-3,2) [$<$]{}; at (9-3.5,1) [$\perp$]{}; at (9-1.5,1) [$\perp$]{};
at (0,5) [${\mathsf{C}}$]{}; (0,5) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,5) – (-2,4); (-2,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,5) – (2,4); (2,4) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,4) – (3,3); (3,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,4) – (1,3);
(1,3) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,3) – (1.5,2); (1.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,3) – (0.5,2);
(0.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3,3) – (3.5,2); (3.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3,3) – (2.5,2);
(2.5,2) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3.5,2) – (3.25,1); (3.25,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3.5,2) – (3.75,1);
(3.75,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,2) – (1.25,1); (1.25,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,2) – (1.75,1);
(1.75,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (3.25,1) – (3.125,0); (3.25,1) – (3.375,0); (3.75,1) – (3.625,0); (3.75,1) – (3.875,0);
(1.25,1) – (1.125,0); (1.25,1) – (1.375,0); (1.75,1) – (1.625,0); (1.75,1) – (1.875,0); at (0,4) [$\perp$]{}; at (2,3) [$<$]{}; at (1,2) [$\perp$]{}; at (3,2) [$\perp$]{}; at (3.5,1) [$<$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$<$]{};
at (0,5-6) [${\mathsf{Q}}$]{}; (0,5-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,5-6) – (-2,4-6); (-2,4-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0,5-6) – (2,4-6); (2,4-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,4-6) – (3,3-6); (3,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-2,4-6) – (-3,3-6); (-3,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(2,4-6) – (1,3-6); (1,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-2,4-6) – (-1,3-6); (-1,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(1,3-6) – (1.5,2-6); (1.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1,3-6) – (-1.5,2-6); (-1.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(1,3-6) – (0.5,2-6); (0.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1,3-6) – (-0.5,2-6); (-0.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(3,3-6) – (3.5,2-6); (3.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-3,3-6) – (-3.5,2-6); (-3.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(3,3-6) – (2.5,2-6); (2.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-3,3-6) – (-2.5,2-6); (-2.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(3.5,2-6) – (3.25,1-6); (3.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(2.5,2-6) – (2.25,1-6); (2.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2.5,2-6) – (2.75,1-6); (2.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(-2.5,2-6) – (-2.25,1-6); (-2.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-2.5,2-6) – (-2.75,1-6); (-2.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(0.5,2-6) – (0.25,1-6); (0.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.5,2-6) – (0.75,1-6); (0.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(-0.5,2-6) – (-0.25,1-6); (-0.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-0.5,2-6) – (-0.75,1-6); (-0.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(-3.5,2-6) – (-3.25,1-6); (-3.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(3.5,2-6) – (3.75,1-6); (3.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-3.5,2-6) – (-3.75,1-6); (-3.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(1.5,2-6) – (1.25,1-6); (1.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1.5,2-6) – (-1.25,1-6); (-1.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(1.5,2-6) – (1.75,1-6); (1.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (-1.5,2-6) – (-1.75,1-6); (-1.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(0.25,1-6) – (0.125,0-6); (0.25,1-6) – (0.375,0-6); (0.75,1-6) – (0.625,0-6); (0.75,1-6) – (0.875,0-6);
(1.25,1-6) – (1.125,0-6); (1.25,1-6) – (1.375,0-6); (1.75,1-6) – (1.625,0-6); (1.75,1-6) – (1.875,0-6);
(2.25,1-6) – (2.125,0-6); (2.25,1-6) – (2.375,0-6); (2.75,1-6) – (2.625,0-6); (2.75,1-6) – (2.875,0-6);
(3.25,1-6) – (3.125,0-6); (3.25,1-6) – (3.375,0-6); (3.75,1-6) – (3.625,0-6); (3.75,1-6) – (3.875,0-6);
(-0.25,1-6) – (-0.125,0-6); (-0.25,1-6) – (-0.375,0-6); (-0.75,1-6) – (-0.625,0-6); (-0.75,1-6) – (-0.875,0-6);
(-1.25,1-6) – (-1.125,0-6); (-1.25,1-6) – (-1.375,0-6); (-1.75,1-6) – (-1.625,0-6); (-1.75,1-6) – (-1.875,0-6);
(-2.25,1-6) – (-2.125,0-6); (-2.25,1-6) – (-2.375,0-6); (-2.75,1-6) – (-2.625,0-6); (-2.75,1-6) – (-2.875,0-6);
(-3.25,1-6) – (-3.125,0-6); (-3.25,1-6) – (-3.375,0-6); (-3.75,1-6) – (-3.625,0-6); (-3.75,1-6) – (-3.875,0-6);
at (0,4-6) [$<$]{}; at (2,3-6) [$<$]{}; at (-2,3-6) [$<$]{}; at (1,2-6) [$<$]{}; at (3,2-6) [$<$]{}; at (-1,2-6) [$<$]{}; at (-3,2-6) [$<$]{};
at (3.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (1.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (0.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (2.5,1-6) [$<$]{};
at (-3.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (-1.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (-0.5,1-6) [$<$]{}; at (-2.5,1-6) [$<$]{};
at (9+0,5-6) [${\mathsf{A}}$]{}; (9+0,5-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+0,5-6) – (9+-2,4-6); (9+-2,4-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+0,5-6) – (9+2,4-6); (9+2,4-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+2,4-6) – (9+3,3-6); (9+3,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-2,4-6) – (9+-3,3-6); (9+-3,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+2,4-6) – (9+1,3-6); (9+1,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-2,4-6) – (9+-1,3-6); (9+-1,3-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1,3-6) – (9+1.5,2-6); (9+1.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1,3-6) – (9+-1.5,2-6); (9+-1.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1,3-6) – (9+0.5,2-6); (9+0.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1,3-6) – (9+-0.5,2-6); (9+-0.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3,3-6) – (9+3.5,2-6); (9+3.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-3,3-6) – (9+-3.5,2-6); (9+-3.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3,3-6) – (9+2.5,2-6); (9+2.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-3,3-6) – (9+-2.5,2-6); (9+-2.5,2-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3.5,2-6) – (9+3.25,1-6); (9+3.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+2.5,2-6) – (9+2.25,1-6); (9+2.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+2.5,2-6) – (9+2.75,1-6); (9+2.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+-2.5,2-6) – (9+-2.25,1-6); (9+-2.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-2.5,2-6) – (9+-2.75,1-6); (9+-2.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+0.5,2-6) – (9+0.25,1-6); (9+0.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+0.5,2-6) – (9+0.75,1-6); (9+0.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+-0.5,2-6) – (9+-0.25,1-6); (9+-0.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-0.5,2-6) – (9+-0.75,1-6); (9+-0.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+-3.5,2-6) – (9+-3.25,1-6); (9+-3.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+3.5,2-6) – (9+3.75,1-6); (9+3.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-3.5,2-6) – (9+-3.75,1-6); (9+-3.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1.5,2-6) – (9+1.25,1-6); (9+1.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1.5,2-6) – (9+-1.25,1-6); (9+-1.25,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+1.5,2-6) – (9+1.75,1-6); (9+1.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (9+-1.5,2-6) – (9+-1.75,1-6); (9+-1.75,1-6) circle \[radius=0.06\];
(9+0.25,1-6) – (9+0.125,0-6); (9+0.25,1-6) – (9+0.375,0-6); (9+0.75,1-6) – (9+0.625,0-6); (9+0.75,1-6) – (9+0.875,0-6);
(9+1.25,1-6) – (9+1.125,0-6); (9+1.25,1-6) – (9+1.375,0-6); (9+1.75,1-6) – (9+1.625,0-6); (9+1.75,1-6) – (9+1.875,0-6);
(9+2.25,1-6) – (9+2.125,0-6); (9+2.25,1-6) – (9+2.375,0-6); (9+2.75,1-6) – (9+2.625,0-6); (9+2.75,1-6) – (9+2.875,0-6);
(9+3.25,1-6) – (9+3.125,0-6); (9+3.25,1-6) – (9+3.375,0-6); (9+3.75,1-6) – (9+3.625,0-6); (9+3.75,1-6) – (9+3.875,0-6);
(9+-0.25,1-6) – (9+-0.125,0-6); (9+-0.25,1-6) – (9+-0.375,0-6); (9+-0.75,1-6) – (9+-0.625,0-6); (9+-0.75,1-6) – (9+-0.875,0-6);
(9+-1.25,1-6) – (9+-1.125,0-6); (9+-1.25,1-6) – (9+-1.375,0-6); (9+-1.75,1-6) – (9+-1.625,0-6); (9+-1.75,1-6) – (9+-1.875,0-6);
(9+-2.25,1-6) – (9+-2.125,0-6); (9+-2.25,1-6) – (9+-2.375,0-6); (9+-2.75,1-6) – (9+-2.625,0-6); (9+-2.75,1-6) – (9+-2.875,0-6);
(9+-3.25,1-6) – (9+-3.125,0-6); (9+-3.25,1-6) – (9+-3.375,0-6); (9+-3.75,1-6) – (9+-3.625,0-6); (9+-3.75,1-6) – (9+-3.875,0-6);
at (9+0,4-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+2,3-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-2,3-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+1,2-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+3,2-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-1,2-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-3,2-6) [$\perp$]{};
at (9+3.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+1.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+0.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+2.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{};
at (9+-3.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-1.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-0.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{}; at (9+-2.5,1-6) [$\perp$]{};
${\mathsf{B}}^+$ has underlying set consisting of all finite sequences $s=\langle s_i:i{\leqslant}n\rangle$ of elements of $\{0,1,2,3\}$ such that:
- if $s\neq \langle \rangle$ then $s_0\in\{2,3\}$,
- if $s_i\in \{0,1\}$ and $i<n$ then $s_{i+1}\in \{2,3\}$,
- if $s_i=2$ and $i<n$ then $s_{i+1}\in \{0,1\}$,
- if $s_i=3$ then $i=n$.
Thus ${\mathsf{B}}^+$ is a tree under ${\sqsubseteq}$. If $n$ is even, then we set ${\mathbf{c}}(s)=\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}$ and label so that $$l_s(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 3\rangle)=\min({\mathrm{C}_{2}})\mbox{ and }l_s(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 2\rangle { \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}t)=\max({\mathrm{C}_{2}})$$ for every possible sequence $t$. If $n$ is odd, the we set ${\mathbf{c}}(s)=\sum_{{\mathrm{A}_{2}}}$ and ${\mbox{range}}(l_s)={\mathrm{A}_{2}}$. We define the tree ${\mathsf{B}}^-$ in the same way as ${\mathsf{B}}^+$, with the only difference that $$l_s(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 3\rangle)=\max({\mathrm{C}_{2}})\mbox{ and }l_s(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 2\rangle { \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}t)=\min({\mathrm{C}_{2}})$$ for every possible sequence $t$. We also define the tree ${\mathsf{C}}$ in the same way as ${\mathsf{B}}^+$, but change the labels and colours as follows. If $n$ is even, then we set ${\mathbf{c}}(s)=\sum_{{\mathrm{A}_{2}}}$ and label so that ${\mbox{range}}(l_s)={\mathrm{A}_{2}}$. If $n$ is odd then we set ${\mathbf{c}}(s)=\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}$ and for every possible sequence $t$ $$l_s(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0\rangle{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}t)=\min({\mathrm{C}_{2}})\mbox{ and }l_s(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1\rangle{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}t)=\max({\mathrm{C}_{2}}).$$
We now define ${\mathsf{Q}}$ as a copy of $2^{<\omega}$, coloured and labelled so that for each $t\in {\mathsf{Q}}$ we have ${\mathbf{c}}(t)=\sum_{{\mathrm{C}_{2}}}$ and ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathrm{C}_{2}}$. Finally we define ${\mathsf{A}}$ as a copy of $2^{<\omega}$, coloured and labelled so that for each $t\in {\mathsf{A}}$ we have ${\mathbf{c}}(t)=\sum_{{\mathrm{A}_{2}}}$ and ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathrm{A}_{2}}$.
\[Lemma:AtreeA\] Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ have a decomposition tree $T$. Then if ${\mathsf{B}}^+,{\mathsf{B}}^-\not {\leqslant}T$ and ${\mathsf{A}}{\leqslant}T$, then there is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed subset $A\subseteq T$ such that ${\mathsf{A}}{\leqslant}A$ and for each $t\in A$, we have ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathrm{A}_{2}}$.
Suppose ${\mathsf{B}}^+,{\mathsf{B}}^-\not {\leqslant}T$ and ${\mathsf{A}}{\leqslant}T$, so let $\varphi:{\mathsf{A}}\rightarrow T$ be a witnessing embedding. For each $t=\varphi(s)\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)$, we have that $P_t={\mbox{range}}(l_t)$ is some partial order that embeds ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$. Let $a_t=l_t(\varphi(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0 \rangle))$ and $b_t=l_t(\varphi(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1 \rangle))$. Hence $a_t,b_t\in P_t$ with $a_t\perp b_t$. Now for each $t$, either $P_t=\{a_t,b_t\}$ or there is some $c_t\in P_t$ such that without loss of generality (swapping the names of $a_t$ and $b_t$ if necessary) one of the following cases occurs:
1. \[AtreeProof1\]$a_t,b_t\perp c_t$,
2. \[AtreeProof2\]$a_t<c_t$,
3. \[AtreeProof3\]$a_t>c_t$.
Suppose that there is some $u_0\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)$ such that for every $u\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)\cap {\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}u_0$ there is $t(u){\geqslant}u$ and some $c_{t(u)}$ satisfying case \[AtreeProof2\], (i.e. $a_{t(u)}<c_{t(u)}$). Set $\tau(\langle \rangle)=t(u_0)$. Suppose we have defined $\tau(s)$ for some $s\in {\mathsf{B}}^-$ of length $n$. To simplify notation, we let $s'$ be $s$ with its last element removed and $\pi=\tau(s)$. Now suppose further that whenever $s\neq s'{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 3\rangle$, we have we have $\tau(s)\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)$; and whenever $s=\langle \rangle$, or $s=s'{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i \rangle$ for $i\in \{0,1\}$ we have that $\tau(s)$ satisfies case \[AtreeProof2\].
If $s=s'{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 2 \rangle$ we let $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$ be elements of $${\mbox{im}}(\varphi)\cap {}^{a_{\pi}}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\pi\hspace{5pt}\mbox{ and }\hspace{5pt}{\mbox{im}}(\varphi)\cap {}^{b_{\pi}}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\pi$$ respectively, and set $\tau(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0 \rangle)=t(\delta_0)$ and $\tau(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1 \rangle)=t(\delta_1)$. These exist and are incomparable since ${\mathsf{A}}$ was a copy of $2^{<\omega}$. If $s=\langle \rangle$ or $s=s'{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i \rangle$ for $i\in \{0,1\}$, then pick the values of $\tau(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 2\rangle)$ and $\tau(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 3\rangle)$ to be elements of $${\mbox{im}}(\varphi)\cap {}^{a_{\pi}} {\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\pi\hspace{5pt}\mbox{ and }\hspace{5pt}{}^{c_{\pi}} {\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}\pi$$ respectively. So by construction, the map $\tau:{\mathsf{B}}^-\rightarrow T$ is an embedding, which is a contradiction. Thus no such $u_0$ exists and there is $u_1\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)$ such that no $t>u_1$ satisfies case \[AtreeProof2\].
Now using that ${\mathsf{B}}^+\not {\leqslant}T$, we can apply a similar argument to the tree ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}u_1$ (in place of $T$) and case \[AtreeProof3\] (in place of case \[AtreeProof2\]). So we find a $u_2\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)$ such that for every $t>u_2$ we have that $t$ does not satisfy cases \[AtreeProof2\] or \[AtreeProof3\] for any choice of $c_t$. Let $A={\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}u_2$, so that for each $t\in A$ we have either $P_t=\{a_t,b_t\}$ or $t$ satisfies case \[AtreeProof1\], for any choice of $c_t$. Hence $P_t$ is an antichain, and therefore by Lemma \[Lemma:IndecompLabels\] we always have $P_t=\{a_t,b_t\}={\mathrm{A}_{2}}$, since any indecomposable antichain is either $1$ or ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$. It remains to check that ${\mathsf{A}}{\leqslant}A$, but this is clear since $A={\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}u_2$, with $u_2\in {\mbox{im}}(\varphi)$.
\[Lemma:Atree2\] Let $T$ be a decomposition tree for $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap {\mathscr{P}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)$. If ${\mathsf{B}}^+,{\mathsf{B}}^-\not {\leqslant}T$, then ${\mathsf{A}}\not {\leqslant}T$.
Suppose for contradiction that ${\mathsf{B}}^+,{\mathsf{B}}^-\not {\leqslant}T$ and ${\mathsf{A}}{\leqslant}T$. By Lemma \[Lemma:AtreeA\] there is some ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed subset $A\subseteq T$ such that for each $t\in A$ we have ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathrm{A}_{2}}$. Consider $y=x(t,p)$ for arbitrary $t\in A$ and $p\in {\mbox{range}}(l_t)$. We claim that $y$ is an antichain. Suppose not, then there is some chain $y'\subseteq y$ of size $2$. Hence by Lemma \[Lemma:POinDcompAppearinT\], since $y'$ is an indecomposable subset of $y$ with $|y'|>1$, there must be some $t\in T_y\subseteq A$ such that $y'$ embeds into $P_t={\mbox{range}}(l_t)$. But this is a contradiction since each $P_t$ was an antichain, therefore indeed we have that $y$ is an antichain.
Let $\vec{q}$ be shortest such that there is $t'=\vec{q}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i_0\rangle\in {}^{p}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t$ for some $i_0$, let $w\in a^{\eta(\vec{q})}_{i_0}$, then set $z=x(t',w)$. Then $z$ has decomposition tree ${}^{w}{\mathchoice {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\displaystyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}} {\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrowtail$}}}t'$ which is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed subset of $A$ and hence $|T_z|>1$ and therefore $|z|>1$. Let $\eta(\vec{q})=\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ and for $j\in r$ let $\eta_j=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle :i{\geqslant}j\rangle$. By Remark \[Rk:POsMaxEtas\] can assume that there is a maximal chain of intervals $\langle I_j:j\in r\rangle$ of $y$, and some $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$ such that $x=f^\eta(k)$ and $I_j=f^{\eta_j}(\langle q_u:u\in a^\eta_i, i{\geqslant}j\rangle)$ for each $j\in r$. Thus we have that $z=q_w$ so that $z\subseteq I_{i_0}=\sum_{u\in H_{\eta_{i_0}}} q_u$, since $w\in H_{\eta_{i_0}}$. For each $i\in r$ we have $f_i=\sum_{{\mathrm{A}_{2}}}$, therefore $H_\eta$ is an antichain of size $|r|$. Let $I=I_j\setminus\{\rho\}$ for some $\rho\in z$ then since $|z|>1$ we have $$\bigcup_{i>i_0}I_i\subset I\subset I_{i_0}.$$ But $I\subseteq y$ is also an interval, since $y$ is an antichain. Therefore $\langle I_j:j\in r\rangle$ was not a maximal chain of intervals of $y$. This contradiction gives the lemma.
\[Lemma:QtreeC\] Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ have a decomposition tree $T$. Then if ${\mathsf{C}}\not {\leqslant}T$ and ${\mathsf{Q}}{\leqslant}T$, then there is a ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed subset $A\subseteq T$ such that ${\mathsf{Q}}{\leqslant}A$ and for each $t\in A$, we have ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathrm{C}_{2}}$.
Similar to Lemma \[Lemma:AtreeA\], replacing $\perp$ with $\not \perp$ and $<$ with $\perp$.
\[Lemma:Qtree2\] Let $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap {\mathscr{P}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q)$ have a decomposition tree $T$. Then if ${\mathsf{C}}\not {\leqslant}T$ then ${\mathsf{Q}}\not {\leqslant}T$.
Suppose for contradiction that ${\mathsf{C}}\not {\leqslant}T$ and ${\mathsf{Q}}{\leqslant}T$. By the reasoning of Remark \[Rk:POsMaxEtas\] we can assume without loss of generality that each chain used to construct $T$ was maximal. By Lemma \[Lemma:QtreeC\] there is some ${\mathchoice {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\displaystyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptstyle\uparrow$}} {\mbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\uparrow$}}}$-closed subset $A\subseteq T$ such that for each $t\in A$ we have ${\mbox{range}}(l_t)={\mathrm{C}_{2}}$. We can now proceed as in Lemma \[Lemma:Atree2\], replacing the word chain with antichain, and vice versa.
\[Lemma:POsBasicallyThmLimit\] If $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}\cap {\mathscr{P}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}(Q)$ has a decomposition tree $T$ such that ${\mathsf{B}}^+{\leqslant}T$ $($resp. ${\mathsf{B}}^-$, ${\mathsf{C}})$, then $2^{<\omega}{\leqslant}x$ $($resp. $-2^{<\omega}$, ${2^{<\omega}_\perp})$.
Let $\varphi:{\mathsf{B}}^+\rightarrow T$ be an embedding. Let $W$ be the subset of ${\mathsf{B}}^+$ consisting of $\langle \rangle$, $u{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 0 \rangle$ and $u{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 1 \rangle$ for all possible sequences $u$. For each $s\in W$, let $t_s=\varphi(s)$, and $u_s=l_{t_s}(\varphi(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle 3 \rangle))$. Then let $y_s$ be an element of $$x(t_s,l_{t_s}(u_s))\subseteq x.$$ We now define an embedding $\psi:2^{<\omega}\rightarrow x$. Given $a=\langle a_0,a_1,...,a_{n-1}\rangle\in 2^{<\omega}$, if $a=\langle \rangle$ then let $a'=a$, and if $a\neq \langle \rangle$ let $a'=\langle 2,a_0,2,a_1,...,2,a_{n-1}\rangle$. Now set $\psi(a)=y_{a'}$, so if $a,b\in 2^{<\omega}$ are such that $a{\leqslant}b$ then $a{\sqsubseteq}b$ so that $a'{\sqsubseteq}b'$ and thus $t_{a'}{\leqslant}t_{b'}$ and $l_{t_{a'}}(u_{a'}){\leqslant}l_{t_{b'}}(u_{b'})$ which means that $\psi(a){\leqslant}\psi(b)$. If $a\perp b$ then similarly $t_{a'}{\leqslant}t_{b'}$ and $l_{t_{a'}}(u_{a'})\perp l_{t_{b'}}(u_{b'})$ so that $\psi(a)\perp \psi(b)$. Thus $\psi$ is an embedding and witnesses $2^{<\omega}{\leqslant}x$. The cases for $-2^{<\omega}$ and ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ are similar.
Pathological partial orders {#SubSubSection:PathPOs}
---------------------------
Set ${\mathbb{M}}=\{2^{<\omega}, -2^{<\omega}, {2^{<\omega}_\perp}\}$. We call elements of ${\mathbb{M}}$ *pathological* partial orders.
\[Lemma:SumsPathological\] Suppose we have $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}$ and for each $i\in x$, we have $x_i\in {\mathcal{Q}}$. Suppose that for $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$ and all $z\in \{x\}\cup \{x_i\mid i\in x\}$ we have $y\not {\leqslant}z$. Then $y\not {\leqslant}\sum_{i\in x}x_i.$
Fix $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$ and suppose that $y{\leqslant}\sum_{i\in x}x_i$, with $\varphi$ a witnessing embedding. For all $t\in y$, let $i_t$ be such that $\varphi(s)\in x_{i_t}$. Let $F$ be a finite subset of $x$, $i\in F$, and $s\in y$.
We claim that there is some $s'\in y$ with $s{\sqsubseteq}s'$ such that for all $z\in y$ with $s'{\sqsubseteq}z$ we have $i_z\neq i$. So suppose for contradiction that for all $s'\in y$ with $s{\sqsubseteq}s'$ there is some $Z(s')\in y$ with $s'{\sqsubseteq}Z(s')$ and $i_{Z(s')}=i$. We define $\psi:y\rightarrow x_i$ inductively as follows. Let $\psi(\langle \rangle)=Z(s)$ and if for $t\in y$ we have defined $\psi(t)=\varphi(t')$ then for $m\in \{0,1\}$ let $\psi(t{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle m \rangle)=\varphi(Z(t'{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle m \rangle)).$ It is easily verified then that $\psi$ is an embedding, which is a contradiction and we have the claim. Applying the claim repeatedly for each $i\in F$, we then see that for all $s\in y$ there is $s_F\in y$ with $s{\sqsubseteq}s_F$ such that for all $i\in F$ and all $z\in y$ with $s_F{\sqsubseteq}z$ we have $i_z\neq i$.
Now let $\mu(\langle \rangle)=\varphi(\langle \rangle)$. Suppose inductively we have defined $\mu$ on some sequences $t\in y$ so that $\mu(t)=\varphi(t')$ for some $t'$, and let $G$ be the set of these $t$ such that $\mu(t)$ is already defined. Let $u\in y$ be the lexicographically least element of $y\setminus G$ and let $v\in y$ and $m\in \{0,1\}$ be such that $u=v{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle m\rangle$; so $\mu(v)$ is already defined. Now let $u'=v'{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle m\rangle$ and let $\mu(u)=\varphi(s_G)$. Now $\mu$ is an embedding and $i_{\mu(t)}$ is distinct for distinct $t$. So let $\mu':y\rightarrow x$ be given by $\mu'(t)=i_{\mu(t)}$, then $\mu'$ is an embedding, which is a contradiction.
\[Prop:PthSSR\] Let $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$, and $s,s',t\in y$ be such that $s{\sqsubseteq}s'$ and $s$ and $t$ are incomparable under ${\sqsubseteq}$. Then $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s;s',t)}$ and $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s';s,t)}$.
Let $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$ and $s,s',t$ be as described. Suppose that $y=2^{<\omega}$, then since $2^{<\omega}$ is just ordered by ${\sqsubseteq}$ we have $s{\leqslant}s'$ and $s\perp t$ hence $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s;s',t)}$. We also have that $s'\perp t$, and therefore $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s';s,t)}$. If $y=-2^{<\omega}$ then we have $s{\geqslant}s'$, $s\perp t$ and $s'\perp t$, and again we can conclude that $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s;s',t)}$ and $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s';s,t)}$. If $y={2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ then we have $s\perp s'$, and either $t>s$ and $t>s'$ or $t<s$ and $t<s'$. Hence again we can conclude $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s;s',t)}$ and $\neg {\mathrm{SSR}(s';s,t)}$.
\[Lemma:pthdontembed\_Heta\] Suppose that no element of ${\mathbb{M}}$ embeds into any element of $\mathbb{P}$. Then for all $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$, and for every composition sequence $\eta$ we have $y\not {\leqslant}H_\eta$.
Let $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ be a composition sequence, then for each $i\in r$, we have that ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)\in {\mathcal{A}}$. Since ${\mathcal{A}}=\mathbb{P}$ we know that $$(\forall i\in r)(\forall y\in {\mathbb{M}}), y\not {\leqslant}{\mathbf{a}}(f_i).$$ Suppose that for some $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$, we have $y{\leqslant}H_\eta$ with $\varphi$ a witnessing embedding. We claim that for any $a=\varphi(s)\in a^\eta_i$, there are $a_0=\varphi(s_0)\in a^\eta_{i_0}$ and $a_1=\varphi(s_1)\in a^\eta_{i_1}$ with $s{\sqsubseteq}s_0,s_1$, and $s_0,s_1$ incomparable under ${\sqsubseteq}$, with $i\neq i_0\neq i_1 \neq i$. Suppose not, then for some $s\in y$ and $i\in r$, we have $\varphi(s{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}t)\subseteq a^\eta_i$ for every sequence $t$. This is a contradiction, since then $y$ embeds into $\{t'\in y\mid s{\sqsubseteq}t'\}{\leqslant}a^\eta_i{\leqslant}{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$. This gives the claim.
Let $a=\varphi(\langle \rangle)$ and choose $a_0=\varphi(s_0)\in a^\eta_{i_0}$ and $a_1=\varphi(s_1)\in a^\eta_{i_1}$ as in the claim. Now choose $a_{00}=\varphi(s_{00})\in a^\eta_{i_{00}}$ and $a_{11}=\varphi(s_{11})\in a^\eta_{i_{11}}$ by applying the claim to $a_0$ and $a_1$. Notice that by a similar argument to before, we can assume that every element of $I=\{i,i_0,i_1,i_{00},i_{11}\}$ is distinct, otherwise we would be able to embed $y$ into ${\mathbf{a}}(f_j)$ for some $j\in I$.
We now use Proposition \[Prop:HetaSSR\] in the following cases:
- $i_0<i_1,i_{00}$ which implies ${\mathrm{SSR}(a_0;a_1,a_{00})}$,
- $i_{00}<i_0,i_1$ which implies ${\mathrm{SSR}(a_{00};a_0,a_1)}$,
- $i_1<i_0,i_{00}$ and $i_1<i_0,i_{11}$ which implies ${\mathrm{SSR}(a_1;a_0,a_{11})}$,
- $i_1<i_0,i_{00}$ and $i_{11}<i_0,i_1$ which implies ${\mathrm{SSR}(a_{11};a_0,a_1)}$,
- $i_1<i_0,i_{00}$ and $i_0<i_1,i_{11}$ which implies $i_0<i_1<i_0$ which is a contradiction.
Now note that any of the first four cases contradict Proposition \[Prop:PthSSR\]. So we have a contradiction in every case, and our assumption that $y{\leqslant}H_\eta$ must have been false. This gives the lemma.
\[Lemma:PathologicalDontEmbedAmrs\] If $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and for all $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$, $z\in \mathbb{P}$, we have $y\not {\leqslant}z$, then for all $y'\in {\mathbb{M}}$, $y'\not {\leqslant}x$.
Clearly this holds when ${\mbox{rank}}(x)=0$, since then $x$ is a single point and so does not embed any element of ${\mathbb{M}}$. Suppose the statement holds for all $x'\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ for some $\alpha\in {\mathrm{On}}$, and that $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_\alpha$. Then $x=f^{\eta}(k)=\sum_{u\in H_\eta}q_u$ for some composition sequence $\eta$ and $k=\langle q_u:u\in A^\eta\rangle\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$. By the induction hypothesis, for each $u\in H_\eta$ and $y\in {\mathbb{M}}$ we know that $y\not {\leqslant}q_u$, and by Lemma \[Lemma:pthdontembed\_Heta\] we know that $y\not {\leqslant}H_\eta$. So by Lemma \[Lemma:SumsPathological\], we have that $y\not {\leqslant}x$ as required.
Characterising the construction
-------------------------------
\[Lemma:Indecomp1Sums\] Suppose that:
- $U$ is an indecomposable partial order with $|U|>2$;
- $P=\sum_{u\in U}P_u$ for some non-empty partial orders $P_u (u\in U)$;
- $I\subseteq P$ is an interval of $P$ with $I\cap P_{v_0}\neq \emptyset$ and $I\cap P_{v_1}\neq \emptyset$ for some $v_0\neq v_1\in U$.
Then $I=P$.
First we claim that $$J=\{u\mid I\cap P_u\neq \emptyset\}$$ is an interval of $U$. To see this, we let $v\in U\setminus J$, $u_0,u_1\in J$, $a\in P_v$ and $b_0\in I\cap P_{u_0}$, $b_1\in I\cap P_{u_1}$. Then $a\notin I$ (otherwise $v\in J$), so we have ${\mathrm{SSR}(a;b_0,b_1)}$ because $I$ was an interval. But this implies ${\mathrm{SSR}(v;u_0,u_1)}$ since $P=\sum_{u\in U}P_u$, hence we have the claim that $J$ is an interval of $U$.
Since $U$ was indecomposable, we either have $|J|=1$ or $J=U$. If $|J|=1$ then this contradicts our assumption that $I\cap P_{v_0}\neq \emptyset$ and $I\cap P_{v_1}\neq \emptyset$ for some $v_0\neq v_1\in U$. Hence $J=U$.
Suppose for contradiction that there is some $a\in P\setminus I$, then $a\in P_v$ for some $v\in U$. For arbitrary $u_0,u_1\in U=I'$ with $v\notin \{u_0,u_1\}$ we have $b_0\in I\cap P_{u_0}$ and $b_1\in I\cap P_{u_1}$. Since $a\in P\setminus I$, $b_0,b_1\in I$ and $I$ is an interval, we then know that ${\mathrm{SSR}(a;b_0,b_1)}$. So since $P=\sum_{u\in U}P_u$ and $v\notin \{u_0,u_1\}$ we see that ${\mathrm{SSR}(v;u_0,u_1)}$. But then since $u_0$ and $u_1$ were arbitrary, it must be that $U\setminus \{v\}$ is an interval. Hence since $U$ was indecomposable we have $|U\setminus\{v\}|=1$ which means $|U|=2$ which is a contradiction.
\[Lemma:Indecomp2Sums\] Suppose that:
- $U=\{0,1\}$ with $0R1$ for some $R\in \{<,>,\perp\}$, so $U\in \{{\mathrm{A}_{2}},{\mathrm{C}_{2}}\}$;
- $P=\sum_{u\in U}P_u$ for some non-empty partial orders $P_u, (u\in U)$;
- $I\subseteq P$ is an interval of $P$ with $I\cap P_0\neq \emptyset$ and $I\cap P_1\neq \emptyset$;
- there are no non-empty subsets $K_0,K_1$ of $P_0$ with $K_0\cap K_1 = \emptyset$ and $P_0=K_0\cup K_1$, such that for all $a_0\in K_0$ and $a_1\in K_1$ we have $a_0 R a_1$.
Then $P_0\subseteq I$.
Suppose that $P_0\not \subseteq I$ so we can let $K_0=I\cap P_0$, $K_1=P_0\setminus I$. So there are $a\in I\cap P_0$ and $b\in P_0\setminus I$, such that $a\perp b$ if $R\neq \perp$ and $a\not \perp b$ if $R=\perp$, so in either case we have $\neg(bRa)$. Let $c\in P_1\cap I$, then $b Rc$ since $P=\sum_{u\in U}P_u$ and $b\in P_0$. So we have shown $\neg{\mathrm{SSR}(b;a,c)}$. But $a,c\in I$ and $b\notin I$ with $I$ an interval, hence we have ${\mathrm{SSR}(b;a,c)}$, which is a contradiction.
In the next definition and following few lemmas (\[Defn:IntervalPs\], \[Lemma:IntervalAritySizes\], \[Lemma:IntervalClassification\], \[Lemma:SumsChainsInL\] and \[Lemma:SumsIndecompSubsetsInP\]) we fix a composition sequence $\eta=\langle \langle f_i,s_i\rangle:i\in r\rangle$ and $k\in {\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)$ so that $\langle \eta, k\rangle$ is maximal for $P\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$.
\[Defn:IntervalPs\] Let $k=\langle P_{i,u}:i\in r, u\in a^\eta_i\rangle$ and define:
- $P_i=\sum_{u\in a^\eta_i}P_{i,u}$;
- $P_{{\geqslant}i}=\bigcup_{j{\geqslant}u}P_j\subseteq f^\eta(k)$;
- $P_{>i}=P_{{\geqslant}i}\setminus P_i$.
\[Lemma:IntervalAritySizes\] Suppose that $I$ is an interval of $P$ and $i\in r$ be such that $I\cap P_i\neq \emptyset$ and $I\cap P_{>i}\neq \emptyset$. If $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)|>2$ then $P_{{\geqslant}i}\subseteq I$, and if $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)|=2$ then $P_i\subseteq I$.
We have that $P=f^\eta(k)$ is an $H_\eta$-sum of the non-empty partial orders $P_{i,a}$. By definition of $H_\eta$ we have that $P_{{\geqslant}i}$ is an ${\mathbf{a}}(f_{i})$-sum of the $P_{i,u}$ in position $u\in a^\eta_{i}$, and $P_{>i}$ in position $s_i$. We know that ${\mathbf{a}}(f_{i})$ is indecomposable since $\langle \eta,k\rangle$ was maximal. So since $I\cap P_{i}\neq \emptyset$, we can apply Lemma \[Lemma:Indecomp1Sums\] to see that either $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_{i})|{\leqslant}2$ or $P_{{\geqslant}i}\subseteq I$.
If $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_i)|=2$ then set $R\in\{<,>,\perp\}$ such that for $a\in a^\eta_i$ we have $a R s_i$. Then using Lemma \[Lemma:Indecomp2Sums\], we either have either that $P_i\subseteq I$ or there are non-empty $K_0,K_1\subseteq P_i$ with $K_0\cap K_1=\emptyset$ and $P_i=K_0\cup K_1$ such that for all $a_0\in K_0$ and $a_1\in K_1$ we have $a_0 R a_1$. Consider $J=K_1\cup P_{>i}$, let $a\in P\setminus J$ and $z_0,z_1\in J$ then either $a\in P\setminus P_{{\geqslant}j}$ in which case we have ${\mathrm{SSR}(a;z_0,z_1)}$ or $a\in K_0$ in which case $a R z_0$ and $a R z_1$, so that ${\mathrm{SSR}(a;z_0,z_1)}$. Thus $J$ is an interval. But we have that $P_{>i}\subset J\subset P_{{\geqslant}i}$, which contradicts that $\eta$ was maximal. So it must be that $P_i\subseteq I$.
\[Lemma:IntervalClassification\] Let $I$ be an interval of $P$, then there are $j_0,j_1\in r$ and an $X\subseteq P_{j_1}$ either empty or an interval of $P_{j_1}$ such that $I=P_{{\geqslant}j_0}$ or $I=(P_{{\geqslant}j_0}\setminus P_{{\geqslant}j_1})\cup X.$
If for any $i\in r$ we have $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_{i})|=1$ then $f_i=\sum_1$ which makes no difference to the sum over $H_\eta$, so without loss of generality we assume this does not occur. Let $j_0=\inf\{i\in r\mid I\cap P_i\neq \emptyset\}$, and $j_1=\sup\{i\in r\mid I\cap P_i\neq \emptyset\}$, then $j_0,j_1\in r$ by Lemma \[Lemma:r’infimum\]. Suppose that for some $n\in r$ with $j_0{\leqslant}n< j_1$ we have $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_n)|{\geqslant}2$. We claim that in this case $I=P_{{\geqslant}i_0}$. For each such $n$ we have by Lemma \[Lemma:IntervalAritySizes\] that $P_{{\geqslant}n}\subseteq I$. Therefore for all $m\in r$ with $j_0{\leqslant}m<n$ we have again by Lemma \[Lemma:IntervalAritySizes\] that $P_m\subseteq I$, hence $I=P_{{\geqslant}j_0}$ by definition of $j_0$.
Suppose now that the only $n\in r$ such that $j_0{\leqslant}n{\leqslant}j_1$ with $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_n)|>2$ is $n=j_1$, or that no such $n$ exists. Let $X=I\cap P_{j_1}$, then $X$ is either empty or an interval of $P_{j_1}$. If $j_0=j_1$ we are done, otherwise for each $j_0{\leqslant}m<j_1$ we have $|{\mathbf{a}}(f_n)|=2$. We either have $P_{j_1}\neq \emptyset$ or $P_{j_1}=\emptyset$ in which case by definition of $j_1$ there must be some $m'\in r$ with $m<m'<j_1$ and $P_{m'}\neq \emptyset$. So in either case we can apply Lemma \[Lemma:IntervalAritySizes\] to see that $P_{m}\subseteq I$. Using the definition of $j_0$ we also have that $I\subseteq P_{{\geqslant}j_0}$. Therefore we have shown that $I=(P_{{\geqslant}j_0}\setminus P_{{\geqslant}j_1})\cup X$ as required.
\[Lemma:SumsChainsInL\] Suppose that $\forall i\in r$ and $\forall a\in a^\eta_i$, every chain of intervals of $P_{i,a}$ under $\supseteq$ has order type in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. Then every chain of intervals of $f^\eta(k)$ under $\supseteq$ has order type in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$.
Let $\langle J_\alpha:\alpha\in \sigma\rangle$ be a chain of intervals of $P$ under $\supseteq$. If for some $\alpha \in \sigma$ we have some $j_\alpha\in r$ with $P_{{\geqslant}j_\alpha}= J_\alpha$ then for every $\beta{\leqslant}\alpha$, by Lemma \[Lemma:IntervalClassification\] and since $J_\beta \supseteq J_\alpha$, there must be some $j_\beta$ with $J_\beta=P_{{\geqslant}j_\beta}$. Hence the order type of the chain $\langle J_\beta:\beta {\leqslant}\alpha\rangle$ must be a subset of the order type of $\{i\in r\mid j{\leqslant}j_\alpha\}$, and hence this order type is in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. Therefore since ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ is closed under finite sums, it only remains to show that the final segment $$F=\{ J_\gamma\mid (\forall i\in r),J_\gamma \neq P_{{\geqslant}i}\}$$ has order type in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ under $\supseteq$.
Let $J_\gamma\in F$, then by Lemma \[Lemma:IntervalClassification\], there are some $j_\gamma, j'_\gamma\in r$ and $X$ an interval of $P_{j'_\gamma}$ such that $$J_\gamma=(P_{{\geqslant}j_\gamma}\setminus P_{{\geqslant}j'_\gamma})\cup X_\gamma$$ Now if $\gamma<\upsilon$ then $j_\gamma{\leqslant}j_\upsilon$, $j'_\gamma{\geqslant}j'_\upsilon$ and $X_\gamma \supseteq X_\upsilon$, and if $j'_\gamma>j'_\upsilon$ then $X_\upsilon\subseteq J_\gamma$. Let $F_\delta=\{J_\gamma\in F\mid j_\gamma=j_\delta\}$. Then ${\mathrm{ot}}(F)$ is an ${\mathrm{ot}}(\{j_\delta \mid \delta \in \sigma\})$-sum of the ${\mathrm{ot}}(F_\delta)$. But $\{j_\delta \mid \delta\in \sigma \}\subseteq r$ hence this subset has order type in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. So it remains only to show that each ${\mathrm{ot}}(F_\delta)$ is in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. We also have that each ${\mathrm{ot}}(F_\delta)$ is an ${\mathrm{ot}}(\{j'_\tau \mid \tau \in \sigma, j_\tau=j_\delta\})$-sum of the order types of $F_{\delta, \tau}=\{X_\lambda\mid \lambda\in \sigma, j_\lambda=j_\delta,j'_\lambda=j'_\tau\}$. But $\{j'_\tau \mid \tau \in \sigma, j_\tau=j_\delta\}\subseteq r$ and $F_{\delta,\tau}$ is a chain of intervals of $P_{\tau}$ under $\supseteq$, whence both are in ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ and thus ${\mathrm{ot}}(F_\delta)\in {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ which gives the lemma.
\[Lemma:SumsIndecompSubsetsInP\] Suppose that for any indecomposable partial order $y$ and any $i\in r$ and $a\in a^\eta_i$ we have that $y{\leqslant}P_{i,a}\longrightarrow y\in \mathbb{P}$. Then for any indecomposable $y'$ we have $y'{\leqslant}f^\eta(k)\longrightarrow y'\in\mathbb{P}$.
Since $\langle \eta,k\rangle$ was maximal for $P$ we know that for each $i\in r$ we have ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$ is indecomposable. Now any subset $A$ of $H_\eta=\bigsqcup_{i\in r} a^\eta_i$ that contains points of $a^\eta_i$ and at least two points of $\bigcup_{j>i} a^{\eta}_j$ is such that $A\cap \bigcup_{j>i} a^{\eta}_j$ is an interval with at least two points inside. So here $A$ cannot be indecomposable. Thus any indecomposable subset $I$ of $H_\eta$ is a subset of $a^\eta_i\sqcup a^\eta_j$ for some $i,j\in r$ with $i<j$, moreover, $|I\cap a^\eta_j|{\leqslant}1$. So $I$ has the same order type as a subset of ${\mathbf{a}}(f_i)$, which shows that $I$ has order type in $\mathbb{P}$.
Thus if we take a subset $A\subseteq P$ with at least two points inside a single $P_{i,a}$ and at least one point not in $P_{i,a}$ then $A\cap P_{i,a}$ is an interval which contradicts that $A$ is indecomposable. We know that $P$ is an $H_\eta$-sum of the partial orders $P_{i,a}$. So let $J$ be an indecomposable subset $J$ of the sum $P$. Then either $J$ is entirely contained within some $P_{i,a}$ and hence $J$ has order type in $\mathbb{P}$; or $J$ contains at most one point of each of the $P_{i,a}$ that it intersects, and hence has the same order type as an indecomposable order of $H_\eta$. Hence by the previous paragraph $J$ has order type in $\mathbb{P}$, which completes the proof.
We are now ready to prove the following generalisation of Hausdorff’s famous theorem on scattered linear orders (Theorem \[Thm:Hausdorff\]).
\[Thm:PPL=amrs\] ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')={\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$.
First we claim that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\subseteq {\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')$. By Lemma \[Lemma:PathologicalDontEmbedAmrs\], we have that ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ satisfies (\[PPL3\]) of Definition \[Defn:PPL\]. We will show (\[PPL1\]) and (\[PPL2\]) by induction on the rank of $x\in {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. If $x$ has rank $0$ then $x$ is just a single point and so satisfies (\[PPL1\]) and (\[PPL2\]) since both $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{L}$ contained $1$. Now suppose that any $y\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{<\alpha}$ satisfies (\[PPL1\]) and (\[PPL2\]). Then if $x\in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\alpha}$, we have that $x=f^{\eta}(k)$ where $k\in{\mbox{dom}}(f^\eta)_{<\alpha}$. Hence by Lemma \[Lemma:SumsIndecompSubsetsInP\] we have that $x$ satisfies (\[PPL1\]), and by Lemma \[Lemma:SumsChainsInL\] we have that $x$ satisfies (\[PPL2\]). So indeed we have ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}\subseteq {\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)$.
We will now show ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')\subseteq {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. Suppose we have some non-empty $Q'$-coloured partial order $x\notin {\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$. We claim that either (\[PPL1\]), (\[PPL2\]) or (\[PPL3\]) fails for $x$. Suppose that (\[PPL1\]) and (\[PPL2\]) hold, we will show that (\[PPL3\]) fails. By Lemma \[Lemma:XnotinAmrsThenDecompTreeNotScat\] we have that any decomposition tree $T$ for $x$ embeds $2^{<\omega}$. So let $T$ be a decomposition tree for $x$ and $B\subseteq T$ be a copy of $2^{<\omega}$. Then we can either find a copy of ${\mathsf{A}}$ inside $B$, or below some point of $B$ there is no point coloured by $\sum_{{\mathrm{A}_{2}}}$, and hence below this point there is a copy of ${\mathsf{Q}}$. Thus by Lemmas \[Lemma:Atree2\] and \[Lemma:Qtree2\] we have that either ${\mathsf{B}}^+{\leqslant}T$, ${\mathsf{B}}^-{\leqslant}T$ or ${\mathsf{C}}{\leqslant}T$. Hence by Lemma \[Lemma:POsBasicallyThmLimit\] either $2^{<\omega}$, $-2^{<\omega}$ or ${2^{<\omega}_\perp}$ embeds into $x$. Thus $x$ fails (\[PPL3\]), and $x\notin {\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')$, which gives the theorem.
\[Cor:MPL=amr\] ${\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')={\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
We have that ${\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')$ is the class containing ${\mathscr{S}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')$ and countable unions of increasing sequences and ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is the class containing ${\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}_0}$ and countable unions of limiting sequences. The result then follows from Theorem \[Thm:PPL=amrs\], considering Remark \[Rk:MLPSeqs\].
\[Thm:MLPisWB2\] If $\mathbb{L}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ are well-behaved, then ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved.
By Corollary \[Cor:MPL=amr\] we have that ${\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q')={\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Suppose there is a bad ${\mathscr{M}}_\mathbb{P}^\mathbb{L}(Q)$-array; so by theorems \[Thm:TLPWell-Behaved\] and \[Thm:MLPisWB\], we have a witnessing bad $Q$-array. Hence ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved.
Corollaries and conclusions {#Section:Cors}
===========================
We now present some applications of Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\].
\[Thm:sscatWB\] ${\mathscr{M}}$, the class of $\sigma$-scattered linear orders is well-behaved.
Set $\mathbb{L}={\mathrm{On}}\cup {\mathrm{On}}^*$, set $\mathbb{P}=\{1,{\mathrm{C}_{2}}\}$. Then ${\overline{\mathbb{L}}}={\mathscr{S}}$ by Theorem \[Thm:Hausdorff\]. $\mathbb{L}$ is well-behaved, by theorems \[Thm:U bqo\] and \[Thm:OnWB\]. We also have that $\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved by Lemma \[Lemma:FinitePosWB\]. Hence by Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\] we have that ${\mathscr{M}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}$ is well-behaved.
We claim that ${\mathscr{M}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}={\mathscr{M}}$. Recall the definition of ${\mathscr{S}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}$, \[Defn:PPL\]. Let $X\in {\mathscr{S}}$, then clearly $X$ satisfies (\[PPL1\]) and (\[PPL3\]) since if either failed then $X$ would contain two incomparable elements. A chain of intervals of $X$ does not embed $\mathbb{Q}$, otherwise $X$ would embed $\mathbb{Q}$. Hence every chain of intervals of $X$ under $\supseteq$ has scattered order type. If we take the chain of intervals of $X$ under $\supseteq$ consisting of final segments, this chain has order type precisely the same as $X$. So we have that ${\mathscr{S}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}={\mathscr{S}}$ which implies that ${\mathscr{M}}^{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathbb{P}}={\mathscr{M}}$, and therefore ${\mathscr{M}}$ is well-behaved.
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be a set of countable indecomposable partial orders. Then $\mathscr{C}_\mathbb{P}$ is the class of countable partial orders such that every indecomposable subset is in $\mathbb{P}$.
\[Thm:CPsubsetMLP\] If ${\mathscr{C}}\subseteq {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$ then $\mathscr{C}_\mathbb{P}\subseteq {\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$.
Suppose that ${\mathscr{C}}\subseteq {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. Let $X\in \mathscr{C}_\mathbb{P}$, we claim that $X\in {\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$. Fix an enumeration of $X$ in order type $\omega$, so that $X=\{x_n:n\in \omega\}$. (If $|X|<\aleph_0$ then the argument is essentially the same.) We will write $X$ as the countable union of some limiting sequence $(X_n)_{n\in \omega}$ that we will define.
Let $X_{\langle\rangle}=X$, ${\mathfrak{I}}_0=\{\langle \rangle\}$ and suppose for some sequence ${\vec{t}}$ of elements of $\bigcup {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}\times \bigcup \mathbb{P}$ we have defined some $X_{\vec{t}}\subseteq X$. When $|X_{\vec{t}}|>1$, pick a maximal chain $\langle I^{\vec{t}}_i:i\in r_{\vec{t}}\rangle$ of intervals of $X_{\vec{t}}$ that contains $\{x_n\}$, where $n$ is least such that $x_n\in X_{\vec{t}}$. Since $X_{\vec{t}}\subseteq X$ we have that $r_{\vec{t}}\in {\overline{\mathbb{L}}}$. For each $i\in r_{\vec{t}}$, let $\mathcal{D}_i^{\vec{t}}$ be the set of unions of maximal chains of intervals of $I^{\vec{t}}_i$ that do not contain $I^{\vec{t}}_i$.
We claim that $a_i=I^{\vec{t}}_i/\mathcal{D}_i^{\vec{t}}$ is indecomposable. If $Z\neq a_i$ is a non-singleton interval of $a_i$, then let $Z'\subseteq I^{\vec{t}}_i$ be the union of the sets of $\mathcal{D}_i^{\vec{t}}$ that contain points of $Z$. Then $Z'$ is an interval of $I^{\vec{t}}_i$ not equal to $I^{\vec{t}}_i$, and not in any of the maximal chains used to form $\mathcal{D}_i^{\vec{t}}$; this is a contradiction which gives the claim. Now, we see that $a_i$ is an indecomposable subset of $X$ and thus $a_i\in \mathbb{P}$.
Now let $f^{\vec{t}}_i=\sum_{a_i}$ and $s^{\vec{t}}_i$ be the point of $a_i$ that was also contained in $\bigcup_{j>i}I^{\vec{t}}_j\in \mathcal{D}_i^{\vec{t}}$. We set $\eta({\vec{t}})=\langle \langle f^{\vec{t}}_i,s^{\vec{t}}_i\rangle:i\in r_{\vec{t}}\rangle$. For $i\in r_{\vec{t}}$ and $u\in a^\eta_i\subseteq a_i$, let $X_{{\vec{t}}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle}$ be the element of $\mathcal{D}_i^{\vec{t}}$ that contains the point $u$. Then if $k_{\vec{t}}=\langle X_{{\vec{t}}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle}:i\in r_{\vec{t}}, u\in a^\eta_i\rangle$ we have by construction that $\langle \eta, k_{\vec{t}}\rangle$ is maximal for $X_{\vec{t}}$.
For $m\in \omega$ we let ${\mathfrak{I}}_{m+1}={\mathfrak{I}}_m\cup \{{\vec{t}}{ \mathord{
\mathchoice
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{1ex}{\scalebox{.7}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
{\raisebox{.7ex}{\scalebox{.5}{$\frown$}}}
}
}\langle i,u\rangle\mid {\vec{t}}\in {\mathfrak{I}}_m, i\in r_{\vec{t}}, u\in a^\eta_i, |X_{{\vec{t}}}|>1\}$, ${\mathfrak{D}}_m$ be the set of leaves of ${\mathfrak{I}}_m$ and ${\mathfrak{F}}_m=\{\eta({\vec{t}})\mid {\vec{t}}\in {\mathfrak{I}}_m\setminus {\mathfrak{D}}_m\}$. Then ${\mathfrak{F}}_m$ is an admissible composition set and ${\mathfrak{I}}_m$ is a set of position sequences for ${\mathfrak{F}}_m$. Now let $d_m=\langle d_m^{\vec{p}}:\vec{p}\in {\mathfrak{D}}_m\rangle \in {\mbox{dom}}(f^{{\mathfrak{F}}_m})$ be such that each $d_m^{\vec{p}}$ is a single point, coloured either by $-\infty$ if $|X_{\vec{p}}|>1$, and coloured by ${\mathbf{c}}_{X_{\vec{p}}}(x)$ when $X_{\vec{p}}=\{x\}$. Now define $X_m=g^{{\mathfrak{F}}_m}(d_m)$, so that by construction $(X_m)_{m\in \omega}$ is a limiting sequence. Moreover, for each $m\in \omega$ we can consider the underlying set of each $X_m$ as a subset of the underlying set of $X$. Note also that the underling set of $X_m$ contains the point $x_m$, and since the relevant chain of intervals contained $\{x_m\}$ the colour of this point in $X_m$ will be the same as from $X$. Thus the limit of $(X_m)_{m\in \omega}$ is precisely $X$, so that $X\in {\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ as required.
\[Cor:C\_PisWB\] If $\mathbb{P}$ is a well-behaved set of countable indecomposable partial orders, then $\mathscr{C}_\mathbb{P}$ is well-behaved.[^16]
By Theorems \[Thm:sscatWB\], \[Thm:CPsubsetMLP\] and \[Thm:MLPisWB2\].
If $\mathbb{P}$ is a set of finite partial orders then let $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be the class of countable partial orders whose every finite restriction is in $\mathbb{P}$. In [@PouzetApps], Pouzet asked: if $\mathbb{P}$ preserves bqo, then is $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$ bqo? As we have seen, well-behaved is a more useful concept than preserving bqo, so we modify the question to if $\mathbb{P}$ well-behaved. Corollary \[Cor:C\_PisWB\] brings us closer to a result of this kind, however fails to account for possible infinite indecomposable subsets of orders in $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}$. If we could prove that for any infinite indecomposable order $X$ the set of finite indecomposable subsets of $X$ is not well-behaved, then we would answer this version of Pouzet’s question positively.
For $n\in \omega$ let $\mathscr{I}_n$ denote the set of indecomposable partial orders whose cardinality is at most $n$.
\[Thm:POTHM\] For any $n\in \omega$, the class ${\mathscr{M}}^{\mathscr{M}}_{\mathscr{I}_n}$ is well-behaved.
$\mathscr{I}_n$ is a finite set of finite partial orders so by Lemma \[Lemma:FinitePosWB\], is well-behaved. Furthermore, ${\mathscr{M}}$ is well-behaved by Theorem \[Thm:sscatWB\], so using Theorem \[Thm:MLPisWB2\] completes the proof.
For any $n\in \omega$, the class ${\mathscr{C}}_{\mathscr{I}_n}$ is well-behaved.
By Theorems \[Thm:CPsubsetMLP\] and \[Thm:POTHM\].
Note that $\bigcup_{n\in \omega}\mathscr{I}_n({\mathrm{A}_{2}})$ contains an antichain as in Figure \[Fig:Antichain\], and as described by Pouzet in [@PouzetApps]. Hence $\bigcup_{n\in \omega}\mathscr{I}_n$ does not preserve bqo and is certainly not well-behaved. Thus Theorem \[Thm:POTHM\] is maximal in some sense.
(0,0) – (0.5,1); (0.5,1) – (1,0); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,1) [$0$]{}; at (1,0) [$1$]{};
(0,0) – (0.5,1); (0.5,1) – (1,0); (1,0) – (1.5,1); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,1) [$0$]{}; at (1,0) [$0$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$1$]{};
(0,0) – (0.5,1); (0.5,1) – (1,0); (1,0) – (1.5,1); (1.5,1) – (2,0); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,1) [$0$]{}; at (1,0) [$0$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$0$]{}; at (2,0) [$1$]{};
(0,0) – (0.5,1); (0.5,1) – (1,0); (1,0) – (1.5,1); (1.5,1) – (2,0); (2,0) – (2.5,1); (0,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (0.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (1.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2,0) circle \[radius=0.06\]; (2.5,1) circle \[radius=0.06\]; at (0,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,1) [$0$]{}; at (1,0) [$0$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$0$]{}; at (2,0) [$0$]{}; at (2.5,1) [$1$]{}; at (3.5,0.5) [$...$]{};
In order to improve this result we would like to know the answers to questions such as:
1. Is there consistently a well-behaved class of linear orders larger than ${\mathscr{M}}$? E.g. is the class of Aronszajn lines from [@Aron] well-behaved under PFA?
2. Is there an infinite well-behaved class of indecomposable partial orders?
3. Is there an infinite indecomposable partial order $P$ such that $\{P\}$ is well-behaved?
A positive answer to any of these questions would immediately improve Theorem \[Thm:POTHM\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author thanks Mirna Džamonja, Yann Pequignot and Raphaël Carroy for extremely helpful discussions and remarks.
[99]{} S. Thomassé, *On better-quasi-ordering countable series-parallel orders*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 352, 6, (1999), pp 2491-2505.
E. Corominas, *On better-quasi-ordering countable countable trees*. Discrete Mathematics 53, North-Holland, (1985), pp 35-53.
I. Kříž, *Proving a witness lemma in better-quasiordering theory: the method of ‘extensions’*. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 106, (1989), pp 253-262.
R. Thomas, *Well-quasi-ordering infinite graphs with forbidden finite planar minor*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 312, 1, (1989), pp 279-313.
M. Pouzet, *Applications of well-quasi-ordering and better-quasi-ordering*. Graphs and Orders, (I. Rival ed.), D. Reidel Publishing Company, (1985), pp 503-519.
J. B. Kruskal, *The theory of well-quasi-ordering: a frequently discovered concept*. J. Comb. Th. (A) 13, (1972), pp 297-306.
F. van Engelen, A. W. Miller and J. Steel, *Rigid Borel sets and better quasiorder theory*. Contemp. Math. 65, (1987), pp 119-222.
A. Louveau and J. Saint-Raymond, *On the quasi-ordering of borel linear orders under embeddability*. J. Symbolic Logic, Vol. 55, 2 (1990), pp 449-896.
C. St. J.A. Nash-Williams, *On well-quasi-ordering infinite trees*. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 61, (1965), pp 697-720. , *On well-quasi-ordering transfinite sequences*. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 64, (1968), 273-290.
S. G. Simpson, *BQO theory and Fraïssé’s conjecture*. Chapter 9 of Recursive aspects of descriptive set theory, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, (1985), pp. 124-138.
R. Laver, *On Fraïssé’s order type conjecture*. Ann. of Math. 93, (1971), pp 89-111.
, *Better-quasi-orderings and a class of trees*. Studies in Foundations and Combinatorics, Adv. in Math. Supplementary Studies 1 (1978), pp 31-48.
F. Hausdorff, *Grundzüge einer Theorie der geordneten Mengen*. Math. Ann. 65 (1908), pp 435-505.
F. Galvin and K. Prikry, *Borel sets and Ramsey’s theorem*. J. Symb. Logic 38 (1973), pp 193-198.
C. Martinez-Ranero, *Well-quasi-ordering Aronszajn lines*. Fund. Math. 213 (2011), pp 197-211.
[^1]: This work was carried out as part of the author’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of East Anglia in the UK
[^2]: Here ${\mathscr{C}}$ is the class of countable linear orders.
[^3]: Here ${\mathrm{A}_{2}}$ and ${\mathrm{C}_{2}}$ are the antichain and chain of size 2 respectively.
[^4]: In the cases of ${\mathscr{U}}^{{\mathrm{On}}}$, ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\mathrm{On}}}$ and ${\mathscr{T}}^{{\mathscr{C}}}$ the constructed ${\mathscr{M}}^\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{P}$ is actually a larger class of partial orders.
[^5]: Here $\omega+1$ is the set of its predecessors.
[^6]: For the base case we have that $\sup (\emptyset)=0$.
[^7]: Note that since we are dealing with multivariate functions, we are required to distinguish an argument in order to know in which position to compose further sums inside.
[^8]: For this definition we denote the minimal element of ${\mathfrak{I}}$ by $\langle \rangle$, but in general it may not be $\langle \rangle$.
[^9]: This is the case at least in the applications used within this paper.
[^10]: Using that $q_0$ was minimal and repeatedly applying Lemma \[Lemma:RealInfExtensive\].
[^11]: Here $\mu_n$ is as from Remark \[Rk:Mu\].
[^12]: Elements of ${\mathscr{T}}^\mathbb{L}$ are are still $\mathscr{L}$-trees.
[^13]: Note that by (\[Item:LimitSeq4\]) of Definition \[Defn:LimitSequence\], we have $k^{\vec{p}}_m=k^{\vec{p}}_n$ for any $n{\geqslant}m$.
[^14]: This is by definition of the order on decomposition trees.
[^15]: This result was obtained independently by Christian Delhomme in as yet unpublished work. The author thanks him for his private communication.
[^16]: This result was obtained independently by Christian Delhomme in as yet unpublished work. The author thanks him for his private communication.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Photons produced in the annihilations of dark matter particles can be detected by gamma-ray telescopes; this technique of indirect detection serves as a cornerstone of the upcoming assault on the dark matter paradigm. The main obstacle to the extraction of information about dark matter from the annihilation photons is the presence of large and uncertain gamma-ray backgrounds. We present a new technique for using gamma-ray data to constrain the properties of dark matter that makes minimal assumptions about the dark matter and the backgrounds. The technique relies on two properties of the expected signal from annihilations of the smooth dark matter component in our galaxy: 1) it is approximately rotationally symmetric around the axis connecting us to the Galactic Center, and 2) variations from the mean signal are uncorrelated from one pixel to the next. We apply this technique to recent data from the Fermi telescope to generate constraints on the dark matter mass and cross section for a variety of annihilation channels. We quantify the uncertainty introduced into our constraints by uncertainties in the halo profile and by the possibility that the halo is triaxial. The resultant constraint, the flux $F\le 4.5\times
10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ for energies between 1 and 100 GeV at an angle $15^\circ$ away from the Galactic Center, translates into an upper limit on the velocity weighted annihilation cross section of order $10^{-25}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ depending on the annihilation mode.
author:
- 'Eric J. Baxter$^1$, Scott Dodelson$^{1,2,3}$'
title: 'A Robust Approach to Constraining Dark Matter Properties with Gamma-Ray Data'
---
Introduction
============
Evidence for the existence of non-baryonic dark matter has been accumulating for many decades. Combined constraints from measurements of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation, the shape of the galaxy power spectrum, and the Hubble constant fix both the total matter and the baryon densities, indicating that non-baryonic dark matter makes up 85% of the matter density of the universe [@Jarosik:2010]. Despite the preponderance of evidence for its existence, however, little is known about the identity of the dark matter. One way to glean information about the properties of this mysterious substance is through [*indirect detection*]{}, the observation of the annihilation products of dark matter particles.
Indirect detection is an attractive prospect for several reasons. Its primary advantage is that, while dark matter itself is very difficult to detect, the annihilation products of dark matter particles may be easily detectable. If photons are produced in dark matter annihilations, for instance, existing telescopes can detect them. Another attractive feature of indirect detection is that the velocity-weighted, thermally averaged annihilation cross section of the dark matter, $\left< \sigma v \right>$, which governs the expected indirect detection signal, is constrained if the dark matter is a thermal relic. Additionally, indirect detection has the potential to reveal information about the distribution of dark matter beyond our local environment. For these and other reasons, indirect detection nicely compliments the other techniques that may be used to identify dark matter: direct detection and collider searches [@Bergstrom:2010]. It is likely that all three techniques will be necessary for a definitive identification of the dark matter.
The present is an exciting time for indirect detection as a number of experiments are currently underway that are capable of detecting a signal from dark matter annihilations. Neutrino detectors such as IceCube and AMANDA [@Landsman:2007], air Cherenkov detectors such as H.E.S.S. [@Horns:2008] and VERITAS [@Holder:2006], cosmic ray detectors such as PAMELA [@Picozza:2007], and space based telescopes such as the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope (FGST) [@Atwood:2009] are all poised to make important contributions to the indirect detection of dark matter.
In this paper, we focus on the possibility of using data taken by the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on board the FGST to constrain the properties of dark matter. The LAT is a wide field, pair conversion telescope that covers an energy range from about 20 MeV to 300 GeV [@Atwood:2009]. Gamma-rays are particularly well suited for indirect detection because they are relatively easy to detect, they are produced in many models of dark matter annihilation, and they propagate through the universe with small optical depth (especially at low energies).
Unfortunately, although may in principle contain significant information about dark matter, the process of extracting this information is severely complicated by the presence of large and uncertain backgrounds to the dark matter signal. The primary challenge of indirect detection using is therefore to extract a signal which may be hidden in backgrounds that are larger by orders of magnitude. Two primary features of the detected photons are their energy and arrival direction. A number of studies have used these two features to extract the dark matter signal from the background. For example, Ref. [@Abdo:2010dm] used only energy information, while Ref. [@Zaharijas:2010] and Ref. [@hooperandgoodenough] used both the spectral and angular distribution information. Given the photon counts, derived quantities can also be used to distinguish the signal from the backgrounds. The probability distribution function (PDF) has been proposed as a discriminant by a number of groups [@Lee:2009; @Dodelson:2009ih; @Baxter:2010]. Anisotropy of the distribution, especially when combined with spectral information, has also been proposed as a powerful way of extracting the signal [@SiegalGaskins:2009ux; @Hensley:2009gh].
Here we propose a new and robust approach for constraining dark matter from data that uses only the angular distribution of the photons. We rely on two important aspects of the dark matter signal to help separate it from backgrounds. First, part of the expected signal from dark matter in our galaxy is smooth (i.e. variations from the mean flux in nearby pixels are uncorrelated). Second, the dark matter signal comes from a nearly spherically symmetric halo, so the signal is azimuthally symmetric about the axis connecting us to the center of our Galaxy. This is in sharp contrast to the backgrounds, which are heavily concentrated near the disk of the Galaxy. More generally, astrophysical backgrounds have different morphologies and may be clumped (i.e. variations from the mean flux may be correlated in nearby pixels). These differences between the signal and the backgrounds allow us to remove some of the contribution from the backgrounds to place an interesting limit on the dark matter. The approach, which we call a [*Ring Analysis*]{}, makes very minimal assumptions about the nature of the signal and no assumptions about the backgrounds. Therefore, this approach is very conservative and will lead to robust limits on the properties of the dark matter.
In §\[sec:data\] we describe the way we processed the Fermi LAT data to generate photon count and exposure maps. In §\[sec:ringanalysis\] we present the Ring Analysis technique that we have developed for constraining the presence of an azimuthally symmetric signal on the sky. Consider an annulus centered on the axis connecting us to the Galactic Center, identified by the angle $\psi$ between this axis and the annulus. The Ring Analysis results in an upper limit on any contribution to the flux that is uniform in this annulus. Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] presents these upper limits on the uniform flux from the Fermi LAT data. Transforming these upper limits into constraints on the properties of dark matter particles requires a number of steps and assumptions. These, and in particular the uncertainties involved, are discussed in §\[sec:application\]. Our conclusions are presented in §\[sec:summary\].
Data {#sec:data}
====
The Fermi LAT is a pair conversion detector that operates roughly in the energy range from 20 MeV to 300 GeV. A scintillating anti-coincidence detector allows for the rejection of contaminating high energy particle events. The specifications of the detector are described in detail in Ref. [@Atwood:2009]. Our analysis is based on LAT data downloaded in the form of weekly all-sky releases from the Fermi Science Support Center website at http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/.
Even with the on-board anti-coincidence detector there is a residual background of particles that are misclassified as by the LAT detectors. This poses a challenge for our analysis because these misinterpreted cosmic rays constitute a potentially large and uncertain background. The Fermi collaboration has made public the DataClean event class which implements several data cuts to minimize cosmic ray contamination as well as improved particle background and instrument modeling. Their data selection techniques and event modeling are described in Ref. [@Abdo:2010]. We restrict our analysis to only the events labeled as DataClean and use the corresponding P6\_V3\_DATACLEAN instrument response function to calculate exposure maps.
Following Ref. [@Abdo:2010], we confine our analysis to those events coming from zenith angles $< 100^{\circ}$ in order to reduce contamination by produced in cosmic ray interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere. The resulting data set amounts to an exposure of roughly $7\times10^{10} \cm2 \rm{s}$ across the sky covering a date range from 2008-08-04 to 2010-12-07.
We produce photon count and exposure maps using the [*GaDGET*]{} package, a set of software routines designed for use with the LAT data by the Fermi collaboration [@Ackermann2008]. In generating the maps, the data were divided into 29 energy bins between 1 GeV and 100 GeV, logarithmically spaced in energy. This restriction in energy was chosen because the LAT performance is well characterized in this energy range. Because the generation of these maps is computationally intensive, the data were processed in parallel on the Fulla[^1] computing cluster at Fermilab. The maps generated using the [*GaDGET*]{} software were then converted to the HEALPix[^2] isolatitude pixelization scheme with $N_{\rm{side}}=64$, corresponding to a pixel size of roughly $(1^{\circ})^2$ (comparable to the width of the point spread function (PSF) of Fermi at the lowest energy we consider). Fig. \[fig:skymap\] shows the resulting all-sky map in the energy range $1 \gev < E < 100 \gev$.
Ring Analysis {#sec:ringanalysis}
=============
Overview
--------
The Ring Analysis technique that we develop in this paper is a method for constraining the presence of a signal on the sky that satisfies two requirements: 1) it is azimuthally symmetric, and 2) variations from the mean signal at any zenith angle are uncorrelated from one pixel to the next. As we discuss in §\[sec:application\], the annihilation signal from smooth dark matter is expected to satisfy these two requirements, and we can quantify the extent to which the signal deviates from these conditions. In this section, however, we make no reference to the nature of the signal itself.
A consequence of these two features is that the signal in each pixel of a ring of constant $\psi$ (where $\psi$ is the zenith angle) can be considered to be drawn independently from some underlying distribution. In the statistical literature, such a signal is referred to as independent and identically distributed, or i.i.d. The constraint will be on the amplitude of any i.i.d. component of the data. In the case of interest, the backgrounds dwarf the signal and the background flux in each pixel may depend on nearby pixels and may vary as a function of the angle transverse to $\psi$, which we label $\phi$.
Consider a ring on the sky of constant $\psi$ defined by $\psi_i -
\Delta \psi_i /2 < \psi < \psi_i + \Delta \psi_i /2$, where $\psi_i$ labels the central $\psi$ of the $i$th ring, and $\Delta \psi_i$ is its angular width. Since we have divided the sky into pixels, we define $F_i(\phi_j)$ to be the flux in the $j$th pixel (labeled by its azimuth angle $\phi_j$) of ring $i$. We assume that the pixels have been sorted in terms of $\phi_j$ so that, for example, pixels $j$ and $j+1$ appear adjacent to each other on the sky; such sorting preserves any non-i.i.d. component of the data. The flux $F_i(\phi_j)$ receives contributions from an i.i.d. component due to the signal, $F_{i,S}(\phi_j)$, and contributions from some possibly non-i.i.d. components due to the backgrounds, $F_{i,B}(\phi_j)$ (see upper panel of Fig. \[fig:ring\_phi\_plot\] for an illustration). Our goal is to obtain an upper limit on the mean contribution from the signal.
Consider the fluxes in all pixels in the ring shown in Fig. \[fig:ring\_phi\_plot\]. This sequence is clearly [*not*]{} i.i.d. because of the peaks at $\phi\pm90^\circ$. That is, the flux in the pixel at $\phi=90^\circ$ is clearly correlated with the flux in nearby pixels. The physical reason for this is clear as well: these values of $\phi$ correspond to the plane of the galaxy where backgrounds are particularly large. The mean flux of any i.i.d. signal in this ring is clearly much smaller than the flux at the peaks. Choosing as a constraint the mean flux in all pixels is also not optimal as the plane of the Galaxy is distorting the mean. Rather, we expect the constraint on the mean i.i.d. flux to be at the level of the flux away from these peaks. One way to arrive at this systematically is to:
- Start with the observed distribution ($F_i(\phi_j)$) and note that it is not an i.i.d. sequence
- Create a flux threshold ($F_i^T$) and remove all pixels with flux above the threshold
- Test and see if the resulting (truncated) sequence ($G_i(\phi_j,F_i^T)$) is consistent with being i.i.d.
- If the truncated sequence is not consistent with an i.i.d. distribution, lower the threshold and repeat
- Once the truncated distribution is consistent with i.i.d., any i.i.d. component will generally have mean flux that is below the median of the truncated sequence, $F_i^{\rm{UL}} =
\textrm{median}(G_i(\phi_j,F_i^T))$, so this median value becomes the upper limit on the i.i.d. flux in the ring (there are exceptions to this statement, an issue which we address below)
To determine whether a given $G_i(\phi_j, F_i^{T})$ is i.i.d., we use the Brock, Dechert and Scheinkman (BDS) statistic [@Brock:1986]. The BDS statistic tests the null hypothesis that a sequence is i.i.d. by measuring the degree of spatial correlation in the sequence. In essence, this is accomplished by searching for sub-sequences of length $m$ that are significantly different from other $m$-long sub-sequences in the data; the value of $m$ is referred to as the ‘embedding dimension’. The null hypothesis can be rejected if the BDS statistic falls outside of some desired confidence interval; in our analysis we use a $3\sigma$ confidence limit. See Ref.[@Cromwell:1994] for an introduction to the BDS statistic. To implement the BDS test we use a code made available in Ref. [@LeBaron:1997]. The test itself depends on two parameters: the maximum embedding dimension, $m_{max}$, and a parameter $\epsilon$ which effects how the discrepancy between different $m$-sequences is measured. Following the recommendations of Ref. [@Brock:1991], we use $\epsilon =0.5\sigma$ where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of $G_i(\phi_j, F_i^{T})$ and $m_{max} = 5$; we find, however, that our results are not very sensitive to the choices of these parameters. The results of the BDS test can be easily checked by eye; any non-i.i.d. behavior is obvious to the eye as spatial clumping.
Ideally, the limit we derive through this method will be significantly lower than the mean flux in the ring, $\overline{F_i(\phi_j)}$, because we have effectively removed the contributions to the ring that are not i.i.d. The upper panel of Fig. \[fig:ring\_phi\_plot\] shows the initial $F_i(\phi_j)$ for a particular ring on the sky; the lower panel shows $G_i(\phi_j, F_i^{T})$, where $F_i^{T}$ has been determined using the BDS test.
Monte Carlo Testing
-------------------
There are several important qualifications to the above discussion. First, it is possible to engineer pathological signals and backgrounds such that the limit determined by the Ring Analysis method is actually lower than the mean signal flux. Any realistic astrophysical sources are unlikely to have such pathological distributions, however. Second, the point spread function (PSF) of the Fermi telescope at 1 GeV is comparable to the size of our pixels; one might worry that the non-zero PSF could lead to correlations between pixels that would invalidate the i.i.d. property of the signal. Third, the statistical literature recommends that the BDS test be used only on data sets that are large, preferably with more than 500 elements [@Brock:1991]. In our analysis, however, we apply the test to data sets with as few as 50 elements, clearly pushing the limits of the BDS test. Finally, if the signal is a smoothly varying function of $\psi$ then it will not have a constant value in any ring of finite angular width since different pixels at fixed $\psi_i$ integrate over the flux with different weighting over $\psi$. All of the above issues can be addressed through the application of Monte Carlo tests. By applying the Ring Analysis technique to simulated data sets, we can determine to what extent and under what conditions our constraints are valid. Since we aim only to place an upper limit on the mean flux of an i.i.d. component in the data, the relevant statistic for evaluating the success of the Ring Analysis technique is the ratio of the calculated upper limit on the i.i.d. flux, $F^{\rm{UL}}$, to the mean i.i.d. flux, $\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$. Ideally, $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ will always be greater than one (so that our constraint is valid) but not much greater than one (so that the constraint is as tight as possible). We wish to characterize how this statistic varies as a function of the mean i.i.d. flux.
We generate mock data sets by combining a simulated i.i.d. signal and a simulated background. These mock data sets are then analyzed using the Ring Analysis technique and its performance is evaluated. The mock i.i.d. component is drawn randomly from a Poisson distribution with a desired mean. The random draws ensure that the signal is in fact i.i.d. and the assumption of a Poisson distribution is justified for most astrophysical sources. For the background model, it makes sense to use the observed data itself since the data is likely background dominated. However, since any i.i.d. component to the background will increase $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$, we subtract the determined i.i.d. flux from the observed background to generate our background model. This is the most conservative test of our analysis: if the true background contains any i.i.d. component then the true $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ can only be larger than the $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ measured in the Monte Carlo trials.
One might worry that the point spread function (PSF) of the FGST could lead to correlations between pixels that might disturb the i.i.d. nature of the underlying signal. The width of the FGST PSF is a declining function of energy; at the lowest energy that we consider (1 GeV), the 68% containment angle is slightly less than 1 degree (for normal incidence; the PSF broadens slightly when the incidence angle is beyond about $50^{\circ}$). Consequently, the width of the PSF at the lowest energies considered is comparable to the size of our $\sim 1^{\circ}$ pixels. To account for effects of the PSF we applying a Gaussian smoothing kernel to the mock signal with a standard deviation of $0.5$ pixels. Since the PSF actually gets narrower at higher energies, the application of such a smoothing kernel to all of the photon data is conservative; at high energies we are overestimating the size of the PSF.
As mentioned above, we do not expect the signal in an angular ring of finite width to be exactly constant even if the signal is azimuthally symmetric since the signal is a smoothly varying function. To account for this possibility in our Monte Carlo tests we introduce a variation in the mean signal flux that amounts to a $40\%$ decrease across the ring. This value is chosen because it is characteristic of the variation in the smooth dark matter signal in which we are ultimately interested.
Fig. \[fig:threshold\_bounds\] presents the results of our Monte Carlo tests of the Ring Analysis method. The figure shows the quantity $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ for the mock data sets as a function of $\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}/\mu_{BG}$, where $\mu_{BG}$ is the mean background flux (the signal and background have been simulated as described above with the effects of the PSF and the smoothly varying signal included). For each value of $\mu_{BG}$ we drew 1000 realizations of the i.i.d. signal. The shaded region indicates the 95% confidence interval for these 1000 mock data sets. Fig. \[fig:threshold\_bounds\] reveals that the Ring Analysis technique is performing essentially as hoped: $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ is always larger than one and it stays close to one over a fairly large range of $\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$. For very low $\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ the signal makes essentially no contribution to the data and the flux threshold therefore stays constant; consequently $F^{\rm{UL}}/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}} \propto
1/\mu_{\rm{i.i.d.}}$ in this regime.
Constraints on the i.i.d. Flux
------------------------------
Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] shows the upper limits on an i.i.d. component in the Fermi data derived using the Ring Analysis technique as a function of the angle $\psi$ from the galactic center. As one moves away from the Galactic Center (i.e. towards $\psi
= 90^{\circ}$), the limit becomes tighter simply because the flux is lower; beyond $\psi = 90^{\circ}$ the limit becomes weaker again as we look toward the galactic anticenter. In generating Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] we divided the sky into 45 rings of equal width in $\psi$. The BDS threshold curve is shown only for those rings for which the test could be conducted on more than 50 pixels in accordance with the results of our Monte Carlo simulations. As can be seen from the figure, the BDS threshold is significantly more constraining than the mean flux in the ring.
As a consistency check on our results, we compare the minimum threshold flux in Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] (which occurs near $\psi = 90^{\circ}$ as expected since this high-latitude region is least contaminated by the Galaxy) to the value of the extragalactic background determined by the analysis of the Fermi Collaboration in Ref. [@Abdo:2010] (see the dash-dotted line in Fig.\[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\]). Since any isotropic, smooth background is necessarily i.i.d. we expect our minimum threshold flux to be at least as large as the measured isotropic background. We do not expect the minimum threshold flux to be much larger than the isotropic background, however, because the isotropic background dominates at $\psi \approx 90^{\circ}$. As expected, our minimum threshold flux of roughly $5\times10^{-7} \rm{cm}^{-2} \rm{s}^{-1}
\rm{sr}^{-1}$ is slightly larger than the value of $\sim4\times10^{-7}
\rm{cm}^{-2} \rm{s}^{-1} \rm{sr}^{-1}$ obtained by Ref. [@Abdo:2010] for the extragalactic background flux over the same energy range ($1 \gev < E < 100 \gev$).
Also shown in Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] is the flux predicted from the smooth dark matter component for a particular particle mass and cross section ([$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}is defined in the next section) and a smooth Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) [@Navarro:1996] distribution with canonical values for the total halo mass and concentration. The shaded region (described in the next section) reflects the uncertainties in the dark matter distribution. Roughly, then, these values of the mass and cross section are ruled out by the Ring Analysis. In the next section, we will project this constraint on to the mass–cross section plane and propagate the uncertainties in the dark matter distribution to this plane. Here, we note that the most stringent limit comes from the ring[^3] with $\psi=15^\circ$; this model-independent limit is: $$F_{\rm{i.i.d.}}(\psi=15^\circ)\le 4.5\times 10^{-6} \rm{cm}^{-2} \rm{s}^{-1} \rm{sr}^{-1}.
{\label{eq:fluxlim}}$$ The fact that this analysis identifies the annulus at $\psi=15^\circ$ as the most constraining is consistent with the arguments of Ref. [@Stoehr:2003hf].
Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] also shows the mean flux in each ring. The mean flux is always larger than the i.i.d. upper limit; in the most constraining ring at $\psi=15^\circ$, the i.i.d. limit is a factor of 2 below the mean flux. This factor of two illustrates the power of the i.i.d. analysis: the limit obtained from the mean in the ring is contaminated by flux near the Galactic plane, contamination that is removed by the Ring Analysis introduced here.
The main advantage of the Ring Analysis is that it makes no assumptions about the source or properties of the backgrounds to the dark matter signal. This is a significant advantage because uncertainties in backgrounds are the main limitation for constraining dark matter with observations. We have assumed only that the signal in each pixel is drawn from a distribution that is invariant under rotations around the Galactic Center. Of course, the cost of assuming little is that the limit that can be placed using this technique is comparatively weak. For instance, since any isotropic backgrounds present in the data will also meet these assumptions, their presence will make our determined limit worse. Furthermore, we note that this technique is not well suited for actually detecting dark matter, but rather should be viewed as a way of placing upper limits on the dark matter signal.
Constraints on Dark Matter {#sec:application}
==========================
The Dark Matter Signal
----------------------
The Milky Way is believed to exist within a roughly spherical halo of dark matter [@Zaritsky:1999]. Consequently, the annihilation signal from galactic dark matter is expected to have azimuthal symmetry around the line connecting us to the Galactic Center. The dark matter constituting the halo is in turn thought to exist in two forms: a smooth component and a clumped component termed [ *subhalos*]{} [@Diemand:2007]. Almost by definition, a smooth dark matter component will have an annihilation signal for which variations from the mean are uncorrelated. Therefore, the annihilation signal from smooth dark matter is a perfect candidate for the Ring Analysis developed in the previous section. Here we ignore potential signals from annihilations occurring in subhalos, as well as a possible cosmological signal from dark matter annihilations. Therefore, the constraint – on only the smooth Galactic component – is conservative.
In order to turn the flux limit derived by the Ring Analysis into constraints on the dark matter particle properties, we must develop a model for the expected annihilation flux from smooth Galactic dark matter. The observed flux of photons due to such annihilations along a given line of sight is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:smoothflux}
F(\psi) = \frac{f_{\rm{WIMP}} J(\psi) }{4 \pi}\end{aligned}$$ where the first factor on the right $$\label{eq:fwimp}
f_{\rm{WIMP}} \equiv
\frac{N_{\gamma} \langle\sigma v \rangle} {M_{\chi}^2}$$ depends on the particle physics properties of the dark matter: mass $M_\chi$, velocity-weighted annihilation cross section $\langle \sigma
v \rangle$, and photon counts per annihilation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ngamma}
N_{\gamma} = \int_{E_{min}}^{E_{max}} \frac{dN}{dE} dE\end{aligned}$$ within some desired band $E_{min} < E < E_{max}$. The second factor in [Eq. (\[eq:smoothflux\])]{} $$J(\psi) \equiv \int dl d\Omega \rho^2(l, \psi)$$ depends on the distribution of the dark matter halo, with $\rho(l,\psi)$ the smooth dark matter density at line of sight distance $l$ and zenith angle $\psi$. We have assumed that $\rho$ is spherically symmetric about the Galactic Center so that the observed flux can be written as a function of $\psi$ only but will revisit this assumption later. A given profile and therefore a value of $J$ translates the constraints on the i.i.d. flux in the previous section into a constraint on [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}.
A canonical $J$ emerges from assuming an NFW profile with a scale radius of 20 kpc and local dark matter density of $\rho_0 = 0.43
\gev \rm{cm}^{-3}$. This leads to the $J(\psi)$ depicted as the dashed line in Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] for the given value of [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}.
Uncertainties in the Dark Matter Profile
----------------------------------------
The dark matter profile is not constrained very tightly by observations, and this uncertainty propagates to the constraints on the particle physics properties. We address this in two ways here, the first applies to all constraints on the smooth halo and the second is specific to our assumption that the dark matter distribution is spherical.
To allow for freedom in the dark matter profile, we piggy-back on the analysis of Ref. [@Widrow:2008]. They used nine sets of observational data to constrain the dark matter profile in our Galaxy. They assumed a density of the form $$\label{eq:galdensity}
\rho(r) = \frac{2^{2-\gamma}\sigma_h^2}{4 \pi a_h^2
G}\frac{1}{(r/a_h)(1+r/a_h)^{3-\gamma}}$$ where $r$ is the distance from the Galactic Center, $a_h$ is the scale radius of the dark matter halo, $\sigma_h$ is a scale velocity, and $\gamma$ is a parameter which effects the behavior of the central density cusp, with $\gamma = 1$ corresponding to the usual NFW form. A given set of these free parameters translates into a set of values for $J(\psi)$ assuming the distance between the Earth and the Galactic Center to be 8.5 kpc.
The allowed values of the three profile parameters (and therefore $J(\psi)$) are contained in Monte Carlo Markov Chains run in Ref. [@Widrow:2008]. They have kindly provided us with those chains, and Fig. \[fig:integral\_hist\] projects these on to $J(\psi)$ for three different values of $\psi$. It is clear from this figure that the width of the distributions increases rapidly with decreasing $\psi$.
The widths of the distributions show in Fig. \[fig:integral\_hist\] can be propagated directly into error bars on the expected signal for dark matter in Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\]. The shaded region in Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] represents the 95% confidence interval for the allowed dark matter signal for a particular choice of [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}. The value we have chosen for [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}is illustrative in the sense that it is roughly the lowest value that is excluded by the Ring Analysis limit.
Our analysis so far has assumed that the signal from the smooth component of the dark matter is spherically distributed around the Galactic Center. In fact, the true shape of the Milky Way’s dark matter halo may be triaxial [@Law:2009]. If this is the case, then the dark matter signal is not uniform in rings of constant $\psi$ on the sky; instead, the signal in such a ring will be an oscillating function of the azimuth angle $\phi$ (the thick curves in Fig. \[fig:triaxial\_j\]). As a result, the total signal in a given ring will no longer be i.i.d. (i.e., it is not [*identical*]{}). However, there will still be some component of the signal that *is* i.i.d.; the flux of this component is given by the minimum flux of the dark matter signal in the ring (the thin horizontal lines in Fig. \[fig:triaxial\_j\]). Since the triaxiality of the halo effectively decreases the magnitude of the i.i.d. signal, the stated lower bound is too aggressive. It is therefore important to quantify how the triaxiality of the halo effects the level of the i.i.d. signal.
In order to estimate the magnitude of this effect, we calculate $$J(\psi, \phi) \equiv \int dl d\Omega \rho^2(l, \psi, \phi)$$ along different lines of sight in model triaxial galaxies. $J(\psi,
\phi)$ is the analogue of $J(\psi)$ for a dark matter halo that is not assumed to be spherically symmetric. Observations in the Milky Way by Ref. [@Law:2009] and simulations of disk galaxies by Ref. [@Bailin:2005] suggest that one of the axes of the inner halo (which is also the region that dominates our exclusion limit) is aligned with the rotation axis of the galactic disk. Following the results of Ref. [@Law:2009], we assume that the minor and major axes of the halo lie in the galactic plane; we find, however, that this choice of alignment does not have a significant impact on our results. We assume a density profile of the form Eq. \[eq:galdensity\] with the replacement $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:triaxialradius}
r^2 = (x/c)^2 + (y/a)^2 + (z/b)^2\end{aligned}$$ where the $x$, $y$ and $z$ axis are aligned with the minor, major and intermediate axes of the halo respectively. Strictly speaking, Refs. [@Jing:2002; @Allgood:2006] have found that the axis ratios $a/b$ and $b/c$ do not remain constant throughout the halo; rather, they decrease slightly (i.e. the ellipsoid becomes more elongated) towards the center of the halo. However, since our exclusion limit is dominated by a small range of distances from the Galactic Center we feel justified in approximating the halo by ellipsoids with constant axis ratios and alignments throughout the galaxy as per Eq. \[eq:triaxialradius\].
Fig. \[fig:triaxial\_j\] shows $J(\psi = 10^{\circ}, \phi)$ along different lines of sight in model galaxies with several values of the axis ratios (thick lines). In generating this plot we have used $\sigma_h = 270 \textrm{km/s}$, $a_h =5.9 \textrm{ kpc}$ and $\gamma =
0.028$; in a spherical halo these values yield a J($\psi =
10^{\circ}$) which is at the fifth percentile of all those calculated from the Markov chains of Ref. [@Widrow:2008]. Since the uncertainty in our exclusion limit is dominated by uncertainty in the halo model, this parameter choice is therefore appropriate for our $95\%$ exclusion limit on the dark matter properties. We plot only those lines of sight with $\psi = 10^{\circ}$ because this is the angular range relevant to our exclusion limit. All of the curves have been normalized so that they have the same mean as the corresponding curve for a spherical halo; since the total amount of dark matter in the inner halo is strongly constrained (by measurements of galactic rotation curves, for instance), we expect this choice of normalization to be reasonably accurate.
To proceed further, we need to know the axis ratios of the isodensity surfaces throughout the Milky Way halo. Ref. [@Law:2009] determined values for the axis ratios of some of the isovelocity surfaces in the Milky Way. While these values could in principle be converted to axis ratios for the isodensity surfaces given a density model, the large uncertainties associated with these measurements lead us to take a hopefully more robust approach. Using numerical simulations, Refs. [@Jing:2002; @Allgood:2006] have determined probability distributions for the axis ratios of dark matter halos. We run Monte Carlo simulations based on these results in order to quantify the extent of the variation in the dark matter signal due to triaxiality.
We calculate $J(\psi, \phi)$ for halos with axis ratios drawn from the probability distributions of Eqs. 17 and 18 in Ref. [@Jing:2002]. We adjust these distributions slightly to account for the fact that they are calculated at a distance from the Galactic Center, $r_{2500}$, given by $\rho(r_{2500})/\rho_{\mathrm{crit}} = 2500$ (note that $r_{2500}$ is defined in terms of the local halo density and not the mean interior density) while we are interested in the distributions much closer to the Galactic Center. Using Eqs. 6 and 7 of Ref. [@Jing:2002] we scale the axis ratios so that they correspond to a distance of $\sim 1.5 \textrm{ kpc}$ from the Galactic Center, roughly the innermost distance that effects our constraint. This corresponds to decreasing $a/c$ and $b/c$ by roughly 30% and 10% respectively. The resultant distributions are roughly consistent with the results of Ref. [@Allgood:2006]. Finally, we assume that the line connecting the sun to the Galactic Center lies in the plane of the minor and major axes of the halo but with a random orientation in that plane.
Fig. \[fig:triaxial\_j\] shows the flux as a function of azimuthal angle $\phi$ in a given ring for three different sets of $(a,b,c)$. The key take-away from these plots is the difference between the mean flux (i.e. the mean value of $J(\psi=10^{\circ},\phi)$ for the thick curves in Fig. \[fig:triaxial\_j\]) and the minimum flux (i.e. the thin curves in Fig. \[fig:triaxial\_j\]) in the ring. This difference is the amount by which we have been implicitly [*overestimating*]{} the i.i.d. signal. Dividing the difference by the mean flux then provides an estimate of the relative over-estimation, the amount by which we should loosen the i.i.d. constraint. Fig. \[fig:oscillation\_hist\] shows the distribution of this fractional difference (also at $\psi =
10^{\circ}$) for 10000 Monte Carlo realizations of the halo axis ratios drawn from the probability distributions of Ref. [@Jing:2002]. It is clear from this figure that error introduced by assuming a spherical halo is typically no more than $25\%$. Since the uncertainty introduced into our exclusion limit by the uncertainties in $\sigma_h$, $a_h$ and $\gamma$ is much greater than this, and since the degree of triaxiality in our own halo is not very well constrained, we choose to ignore this source of uncertainty in our exclusion plots.
We conclude this section by mentioning that the presence of baryons may have a non-negligible impact on the shape of the dark matter halo, particularly in the innermost region [@Springel:2004]. The effects of baryons have not been included in the simulations of Ref. [@Jing:2002] nor Ref. [@Allgood:2006]. While there may be a disturbance due to baryons near disk, the effect of such a disturbance on our exclusion limit is likely negligible since the limit is dominated by the region away from the disk where the backgrounds are lowest.
Constraints on Dark Matter {#constraints-on-dark-matter}
--------------------------
The previous discussion has constrained [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}over the energy range 1to 100. We find that our final constraint over this energy range is $$f_{\rm{WIMP}} \le 5.8\times 10^{-28} {\rm cm}^3\,{\rm s}^{-1}\, {\rm GeV}^{-2}$$ In order to turn the limits on [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}into constraints on the dark matter particle properties we must assume an annihilation channel for the dark matter so that $N_{\gamma}$ (Eq. \[eq:ngamma\]) can be calculated. The constraint on [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}and the value of $N_{\gamma}$ can then be transformed into a constraint in the $M_{\chi}$-$\langle
\sigma v \rangle$ parameter space using Eq. \[eq:fwimp\].
The choice of the energy range that we impose on our analysis can have a significant impact on the constraints that we place in the $M_{\chi}$-$\langle \sigma v \rangle$ plane. For $E \ll M_{\chi}$ the annihilation photon spectrum is relatively flat compared to that of the backgrounds, so increasing $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ in this regime effectively increases the size of the signal relative to the total flux, thereby improving the constraint on the dark matter properties. As $E$ approaches $M_{\chi}$, the spectrum of annihilation photons falls off very quickly so increasing $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ in this regime causes the constraint to become very weak. We expect, then, that the optimal constraint on the dark matter comes from choosing $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ to be some fixed fraction of $M_{\chi}$. Rather than enforcing the optimal $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ for each $M_{\chi}$ exactly (which would require dividing the data into many more energy bins than the 29 that we employ), we allow $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ to vary freely for each $M_{\chi}$ that we consider. We then choose the value of $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ that maximizes our constraint on the dark matter. Random fluctuations in the strength of the constraint induced by varying $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ are small, so choosing $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ to maximize the constraint does not decrease the statistical significance of our result. Varying $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ is our one minimal use of the energy information for the photons; by making our analysis essentially independent of detailed spectral information we make our constraints more robust.
Fig. \[fig:ring\_exclusion\_channel\] shows how the constraints that we place on [$f_{\rm{WIMP}}$]{}in different energy bins with the Ring Analysis are translated into constraints in the $M_{\chi}$-$\langle\sigma v
\rangle$ plane for different assumed annihilation channels (each of which correspond to a different $N_\gamma$). We consider two possible annihilation channels: $\chi\chi \rightarrow b \bar b$ and $\chi\chi
\rightarrow \tau \bar \tau$, where $\chi$ is a neutralino. $N_{\gamma}$ is calculated for these different channels over a mass range of 10 GeV to 10 TeV using the DarkSUSY[^4] package [@Gondolo]. Since our technique places a limit on $f_{\rm{WIMP}} = N_{\gamma} \langle\sigma v \rangle / M_{\chi}^2$ we expect the limit on to go roughly as $M_{\chi}^2$. The flattening of the limit at low mass is due to a decrease in $N_{\gamma}$ as more and more annihilation photons fall outside of the energy limits of our analysis.
The dashed curves in Fig. \[fig:ring\_exclusion\_channel\] show what the limit would be if the dark matter profile, as quantified by $J(\psi)$, produced the mean annihilation signal, and there was no uncertainty in the profile. The uncertainty in dark matter profile then loosens the constraint on the annihilation cross section by more than a factor of 2.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Exclusion plots in the $\langle\sigma v \rangle$-$M_{\chi}$ plane generated by the Ring Analysis for different annihilation channels of the dark matter. The solid region represent the 95% exclusion range with respect to the uncertainties in the properties of the smooth halo. The dashed line represents the boundary of the excluded region when the mean value of $J(\psi)$ from the Monte Carlo chains of Ref. [@Widrow:2008] is used to calculate the expected dark matter signal. The left panel shows the exclusion limit for neutralinos, $\chi$, that annihilated to $b\bar b$; the right panel corresponds to neutralinos annihilating to $\tau\bar\tau$.[]{data-label="fig:ring_exclusion_channel"}](ring_exclusion_taus "fig:")
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The limits presented in Fig. \[fig:ring\_exclusion\_channel\] are comparable to the corresponding plots from Ref. [@Zaharijas:2010], which also considers the annihilation signal from the smooth galactic dark matter component, but which makes a stronger set of assumptions about the signal and backgrounds. Our limits are complementary in the sense that they are almost entirely independent of any assumptions about the diffuse background. We also find that our constraints are comparable to those obtained from an analysis of extragalactic dark matter annihilations by Ref. [@Abdo:2010dm]. As evidenced in Fig. 5 of that work, the constraints derived from extragalactic annihilations are subject to very large uncertainties in the magnitude of the dark matter signal. While uncertainties in the signal from smooth galactic dark matter are also important, they are not nearly as large. Finally, our limits are also comparable to (and competitive with) those derived from an analysis of the annihilation signal from dwarf spheroidal galaxies by Ref. [@Abdo:2010ds].
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
We have developed a technique for constraining the presence of a smooth, azimuthally symmetric signal on the sky. We showed with Monte Carlo simulations that the technique is robust (i.e. the limits derived from the technique are never below the mean signal flux). By applying the technique to data from the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope we derived a constraint ([Eq. (\[eq:fluxlim\])]{}) on the presence of any smooth signal that is symmetric with respect to rotations about the axis connecting us to the Galactic Center. When combined with a model for the signal due to annihilations of the smooth dark matter component in our galaxy, these limits allow us to place constraints on the dark matter particle mass and cross section. While our limits are slightly weaker than other recent results, they have the advantage of making essentially no assumptions about the backgrounds to the dark matter signal. This is a significant advantage because the uncertainties in models of backgrounds are large and often unknown.
There are several ways these limits can be improved. Tighter constraints on the dark matter profile would reduce the uncertainty in $J(\psi)$, which currently degrades the ultimate limit by more than a factor of 2. Including other sources of signal, in particular the contribution from extra-galactic halos, would improve the signal, but in most models, this contribution is smaller than that from the Galactic halo. A deeper understanding of the backgrounds could also be used in conjunction with this method to push the limits down further.
[*Acknowledgments*]{} We are very grateful to Larry Widrow for providing us with the chains from Ref. [@Widrow:2008] and to Andrey Kravtsov for his guidance on the properties of the Galactic halo. This work has been supported by the US Department of Energy, including grant DE-FG02-95ER40896, and by National Science Foundation Grant AST-0908072.
[33]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , , , , , , (), .
, , , (), .
, in **, edited by (), pp. , .
, ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , (), .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , in **, edited by (), vol. of **, pp. .
, , , ().
, ** (, , ), ISBN .
, **** ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , , ****, (), .
, in **, edited by (), vol. of **, pp. , .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , , , , , ****, (), .
, , , in **, edited by (), vol. of **, pp. .
, , , , , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
[^1]: http://fulla.fnal.gov/
[^2]: http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/
[^3]: Note that our analysis is restricted to $\psi\ge
7^\circ$. While the constraint could in principle be improved by moving to smaller $\psi$, the small number of pixels at such $\psi$ means that the BDS test loses much of its statistical power. We have confirmed with Monte Carlo tests that the constraints placed by the Ring Analysis tests become invalid in this regime. For the purposes of constraining the dark matter signal, Fig. \[fig:ring\_psi\_plot\] suggests that the innermost region will not tighten the constraints.
[^4]: P. Gondolo, J. Edsjö, P. Ullio, L. Bergström, M. Schelke, E.A. Baltz, T. Bringmann and G. Duda, http://www.darksusy.org
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper we consider convex subsets of locally-convex topological vector spaces. Given a fixed point in such a convex subset, we show that there exists a curve completely contained in the convex subset and leaving the point in a given direction if and only if the direction vector is contained in the sequential closure of the tangent cone at that point.
We apply this result to the characterization of the existence of weakly differentiable families of probability measures on a smooth manifold and of the distributions that can arise as their derivatives. This gives us a way to consider the mass transport equation in a very general context, in which the notion of direction turns out to be given by an element of a Colombeau algebra.
author:
- 'Rodolfo Ríos-Zertuche'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: Existence of differentiable curves in convex sets and the concept of direction of the flow in mass transportation
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
This paper has two parts.
The first part is the general theory, presented in Section \[sec:main\], that characterizes the possible derivatives of differentiable curves contained in convex subsets of locally-convex topological vector spaces. Our main motivation for the development of this general theory is its application to variational and perturbative analysis, and we will do this in upcoming papers.
Like many very general theorems, our main abstract result, Theorem \[thm:characterization\], is quite simple. It states that *the set of possible derivatives $\gamma'(0)$ of differentiable curves $\gamma\colon [0,+\infty)\to C$ emanating from a point $p=\gamma(0)$ in a closed, convex subset $C$ of a locally-convex topological vector field, coincides with the sequential closure of the tangent cone of $C$ at $p$;* see Section \[sec:characterization\] for definitions and for the precise statement. We also give reformulations in Corollaries \[cor:normed\] and \[cor:useful\] that work around the issue of taking the sequential closure, and henced may be more amenable to practical use.
In the second part of the paper, we consider families of measures varying in a weakly differentiable way: we merely ask for the map $t\mapsto \int \phi\,d\mu_t$ to be differentiable at 0 for all $\phi\in C^\infty_c$. Such families arise naturally in many parts of mathematics, including the theory of the heat equation, stochastic dynamics and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spde</span>s, and the continuity equation in mass transportation, to name a few.
As we show in Examples \[ex:deltas\], \[ex:uniform\] and \[ex:explicit\], the derivative of a family of positive Radon measures is rarely a signed Radon measure, but instead in general it is a distribution, that is, a continuous real-valued functional on the space of $C^\infty$ functions. We apply our general theory to characterize in Theorem \[thm:families\] the distributions that arise as derivatives of families of probabilities on a smooth manifold; we do this in Section \[sec:families\]. Our result states that *given a measure $\mu$, the distributions $\eta$ that arise as derivatives of differentiable families $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$ starting at $\mu_0=\mu$ are precisely those that satisfy that $\langle\eta,f\rangle{\geqslant}0$ for all nonnegative functions $f\in C^\infty_c$ that vanish on the support of $\mu$.*
In Section \[sec:examples\] we give some important remarks and examples that should aid in understanding the content of the statement of the characterization. We also give a characterization of the existence of curves with two-sided derivatives; this is Corollary \[cor:two-sided\]. Then in Section \[sec:masstransport\] we consider the continuity equation from mass transportation, namely $$\frac{d\mu_t}{dt}+\operatorname{div}(v_t\mu_t)=0,$$ in a very weak sense, and we use it to find elements of a Colombeau algebra that provide a meaning to the concept of “direction of the flow,” that is, we find an object that has a role similar to the classical vector field $v_t$, but in a context in which such “movement” can be extremely singular.
An initial version of the results presented in Section \[sec:families\] was posted previously in the arXiv in [@myderivatives; @myvariationalstructure]. The theory was since completely redeveloped from a different point of view until it attained the form presented here, which is also considerably simpler and more general.
#### Acknowledgements.
The author is very grateful to Patrick Bernard, Jaime Bustillo, and Stefan Suhr for their encouragement, support, suggestions, and numerous discussions.
Curves in convex sets {#sec:main}
=====================
Consider a locally-convex topological vector space $V$ with topological dual space $V^*$. Let $C$ be a closed and convex subset of $V$.
We say that a subset $A$ of $V$ is a *cone* if $ra$ is contained in $A$ for every $r>0$ and for every $a$ in $A$. The set $A$ is a *closed cone* if it is a cone and is closed in the topology of $V$.
Let $p$ be a point in the closed, convex set $C$. The *tangent cone* of $C$ at $p$ is the set of vectors $v$ such that $p+tv$ is contained in $C$ for some $t>0$. In other words, the tangent cone is the set $\mathbb R_{>0}(C-p)$. This set is a cone, but it is not necessarily closed.
Again with $p$ a point in $C$, the *solid tangent cone* of $C$ at $p$ is the set of vectors $v$ in $C$ such that $\theta(v){\geqslant}0$ for every functional $\theta$ in $V^*$ that is nonnegative throughtout the translate $C-p$. Since the solid cone is an intersection of sets of the form $\theta^{-1}([0,+\infty))$, which are all closed, the solid tangent cone is a closed cone. It is well known that, conversely, as a consequence of the Hahn-Banach Separation Theorem, the topological closure of the tangent cone is the solid tangent cone.
An intermediate set is the *sequential closure of the tangent cone* of $C$ at $p$, defined to be the set of vectors $v$ in the solid tangent cone at $p$ that can be approximated by sequences of points $\{v_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ in the tangent cone at $p$, $v_i\to v$ as $i\to \infty$. Again, the sequential closure of the tangent cone is not necessarily topologically closed, and its closure is the solid tangent cone.
We then have
\[thm:characterization\] Let $V$ be a locally-convex topological vector space, and let $C$ be a closed and convex subset of $V$. Given a point $p$ in $C$ and a direction vector $v$ in $V$, there exists a continuous curve $c\colon[0,+\infty)\to C$ such that $c(0)=p$ and $$\left.\frac{dc(t)}{d t}\right|_{t=0+}=v$$ if, and only if, $v$ is in the sequential closure of the tangent cone of $C$ at $p$.
To prove the “if” part, let $v_1,v_2,\dots$ be a sequence of vectors in the tangent cone to $C$ at $p$ that converges to $v$, $v_i\to v$. For $i=1,2,\dots$, let $\varepsilon_i>0$ be such that $p+\varepsilon_iv_i$ is contained in $C$, and also $\varepsilon_i\to0$ as $i\to +\infty$. Take a sequence $t_1,t_2,\dots$ of positive numbers such that $0<t_{i+1}<t_i{\leqslant}\varepsilon_i$. Define $p_j$ to be equal to $p+t_jv_j$. Note that $p_j\to p$ and $t_j\to 0$ as $j\to+\infty$. To define the curve $c$, first set $c(t_j)=p_j$ and then on the intervals $(t_{j+1},t_j)$ do a linear interpolation between those values . Also set $c(0)=p$; this renders $c$ continuous on $[0,t_1]$. For simplicity, we let $c(t)=p_1$ for $t{\geqslant}t_1$. Then $c$ is continuous, and $c(t)$ is in $C$ for all $t>0$ because of the convexity of $C$ and the fact that $p$ and $p_i$, $i=1,2,\dots$, are all contained in $C$. Also, we have $$\lim_{i\to+\infty}\frac{p_i-p}{t_i}=\lim_{i\to+\infty}v_j=v.$$ Since $c$ is a linear interpolation between these points, $$\lim_{t\to0+}\frac{c(t)-p}{t}=\lim_{i\to+\infty}\frac{p_i-p}{t_i}=v.$$ Thus the curve $c$ exists.
To prove the converse statement, assume the existence of $c$ as in the statement of the theorem. Let $v_i=i(c(1/i)-p)$ for $i=1,2,\dots$. Since $c(1/i)$ and $p$ are both contained in $C$, $v_i$ is in the tangent cone to $C$ at $p$. Moreover, $$v=\lim_{t\to0+}\frac{c(t)-p}{t}=\lim_{i\to+\infty}\frac{c(1/i)-p}{1/i}=\lim_{i\to+\infty}v_i.$$ So $v$ is in the sequential closure of the tangent cone to $C$ at $p$.
We observe the following reformulation of Theorem \[thm:characterization\] that is appropriate for normed spaces.
\[cor:normed\] Assume that $V$ is a normed space, that $p$ is an element of a closed, convex subset $C$ of $V$, and let $v\in V$. Then there is a continuous curve $c\colon[0,+\infty)\to C$ such that $c(0)=p$ and $dc(t)/dt|_{t=0+}=v$ if, and only if, $\theta(v){\geqslant}0$ for all $\theta\in V^*$ for which $\theta(p)=\inf_{q\in C}\theta(q)$.
This follows easily from Theorem \[thm:characterization\] since in this context the topological closure coincides with the sequential closure of any subset of $V$.
Here is the reformulation of the result that we will actually use in the following section.
\[cor:useful\] Let $V$ be a locally-convex topological vector space, $p$ an element of a convex subset $C$ of $V$, and $v$ be an element of $V$. Assume that $v$ and $C$ are contained in a subset $X$ of $V$ such that there is a norm on $X$ that induces the topology that $X$ inherits from $V$. Assume additionally that $X$ contains the intersection of the tangent cone of $C$ at $p$ with an open subset of $V$ that contains $v$. Then there is a curve $c\colon[0,+\infty)\to C$ such that $$c(0)=p\quad \textrm{and}\quad dc(t)/dt|_{t=0+}=v$$ if, and only if, $\theta(v){\geqslant}0$ for all $\theta$ in $V^*$ for which $\theta(p)=\inf_{q\in C}\theta(q)$, that is, for all continuous linear functionals $\theta$ that attain their minimum within $C$ at $p$.
We construct a sequence $v_1,v_2,\dots$ in the tangent cone to $C$ at $p$ converging to $v$, $v_i\to v$. For $i\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we take the balls $B_i$ of radius $1/i$ centered at $v$ with respect to the norm in $X$. These must all intersect that tangent cone because $v$ is in its topological closure. The tangent cone is contained in $X$, so we take $v_i$ to be any point in its intersection with $B_i$. From this point on, the rest of the proof of Theorem \[thm:characterization\] works.
Families of positive measures and probabilities {#sec:families}
===============================================
Characterization {#sec:characterization}
----------------
The following theorem is the main result of this section and follows from Corollary \[cor:useful\] in a way that will be explained below. Important remarks and some examples of its application can be found in Section \[sec:examples\]. We explain the natural relation of our result with mass transportation in Section \[sec:masstransport\].
Denote by $C^\infty(P)$ the space of smooth functions on a smooth manifold $P$, and by $C^\infty_c(P)$ the compactly supported ones.
\[thm:families\] Let $\mathscr M_0$ be the set of positive, Radon measures on a $C^\infty$ manifold $P$. Let $\mu$ be an element of $\mathscr M_0$ and let $\eta$ be an element of the space $\mathscr D'$ of distributions on $P$. We look for conditions for the existence of a family $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$ in $\mathscr M_0$ such that $$\mu_0=\mu\qquad \textrm{and}\qquad \left.\frac{d}{dt}\int\phi\,d\mu_t\right|_{t=0+}=\langle\eta,\phi\rangle$$ for all $\phi\in C^\infty_c(P)$. Such a family exists if, and only if, $\langle\eta,f\rangle{\geqslant}0$ for all nonnegative functions $f\in C^\infty_c(P)$ that vanish on the support of $\mu$.
If $\mu$ is a probability measure, the family $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$ can be realized as a family of probability measures if additionally $\langle \eta,1\rangle=0$.
In the statement of the corollary, the equation $\langle\eta,1\rangle=0$ means that, given any locally-finite partition of unity $\{\psi_i\}_i$ of $C^\infty$ nonnegative functions $\psi_i{\geqslant}0$ on $P$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^\infty\psi_i(x)=1$ for all $x\in P$, we have $$\sum_i|\langle\eta,\psi_i\rangle|<+\infty\quad\textrm{and}\quad\sum_i\langle\eta,\psi_i\rangle=0.$$
The same corollary holds mutatis mutandis for compactly supported $\mu$ and $\eta$ with $f,\phi\in C^\infty(P)$.
We take the space $C^\infty(P)$ (sometimes denoted $\mathscr E$) of smooth functions on $P$ to be endowed with the topology of convergence on compact sets, which is induced by the family of seminorms $|\cdot|_{K,k}$ where $K\subset P$ is a compact set, $k{\geqslant}0$ is an integer, and $$\label{eq:seminorms}
|f|_{K,k}=\sum_{|I|{\leqslant}k}\sup_{p\in K}|\partial^If(p)|,\quad f\in C^\infty(P).$$ The subspace $C^\infty_c(P)\subseteq C^\infty(P)$ (sometimes denoted $\mathscr D$) of compactly supported smooth functions inherits the topology from $C^\infty(P)$.
Denote by $\mathscr D'$ the space of distributions on $P$, and by $\mathscr E'$ the space of compactly-supported distributions on $P$. These are endowed with the weak\* topology with respect to $C^\infty_c(P)$ and $C^\infty(P)$, respectively. We further write $\mathscr E'=\cup_n\mathscr E'^n$, where $\mathscr E'^n$ is the set of compactly-supported distributions of order ${\leqslant}n$ for $n\in{\mathbb{N}}\cup\{0\}$.
For a positive integer $m$ and a compact set $K\subset P$, let $|\cdot|_{K,m}$ be the norm given in , and let $|\cdot|'_{K,m}$ be the dual seminorm given by $$\label{eq:dualseminorms}
|\xi|'_{K,m}=\sup_{|g|_{K,m}{\leqslant}1} |\langle g,\xi\rangle|,\qquad\xi\in\mathscr E',$$ where the supremum is taken over all functions $g\in C^\infty_c(P)$ such that $|g|_{K,m}{\leqslant}1$.
For the proof of Theorem \[thm:families\] we will need this lemma, which is proved below.
\[lem:boundednormability\] Let $n$ be a positive integer, $\gamma>0$, and $U$ a bounded open subset of $P$, so that its closure $\overline U$ is compact. Consider the subset $X$ of $\mathscr E'^n$ consisting of distributions $\xi$ of degree at most $n$ with support in $U$ and such that $|\xi|'_{\overline U,n}{\leqslant}\gamma$. Then the seminorm $|\cdot|'_{\overline U,n}$ is nondegenerate on $X$, and within $X$ it acts as a norm that induces the topology that $X$ inherits from $\mathscr E'^n$, that is, the weak\* topology with respect to $C^\infty(P)$. In particular, the sequential closure of subsets of $X$ coincides with their closure.
By means of a partition of unity, we may assume at the outset that both $\mu$ and $\eta$ are compactly supported.
Let us explain how we will apply Corollary \[cor:useful\]. Let $n>0$ be the degree of $\eta$. Set $V=\mathscr E'$, $C=\mathscr M_0$, $p=\mu$, and $v=\eta$, and from the corollary we will get $c(t)=\mu_t$. Fix a bounded, open subset $U$ of $P$ that contains the supports of $\mu$ and $\eta$, and let $\gamma=2|\eta|'_{\overline U,n}$ Let the set $X\subset \mathscr E'^n$ be the set of distributions $\xi$ of order at most $n$ whose supports are contained in $U$ and such that $|\xi|'_{\overline U,n}{\leqslant}2|\eta|'_{\overline U,n}$. From Lemma \[lem:boundednormability\], we know that the topology on $X$ is induced by the seminorm $|\cdot|'_{\overline U,n}$, which is nondegenerate within $X$. We also observe that $V$ is locally convex. The set $X$ contains all signed Radon measures $\nu$ with $|\nu|_{\overline U,n}'<2|\eta|'_{\overline U,n}$, so in particular it contains the intersection of the tangent cone of $C$ at $p$ with the set of distributions $\xi$ with $|\xi|_{\overline U,n}'<2|\eta|'_{\overline U,n}$. This set of distributions is an open set that contains $v$. So we can apply Corollary \[cor:useful\], which is then equivalent to the following assertion: A family $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$ as in the statement of Theorem \[thm:families\] exists if, and only if, $\langle\eta,f\rangle{\geqslant}0$ for all functions $f\in C^\infty_c(P)$ such that $$\label{eq:minimum}
\int f\,d\mu{\leqslant}\int f\,d\nu\quad \textrm{for all}\quad \nu\in\mathscr M_0.$$
To finish the proof of the first part of Theorem \[thm:families\], we just need to understand these functions $f$. Let $f\in C^\infty_c(P)$ satisfy . Clearly, the support of $\mu$ must be contained in the set of points $p$ such that $f(p)=\inf_{q\in P}f(q)$, so in order to prove the theorem we just need to argue that this infimum equals zero, or equivalently, that $\int f\,d\mu=0$. Taking $\nu_a=a\mu\in\mathscr M_0$ for $a>0$, it is easy to see that if $\inf_{q\in P}f(q)\neq 0$, then $a$ can be taken appropriately so that $\int f\,d\nu_a=a\int f\,d\mu<\int f\,d\mu$, thus contradicting .
If $\mu$ is a probability and $\langle\eta,1\rangle=1$, we may divide each measure $\mu_t$ in the family by its total mass to get probability measures $\mu_t/\mu_t(P)$; the condition $\langle\eta,1\rangle=1$ ensures that this procedure does not break the differentiability of the normalized family at $t=0+$.
Let us recall that the *strong topology* on $\mathscr E'$ is the one induced by the seminorms $|\cdot|'_{K,m}$ defined in equation .
Recall that $\mathscr E'$ is a Montel space. A set $A$ in $\mathscr E'$ is, by definition, *bounded* if for each $f\in C^\infty(P)$ there is a constant $C_f>0$ such that $\langle\xi,f\rangle{\leqslant}C_f$ for all $\xi$ in $A$. Thus $X$ is bounded. Proposition 34.5 in [@treves] tells us that, in Montel spaces, the strong and weak\* topologies coincide in bounded sets, so this is the case in $X$. It is easy to see that, within $X$, the seminorm $|\cdot|'_{\overline U,n}$ dominates all other seminorms of the form $|\cdot|'_{K,k}$ with $K$ compact and $k>0$. Thus, within the set $X$ the seminorm $|\cdot|'_{\overline U,n}$ induces the weak\* topology. Its nondegeneracy is easy to check as well.
Examples and remarks {#sec:examples}
--------------------
\[ex:deltas\] We show that the derivative of a family of measures $(\mu_t)_t$ *need not itself be a measure*. Let $P={\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mu_t=\delta_t$, the Dirac delta at $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then for all $f\in C^\infty(P)$ we have $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\int f\,d\mu_t=\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}f(t)=f'(0),$$ so that the derivative $\eta=d\mu_t/dt|_{t=0}$ is the distribution $\eta=-\partial_x \delta_0$, where $\partial_x$ indicates the derivative in the domain ${\mathbb{R}}=P$ of the measures, and is taken here in the sense of distributions.
\[rmk:notdistributional\] The derivative $d\mu_t/dt|_{t=0+}$ that we are interested in *does not coincide with the usual distributional derivative*. In order to take the derivative in the sense of distributions, we would need to consider $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$ as a distribution on the set $P\times [0,+\infty)$, and we do not do that.
Let us consider the situation in Example \[ex:deltas\] as a purely distributional derivative: we take $\mu_t=\delta_t$ on $P={\mathbb{R}}$ and, since it is well defined and smooth for all $t$ in ${\mathbb{R}}$, we think of the entire family $\mu_t$ as defining a distribution $\nu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, acting on functions $f\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ by integration: $$\begin{gathered}
\langle\nu,f\rangle=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x,t)d\mu(x)dt= \\
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x,t)d\delta_t(x)dt=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(t,t)dt.
\end{gathered}$$ Then the distribution $\partial_t\nu$ (where the derivative is taken in the sense of distributions) acts like this on $f\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$: $$\langle\partial_t\nu,f\rangle=-\langle\nu,\partial_t f\rangle=-\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}(s,s)\,ds.$$ Clearly, there is no reason for this to coincide with the result we obtain in Example \[ex:deltas\], which for $f\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ perhaps amounts to $\partial f/\partial x|_{(x,t)=(0,0)}$. The important point, in any case, is that if we considered the derivative with respect to $t$ as a distributional one, we would need to be taking test functions that depended on that variable, and we do not do this; note that in Example \[ex:deltas\] the function $f$ depends only on the real variable corresponding to $P$ and not on $t$.
\[ex:deformationsdelta\] Let again $P={\mathbb{R}}$, and let us use Theorem \[thm:families\] to determine the ways in which the Dirac delta at 0, $\delta_0$, can be deformed. The condition in Theorem \[thm:families\] requires us to look for distributions $\eta$ such that $\langle\eta,f\rangle{\geqslant}0$ for all $f\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $f(x){\geqslant}0$ for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $f(0)=0$. Since the Taylor expansion of any such function $f$ starts at the quadratic term, which must have a nonnegative coefficient, we conclude that $\eta$ must be of the form $$\eta=\nu+a\,\partial_x\delta_0+b\,\partial_x^2\delta_0$$ for a positive measure $\nu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$, a real number $a$, and a positive number $b>0$.
\[ex:probdeformationsdelta\] Going back to the situation of Example \[ex:deformationsdelta\], we now use the second part of Theorem \[thm:families\] to determine the ways in which the distribution $\delta_0$ can be deformed within the space of probability measures. In this case, we have the additional requirement that the derivative $\eta$ satisfy $\langle\eta,1\rangle=0$. The reader will immediately recognize that this amounts to the requirement that the measure $\nu$ vanish everywhere or, in other words, that $\eta$ be of the form $$\eta=a\,\partial_x\delta_0+b\,\partial_x^2\delta_0$$ for $a\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $b>0$.
Although the statement of Theorem \[thm:families\] deals only with one-sided families $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$, it is clear what the requirement is on the distribution $\eta$ for the existence of a two-sided family $(\mu_t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ with derivative $\eta$: $\eta$ and $-\eta$ must satisfy the conditions in Theorem \[thm:families\]. For the reader’s convenience, we state this in full:
\[cor:two-sided\] Let $\mathscr M_0$ be the set of positive, Radon measures on a $C^\infty$ manifold $P$. Let $\mu$ be an element of $\mathscr M_0$ and let $\eta$ be an element of the space $\mathscr D'$ of distributions on $P$. We look for conditions for the existence of a (two-sided) family $(\mu_t)_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}}$ in $\mathscr M_0$ such that $\mu_0=\mu$ and $\frac{d}{dt}\int \phi\,d\mu_t|_{t=0}=\langle\eta,\phi\rangle$ for all $\phi\in C^\infty_c(P)$. Such a family exists if, and only if, $\langle\eta,f\rangle=0$ for all nonnegative functions $f\in C^\infty_c(P)$ that vanish in the support of $\mu$.
If $\mu$ is a probability measure, the family $(\mu_t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ can be realized as a family of probability measures if additionally $\langle\eta,1\rangle=0$.
\[ex:two-sided-delta\] Going back to the situation of Examples \[ex:deformationsdelta\] and \[ex:probdeformationsdelta\], we now determine the possible two-sided deformations of $\delta_0$ both as two-sided families of positive, Radon measures and as two-sided families of probability distributions on $P$. From Corollary \[cor:two-sided\], we see that the condition that needs to be satisfied by the derivative $\eta$ is that $\langle\eta,f\rangle=0$ for all $f\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $f{\geqslant}0$ throughout ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $f(0)=0$. In this case, the quadratic term of the Taylor expansion of $f$ impedes $\eta$ from having a term of order 2, so for the case of arbitrary positive measures we get that $\eta$ must be of the form $$\eta=\nu+a\,\partial_x\delta_0,$$ for a positive measure $\nu$ and a real number $a$. Similarly, in the case of families of probability measures the additional condition that $\langle\eta,1\rangle=0$ forces $\nu$ to vanish and $\eta$ to be of the form $$\eta=a\,\partial_x\,\delta_0,\quad a\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$
\[ex:uniform\] *Distributions of any degree may arise as derivatives of families of measures.* Consider the case in which $\mu$ is the uniform probability measure on a bounded, open set $U\subseteq P$. Then any distribution $\eta$ supported in $\overline U$ satisfies the condition of the first part of either Theorem \[thm:families\] or Corollary \[cor:two-sided\], and any distribution $\eta$ additionally satisfying $\langle\eta,1\rangle=0$ will be good for the second part of the statements of therein contained.
\[ex:explicit\] We work out Example \[ex:uniform\] explicitly in the special case of $P={\mathbb{R}}$, $U=(-\frac12,\frac12)$, $\mu=\chi_{U}dx$ the uniform distribution on $U$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $\eta=(-1)^k\partial^k\delta_0$. Let $\psi\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,1]$ be a compactly-supported, $C^\infty$ function that is equal to 1 in a neighborhood of 0, satisfies $\psi(x)=\psi(-x)$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi(x)dx=1$, and is decreasing on $[0,+\infty)$. Pick some $0<q<1$. For $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ with $|t|$ small enough, we let $\mu_t$ be the measure that corresponds to the density $\rho(x,t)\,dx$ with $$\rho(x,t)=\chi_U(x)+(-1)^k(\operatorname{sgn}t)|t|^q\frac{d^k\psi}{dx^k}\left(|t|^{\frac{q-1}{k+1}}x\right), \quad t\neq 0,$$ and $\rho(x,0)=\chi_U(x)$. We need $|t|$ to be small enough that $\rho(x,t)$ will be nonnegative for all $x$; this defines $\mu_t$ only for small $|t|$, yet its smooth extension to all of $t\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$ exists. We remark that at $t=0$ and $x=0$, the function $\rho$ is not differentiable with respect to $t$ because the slope is vertical.
Let us check that this family $(\mu_t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ works, that is, that its derivative is indeed equal to $\eta$. Let $f\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$; then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\int f\,d\mu_t&=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) \rho(x,t)dx\\
&=\frac{d}{dt}\int f(x)\left(\chi_U(x)+(-1)^k\operatorname{sgn}t|t|^q\frac{d^k\psi}{dx^k}(|t|^{\frac{q-1}{k+1}}x)\right)dx \\
&=\frac{d}{dt} \operatorname{sgn}t|t|^\frac{q+k}{k+1}\int \frac{d^kf}{dx^k}(x)\psi(|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx
\end{aligned}$$ after $k$ integrations by parts. In order to simplify the notation, let $h=d^kf/dx^k$. We take the derivative and we get $$\begin{aligned}
&(\operatorname{sgn}t)|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}\left(\tfrac{q+k}{k+1} \int h(x)\psi(|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx +\tfrac{q-1}{k+1}|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}\int xh(x)\psi'(t^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx\right)\\
&=(\operatorname{sgn}t)|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}\left(\tfrac{q+k}{k+1} \int h(x)\psi(|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx-\tfrac{q-1}{k+1}\int (xh(x))'\psi(|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx\right)\\
&=(\operatorname{sgn}t)|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}\left(\int h(x)\psi(|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx-\tfrac{q-1}{k+1}\int xh'(x)\psi(|t|^\frac{q-1}{k+1}x)dx\right).
\end{aligned}$$ This is easily seen to tend to $h(0)-\frac{q-1}{k+1}0\,h'(0)=h(0)=\langle\eta,f\rangle$ as $t\to0$, which is what we wanted.
\[rmk:support\] The conditions in Corollary \[cor:two-sided\] force the support of $\eta$ to be contained inside the support of the measure $\mu$. However, take a look at the following example.
\[ex:singcont\] For the conditions of Theorem \[thm:families\] or Corollary \[cor:two-sided\] to be satisfied, it is *not* true that the support of the distribution $\eta$ must be contained inside the set of points that hold the measure of $\mu$. (Note that the support of $\mu$ is the closure of this set.) Immitating the construction of the Cantor denisty, it is easy to construct a singular-continuous measure supported on the interval $[0,1]$ whose measure will be contained in a set of Lebesgue measure zero; for instance, one can recursively subdivide the interval in halves and assign 1/3 of the measure to the rationals in the lower half and 2/3 to the rationals in the upper half, and iterating for the halves of each of these intervals, while declaring that the set of irrational numbers in $[0,1]$ has $\mu$ measure zero. In this case, Theorem \[thm:families\] and Corollary \[cor:two-sided\] show that the possible deformations are the same as for the uniform measure on $[0,1]$; see Example \[ex:uniform\]. Many of the distributions thus arising are supported in sets that are disjoint from the set holding the measure; as an example, take $\eta=\partial^k_x\delta_{\sqrt2/2}$, for any positive integer $k$.
We additionally remark that the existence of ugly examples like these is what forces us to the rather abstract treatment of the theory that we have resorted to in proving the results of Section \[sec:characterization\] rather than a more constructive and explicit technique.
\[rmk:caratheodory\] Here, we want to establish the relation between our result and the Carathéodory positivity criterion for holomorphic functions [@caratheodory]. Carathéodory proved that a necessary and sufficient condition for the signed measure $\mu$ on the interval $[0,2\pi)$ to be positive is for its Fourier coefficients $$a_n=\int_0^{2\pi}e^{-in\theta}d\mu(\theta)$$ to satisfy $$\label{eq:caratheodory}
\sum_m\sum_na_{m-n}\lambda_m\overline{\lambda_n}{\geqslant}0$$ for any complex numbers $\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_N$.
Now consider the case in which we have a family of positive measures $(\mu_t)_{t{\geqslant}0}$ with $d\mu_t/dt|_{t=0+}=\eta$, as in Theorem \[thm:families\]. Then we have Fourier coefficients $a_n(t)=\int_0^{2\pi}e^{-in\theta}d\mu_t(\theta)$ defined for each $t{\geqslant}0$, and the Fourier coefficients of $\eta$ will be given by $\langle\eta,e^{-in\theta}\rangle=a_n'(0)$. Since each $\mu_t$ is positive, the criterion must hold for each $t{\geqslant}0$. Thus the condition in Theorem \[thm:families\] is equivalent to requiring that the Fourier coefficients $a_n'(0)$ of $\eta$ satisfy $$\sum_m\sum_na'_{m-n}(0)\lambda_m\overline{\lambda_n}{\geqslant}0$$ whenever $\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_N$ are complex numbers such that $$\sum_m\sum_na_{m-n}(0)\lambda_m\overline{\lambda_n}=0.$$
Mass transportation {#sec:masstransport}
-------------------
#### Motivation.
For simplicity let $P={\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n{\geqslant}1$. Recall that for $p> 1$ the Wasserstein metric between two probabilities $\mu$ and $\nu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ with finite $p^\textrm{th}$ momenta on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ can be defined as $$W_p(\mu,\nu)=\left(\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma(\mu,\nu)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n}\operatorname{dist}(x,y)^p\,d\gamma(x,y)\right)^{\frac1p},$$ where the infimum is taken over all measures $\gamma$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$ whose marginals are $\mu$ and $\nu$. When $(\mu_t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a family of smooth probability densities that defines an absolutely continuous curve in the space of probabilities endowed with the metric $W_p$, it has been shown [@ambrosiogiglisavare Chapter 8] that the derivative of $(\mu_t)_t$ exists for almost every $t$, and can be interpreted as the divergence of a vector field, that is, there are vector fields $v_t\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ that satisfy the *continuity equation*, $$\label{eq:continuityeq}
\frac{d\mu_t}{dt}+\operatorname{div}(\mu_tv_t)=0,$$ for almost every $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. The interpretation, which follows from Gauß’s theorem, is that the mass of $\mu_t$ is being carried or transported by the flow of the vector field $v_t$. This gives a way to assign a vector field $v_t$ to the distribution $d\mu_t/dt$, and this vector field gives a notion of “direction of the movement.” The vector field $v_t$ is not unique: it is ambiguous up to addition of a vector field $u_t$ such that $\operatorname{div}(\mu_tu_t)=0$ for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Since the set of possible $u_t$ is a closed subspace of $L^p(\mu_t)$, one can choose the vector field $v_t$ to be the minimizer of the $L^p(\mu_t)$ norm for each $t$. It has been shown [@ambrosiogiglisavare] that the minimizer is in fact a gradient vector field, $v_t=\nabla\phi_t$ for some functions $\phi_t\colon{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$.
In the theory of $W_p$-absolutely continuous families of measures, $v_t$ exists only for almost every $t$. Consider the situation of Example \[ex:explicit\]: the family $\mu_t=\rho(x,t)dx$ given in the example is $W_p$-absolutely continuous, but $v_0$ is not defined for $k{\geqslant}1$. The results of Section \[sec:characterization\] indicate that in cases like this, and surely also in the cases of families of measures that are not $W_p$-absolutely continuous but are still weakly differentiable, the distributions that can arise as their derivatives can be much more general than those of the form $\operatorname{div}(\mu_tv_t)$, for some vector field $v_t$; cf. Example \[ex:uniform\]. As it turns out, an arbitrary distribution may $\eta$ may arise as the derivative of a family of measures, $d\mu_t/dt|_{t=t_0}=\eta$, and we can try to use the continuity equation to try to assign an object that will give an idea of direction of the movement determined by $\eta$.
The assignment of an object conveying the direction of movement and analogous to $v_t$ can be done using Colombeau algebras. These algebras were developed [@colombeau] to provide a context in which distributions could be multiplied. The spaces of distributions are subsets of these algebras. Roughly speaking, the solution to the multiplication problem is to record, instead of the distribution itself, all possible smoothings of the distribution, because there is no difficulty in multiplying smooth densities. As we will explain below, an equivalence relation is then introduced on a certain set of families of smooth functions, and its equivalence classes are the elements of the algebra.
#### Construction.
To define the relevant Colombeau algebra, we follow [@colombeaubook Section 8.5]. Let $\mathcal E({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be the set of families $(f_\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}$ of functions $f_\varepsilon\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ indexed by $0<\varepsilon<1$, such that for each compact set $K\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and every multi-index $I$ there are $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\gamma>0$, and $c>0$ such that $$\sup_{x\in K}\left|\partial^If_\varepsilon(x)\right|{\leqslant}\frac{c}{\varepsilon^N}\quad\textrm{if $0<\varepsilon<\gamma$}.$$ We define the ideal $\mathcal N({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ of $\mathcal E({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ to be the set of families $(f_\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}$ such that for all compact sets $K$, for all multi-indices $I$, and for all $q\in {\mathbb{N}}$ there exist $c>0$ and $\gamma>0$ such that $$\sup_{x\in K}\left|\partial^If_\varepsilon(x)\right|{\leqslant}c\varepsilon^q\quad\textrm{if $0<\varepsilon<\gamma$.}$$ This means that the elements of $\mathcal N({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ have a fast decay (faster than any power of $\varepsilon$) as $\varepsilon \searrow0$. The *Colombeau algebra* is the quotient $$\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}}^n)=\mathcal E({\mathbb{R}}^n)/\mathcal N({\mathbb{R}}^n).$$ All distributions $\eta$ are represented in $\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ because the families of smoothings by convolution with a mollifier are contained there. We denote by $[\eta]$ the set of elements of of $\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ that are associated to the distribution $\eta$. That is, $(f_\varepsilon)_\varepsilon$ belongs to the subset $[\eta]$ of $\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ if, for all $\phi\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $$\lim_{\varepsilon\to0+}\int\phi(x)f_\varepsilon(x)\,dx=\langle\eta,\phi\rangle.$$
We now proceed to use the Colombeau algebra $\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ to define the object corresponding to the direction of the motion. Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and let $\eta$ be a distribution satisfying the conditions in Corollary \[cor:two-sided\] including the last part for families of probability measures, so that there exists a family of probabilities $(\mu_t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ with derivative $\eta$ at 0 and $\mu_0=\mu$.
Let $[\mu]$ be the subset of $\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ associated to $\mu$. Note that $[\mu]$ always contains representatives $(f_\varepsilon)_\varepsilon\in[\mu]$ satisfying $$\label{eq:regularcolombeau}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f_\varepsilon(x)\,dx=1\quad\textrm{and}\quad f_\varepsilon{\geqslant}0\quad \textrm{for $0<\varepsilon<1$}$$ because these can be obtained by convolution of $\mu$ with a mollifier of mass 1. Let $\mathcal V(\mu)$ be the set of families $(v^\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}$ of smooth vector fields such that, for all representatives satisfying , we have $$(\operatorname{div}(f_\varepsilon v^\varepsilon))_{0<\varepsilon<1}\in \mathcal E({\mathbb{R}}^n).$$ Note that the set $\mathcal V(\mu)$ is a vector space.
Choose a representative $(g_\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}$ in the subset $[\eta]$ that additionally satisfies that the support of $g_\varepsilon$ is contained in the support of $f_\varepsilon$; by Remark \[rmk:support\], such a representative can always be constructed by convolution.
Consider the continuity equation $$\label{eq:continuitysmooth}
g_\varepsilon+\operatorname{div}(f_\varepsilon v^\varepsilon)=0.$$ The space $\mathcal V(\mu)$ always contains a solution $(v^\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}$ to this equation; we know this because for each $\varepsilon$ this is just the classical smooth case, treated in [@ambrosiogiglisavare Chapter 8]. Accordingly, we may choose $v^\varepsilon$ to be minimal with respect to the $L^2$ norm, and it will correspond to a gradient vector field $\nabla\phi_\varepsilon$ for some functions $\phi_\varepsilon\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $0<\varepsilon<1$.
The (non-unique) family $(v^\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}\in \mathcal V(\mu)$ is the object that we have been pursuing, as it gives precise meaning to the notion of “direction of the movement” of $\mu$ when the change of the distribution of mass is given by $\eta$.
#### Remarks and examples.
In [@ambrosiogiglisavare], the authors make the choice of taking the tangent space to the set of probabilities to be the set of vector fields that arise as $v_t$ in the continuity equation. What tangent space to take is a question that depends a bit on the intended application and a bit on personal taste. Our description above suggests an alternative in the form of a subset of the corresponding Colombeau algebra, and Theorem \[thm:families\] suggests yet another alternative.
It would certainly be interesting to know which parts of the theory of mass transport still hold in the context of weakly-differentiable families of probabilities, a question that we leave for later research.
The following examples are intended to clarify the construction above and its interpretation.
\[ex:massdeltas\] We go back to the situation of Example \[ex:deltas\] and we compute a representative $(v^\varepsilon)_\varepsilon$ of the direction of movement object. Let $P={\mathbb{R}}$, $\mu_t=\delta_t$, $\mu=\mu_0=\delta_0$, $\eta=d\mu_t/dt|_{t=0}=-\partial_x\delta_0$. Let $\psi\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,1]$ be a compactly-supported, $C^\infty$ function that is equal to 1 in a neighborhood of 0, and satisfies $\psi(x)=\psi(-x)$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi(x)dx=1$. Also let $\psi_\varepsilon(x)=\frac1\varepsilon\psi(x/\varepsilon)$, $f_\varepsilon=\psi_\varepsilon*\mu=\psi_\varepsilon$, and $g_\varepsilon=\psi_\varepsilon*\eta=-\psi_\varepsilon'$, where the last equality is true because for all test functions $\phi\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}})$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:convolutionderivative}
\langle g_\varepsilon,\phi\rangle=\langle\eta,\psi_\varepsilon*\phi\rangle=\langle-\partial_x\delta_0,\psi_\varepsilon*\phi\rangle=\langle\delta_0,\partial_x(\psi_\varepsilon*\phi)\rangle\\
=\langle\delta_0,(\partial_x\psi_\varepsilon)*\phi\rangle=(\partial_x\psi_\varepsilon)*\phi(0)=\langle- \partial_x\psi_\varepsilon,\phi\rangle.
\end{gathered}$$ Also, in dimension 1 the divergence is simply the derivative. Thus in this case the smoothed version of the continuity equation becomes $$(-\psi_\varepsilon')+(\psi_\varepsilon v^\varepsilon)'=0.$$ Taking $v^\varepsilon\equiv1$ solves this equation. It also makes sense: this can be interpreted as movement to the right, which is exactly what the mass of the family $(\delta_t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ is doing.
\[ex:massexplicit\] We work out explicitly the same situation as discussed in Example \[ex:explicit\], namely, $P={\mathbb{R}}$, $U=(-\frac12,\frac12)$, $\mu=\chi_Udx$ the uniform distribution on $U$, $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\eta=(-1)^k\partial^k\delta_0$. We will produce a representative $(v^\varepsilon)_\varepsilon$ of the subset of $\mathcal G({\mathbb{R}})$ that gives the notion of “direction of the movement” of the mass of $\mu$ when it is deformed in direction $\eta$.
Let $\psi_\varepsilon$ be as in Example \[ex:massdeltas\], and $f_\varepsilon=\psi_\varepsilon*\mu$, the convolution. Note that for $0<\varepsilon\ll1$ small enough, we have that $f_\varepsilon\equiv 1$ in a neighborhood of 0 (in fact this is true in most of $U$) and $\psi_\varepsilon\equiv 0$ outside a small neighborhood of 0.
We also let $g_\varepsilon=\psi_\varepsilon*\eta$. For reasons analogous to those outlined in , we then have that $g_\varepsilon=(-1)^k\psi_\varepsilon^{(k)}$.
In this context, equation takes the form $$\label{eq:continuityuniform}
(-1)^k\psi^{(k)}_\varepsilon=f'_\varepsilon v^\varepsilon+f_\varepsilon (v^\varepsilon)'.$$ Close to 0, since $f_\varepsilon\equiv 1$, this becomes $$(-1)^k\psi^{(k)}_\varepsilon=(v^\varepsilon)',$$ so the solution in this region is obviously $v_\varepsilon=(-1)^k\psi_\varepsilon^{(k-1)}$. It is easy to see that this solution works globally since $\psi_\varepsilon\equiv 0$ slightly further away from zero. So $(v^\varepsilon)_\varepsilon=((-1)^k\psi^{(k-1)}_\varepsilon)_{0<\varepsilon<1}$ is the representative we were looking for.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Understanding the entanglement structure of out-of-equilibrium many-body systems is a challenging yet revealing task. Here we investigate the entanglement dynamics after a quench from a piecewise homogeneous initial state in integrable systems. This is the prototypical setup for studying quantum transport, and it consists in the sudden junction of two macroscopically different and homogeneous states. By exploiting the recently developed integrable hydrodynamic approach and the quasiparticle picture for the entanglement dynamics, we conjecture a formula for the entanglement production rate after joining two semi-infinite reservoirs, as well as the steady-state entanglement entropy of a finite subregion. We show that both quantities are determined by the quasiparticles created in the Non Equilibrium steady State (NESS) appearing at large times at the interface between the two reservoirs. Specifically, the steady-state entropy coincides with the thermodynamic entropy of the NESS, whereas the entropy production rate reflects its spreading into the bulk of the two reservoirs. Our results are numerically corroborated using time-dependent Density Matrix Renormalization Group (tDMRG) simulations in the paradigmatic XXZ spin-$1/2$ chain.'
author:
- Vincenzo Alba
title: Entanglement and quantum transport in integrable systems
---
Introduction
============
The quest for a complete understanding of entanglement spreading in out-of-equilibrium many-body system is a fruitful research theme. Recently, this became experimentally relevant, as it is now possible to measure the entanglement dynamics with cold atoms [@islam-2015; @kaufman-2016]. The best-known entanglement diagnostic tool is the von Neumann (entanglement) entropy $S\equiv-\textrm{Tr}\rho_A\ln\rho_A$, where $\rho_A$ is the reduced density matrix of a subsystem $A$ (see Figure \[fig0\] (a) for a one-dimensional setup).
A prominent out-of-equilibrium situation is that of the quench from two homogeneous initial states. This is a particular instance of [*inhomogeneous*]{} quantum quenches. The prototypical setup for spin chains is depicted in Figure \[fig0\] (a), and it consists in the sudden junction of two chains $A$ and $B$ that are prepared in two homogeneous [*macroscopically*]{} different quantum states $|\Psi_A\rangle$ and $|\Psi_B\rangle$. Subsequently, the state $|\Psi_A\rangle\otimes|\Psi_B\rangle$ is evolved in real time using a quantum many-body Hamiltonian $H$. Typically, a non-zero current arises between the two chains. The main focus so far has been on transport of local quantities, such as the local energy and local magnetization. Several techniques have been used, such as Conformal Field Theory [@spyros-2008; @bernard-2012; @bhaseen-2015; @allegra-2016; @dubail-2017; @dubail-2017a] (CFT), free-fermion methods [@eisler-2009; @de-luca-2013; @sabetta-2013; @eisler-2013; @alba-2014; @collura-2014; @de-luca-2016; @eisler-2016; @viti-2016; @kormos-2017; @perfetto-2017; @vidmar-2017], field theory methods [@de-luca-2014; @olalla-2014; @biella-2016], integrability [@zotos-1997; @zotos-1999; @prosen-2011; @prosen-2013; @ilievski-2015], and numerical techniques [@fabian-2003; @gobert-2005; @langer-2009; @karrasch-2012; @karrasch-2013; @vidmar-2017]. For integrable models a recent breakthrough [@olalla-2016; @bertini-2016] allows for an analytic treatment of transport problems using Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA) techniques [@doyon-2016; @yoshimura-2016; @de-luca-2016a; @doyon-2017; @doyon-2017a; @doyon-2017b; @doyon-2017c; @bulchandani-2017; @bulchandani-2017a; @ilievski-2017; @doyon-2017d].
Surprisingly, as of now there are no exact results for the entanglement dynamics after inhomogeneous quenches. Notable exceptions are systems that can be mapped to CFTs in curved spacetime [@allegra-2016; @dubail-2017; @dubail-2017a]. In this case it is established that $S$ grows logarithmically after the quench [@dubail-2017].
![ Entanglement dynamics after the quench from two homogeneous chains in integrable spin chains. (a) At $t=0$ two chains $A$ and $B$ are prepared in the states $|\Psi_A\rangle$ and $|\Psi_B\rangle$ and are joined. Dynamical properties at fixed $\zeta\equiv x/t$ are described by a thermodynamic Bethe ansatz macrostate. (b) Quasiparticle picture for the entanglement. Shaded cones denote quasiparticle pairs. Different quasiparticles are produced in $A$ and $B$. The entanglement production rate and its steady-state value are determined by the macrostate with $\zeta=0$. The larger shaded region is the associated lightcone (note the different velocities $v_n^{
\scriptscriptstyle(A)}$ and $v_n^{\scriptscriptstyle(B)}$). $n$ labels the quasiparticle families. We consider the entanglement between $A$ and $B$, as well as that of a finite region $A'$ of size $\ell$. []{data-label="fig0"}](quasi_v2){width="0.85\linewidth"}
In contrast, for [*homogeneous*]{} quenches a well-known quasiparticle picture [@calabrese-2005] allows one to understand the entanglement dynamics in terms of quasiparticles traveling ballistically, with opposite quasimomenta, through the system. The underlying idea is that only quasiparticles created at the same point in space are entangled. At a generic time $t$ the entanglement entropy $S(t)$ between a subregion $A$ and the rest is proportional to the number of quasiparticles emitted at the same point in space at $t=0$, and being at time $t$ one in subsystem $A$ and the other in $B$. More quantitatively, $$\label{quasi}
S(t)\propto 2t\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{\!2|v|t<\ell}\!\!\!\!d\lambda |v(\lambda)|f(\lambda)+
\ell\!\!\!\!\int\limits_{2|v|t>\ell}\!\!\!\!d\lambda f(\lambda),$$ where $f(\lambda)$ depends on the cross section for creating quasiparticles with quasimomentum $\lambda$, and $v(\lambda)$ is their velocity. Eq. holds in the space-time scaling limit, i.e., $\ell,t\to\infty$ with fixed $t/\ell$. In many physical situations a maximum velocity $v_M$ exists, for instance, due to the Lieb-Robinson bound [@lieb-1972]. Then, Eq. predicts a linear growth for $t\le \ell/(2v_M)$, followed by a volume-law $S\propto\ell$ at longer times. The validity of has been proven rigorously only for free-fermion models [@fagotti-2008; @ep-08; @nr-14; @coser-2014; @cotler-2016; @buyskikh-2016], for which $f(\lambda)$ and $v(\lambda)$ can be determined analytically. The quasiparticle picture has been also confirmed in several numerical studies [@de-chiara-2006; @lauchli-2008; @kim-2013], and using holographic methods [@hrt-07; @aal-10; @aj-10; @allais-2012; @callan-2012; @ls-14; @bala-2011; @liu-2014]. Violations of the quasiparticle picture have been observed in CFT with large central charge [@bala-2011; @ab-13; @asplund-2015; @lm-15; @kundu-2017; @sagar-2017]. Remarkably, a framework to render predictive for generic integrable systems has been developed in Ref. (see Ref. for an application to the Hubbard chain). Specifically, for integrable systems $f(\lambda)$ coincides with the thermodynamic entropy associated with the post-quench steady state, while the quasiparticle velocities $v(\lambda)$ are those of the low-lying excitations around it.
Here by combining a recent hydrodynamic approach for integrable systems [@olalla-2016; @bertini-2016] with the quasiparticle picture , we provide the first exact results for the entanglement dynamics after a global quench from a piecewise homogeneous initial state in generic integrable systems. Specifically, we focus on the steady-state entanglement entropy of a finite region $A'$ (see Figure \[fig0\] (b)), as well as the entanglement production rate between two semi-infinite reservoirs. Our main result is that both are determined by the physics of the Non-Equilibrium-Steady-State (NESS) (ray with $\zeta=0$ in Figure \[fig0\] (a)) appearing at the interface between the two reservoirs. The steady-state entanglement entropy coincides with the NESS thermodynamic entropy, whereas the entanglement production rate reflects the spreading of the NESS from the interface into the two reservoirs.
The latter is relevant for quantifying the rate at which quantum information spreads. The study of the quantum information spreading is attracting enormous attention recently. For instane, in the holographic community, the focus has been on the so-called entanglement velocity $v_E$, which is defined as [@hol-vel] $dS(t)/dt=v_E s_{th}\partial A$, with $s_{th}$ the thermodynamic entropy of the steady state, and $\partial A$ the length of the boundary between the subsystem of interest and the environment. For homogeneous quenches, $v_E$ has been investigated using holographic methods [@hol-vel], exact calculations in free models [@cotler-2016; @ff-vel], and recently in the dynamics obtained from random unitary gates [@ru-vel]. For inhomogeneous quenches, the information spreading started to be investigated only recently [@erdmenger-2017].
![ Entanglement dynamics after the quench from a piecewise homogeneous initial state in the XXZ chain: Theoretical predictions using the integrable hydrodynamics. The steady-state entropy density $s_\infty\equiv\lim_{t\to\infty}S(t)/\ell$ (full line) and the entanglement production rate $s'(t)\equiv dS(t)/dt$ (dotted line) are plotted versus the chain anisotropy $\Delta$ for several initial states. []{data-label="fig1"}](theo_ent){width="0.93\linewidth"}
Entanglement via integrable hydrodynamics
=========================================
The first key ingredient to derive our results is that the spectrum of integrable models exhibits families of stable quasiparticles. Typically, these are composite objects of elementary excitations. For spin chains, they correspond to bound states of magnons. The possible set of quasimomenta (rapidities) $\lambda$ that can be assigned to the quasiparticles are obtained by solving the so-called Bethe equations [@taka-book] (see also Appendix \[xxz-ba\]). In the thermodynamic limit the rapidities form a continuum. Thermodynamic properties of integrable models are described by the particle densities $\rho_{n}(\lambda)$ and the hole densities $\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle (h)}_{n}(\lambda)$. The latter is the density of unoccupied rapidities. The total density is defined as $\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle(t)}_{n}\equiv\rho_{n}+\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}_{n}$. Here the subscript $n$ labels different quasiparticle families, and for spin chains is the size of the bound states. For free models in terms of quasimomenta $\rho_n^{\scriptscriptstyle (t)}=const$, reflecting that the quasimomenta are equally-spaced. Every set of $\rho_{n},\rho^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}_{n}$ can be interpreted as a thermodynamic macrostate, which corresponds to an exponentially large number of microscopic eigenstates of the model. Their number is given as $e^{S_{YY}}$, with $S_{YY}$ the so-called Yang-Yang entropy [@yang-1969] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{syy}
S_{YY}=s_{YY}L=L\sum_{n=1}^\infty\int d\lambda[\rho_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(t)}\ln
\rho_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(t)}\\
-\rho_{n}\ln\rho_{n}-\rho_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}\ln\rho_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}]\\
\equiv L\sum_n\int d\lambda s_{YY}^{(n)}[\rho_{n},\rho_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}]. \end{gathered}$$ Similar to free models, $S_{YY}$ counts the number of ways of assigning the different rapidities $\lambda$ to the quasiparticles, compatibly with the densities $\rho_n,
\rho_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}$.
The second key ingredient in our approach is the integrable hydrodynamics framework [@olalla-2016; @bertini-2016]. Due to integrability, information spreads ballistically from the interface between $A$ and $B$. As a consequence, physical observables depend only on the combination $\zeta\equiv x/t$ (see Figure \[fig0\] (a)), with $x$ the distance from the interface between $A$ and $B$. For each fixed $\zeta$, dynamical properties of local and quasilocal observables are described by a thermodynamic macrostate, i.e., a set of densities $\rho_{\zeta,n},\rho_{\zeta,n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}$. Each macrostate identifies a different Generalized Gibbs Ensemble [@rigol-2008; @polkovnikov-2011; @calabrese-2005; @rigol-2007; @cazalilla-2006; @barthel-2008; @cramer-2008; @cramer-2010; @calabrese-2011; @cazalilla-2012a; @calabrese-2012; @sotiriadis-2012; @collura-2013; @collura-2013a; @fagotti-2013; @fagotti-2014; @kcc14; @delfino-2014; @sotiriadis-2014; @ilievski-2015a; @alba-2015; @essler-2015; @cardy-2015; @cardy-2015; @sotiriadis-2016; @bastianello-2016; @vernier-2016; @vidmar-2016; @gogolin-2015; @essler-2016; @calabrese-2016; @piroli-2017; @piroli-2017a]. The macrostate with $\zeta=0$ is known as Non Equilibrium Steady State (NESS). The central result of Ref. is that $\rho_{\zeta,n}$ satisfy the continuity equation $$\label{cont}
[\zeta-v_{\zeta,n}(\lambda)]\partial_\zeta\vartheta_{\zeta,n}(\lambda)=0,$$ where $\vartheta_{\zeta,n}\equiv\rho_{\zeta,n}/\rho_{\zeta,n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(t)}$, together with the standard TBA equations [@taka-book] $$\label{tba}
\rho^{(t)}_{\zeta,n}(\lambda)=a_n(\lambda)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty (a_{n,m}\star\rho_{\zeta,m})
(\lambda).$$ Here $a_n$ and $a_{n,m}$ are known functions of $\lambda$ (see Appendix \[xxz-ba\] for their expression for the XXZ chain), and the star symbols denotes the convolution $f\star g\equiv\int d\mu f(\lambda-\mu)g(\mu)$. Crucially, in $v_{\zeta,n}$ are the velocities of the low-lying excitations around the macrostate $\rho_{\zeta,n}$, and fully encode the interactions (scatterings) between quasiparticles [@bonnes-2014]. They can be calculated using standard TBA techniques [@bonnes-2014] (see Appendix \[velocities\]). The solutions of can be conveniently written as [@bertini-2016] $$\label{sol}
\vartheta_{\zeta,n}(\lambda)=\theta_H(v_{\zeta,n}(\lambda)-\zeta)(\vartheta_n^B(\lambda)-\vartheta_n^A(\lambda))
+\vartheta^A_n(\lambda),$$ with $\theta_H(x)$ the Heaviside function, and $\vartheta_{\zeta,n}^{A(B)}$ the densities describing the steady states arising after the homogeneous quenches with initial states $|\Psi_A\rangle$ and $|\Psi_B\rangle$, respectively. Exact results for $\vartheta_n^{\scriptscriptstyle A(B)}$ are available for several quenches [@caux-2013; @wouters-2014A; @pozsgay-2014A; @bse-14; @dwbc-14; @bucciantini-15; @ac-16; @pce-16; @piroli-2016; @mestyan-2015; @brockmann-2014; @iqdb-15; @piroli-2016a; @bpc-16; @caux-2016] (see also Appendix \[steady\]).
![ Steady-state entropy density after the quench from a piecewise initial state in the XXZ chain. Results are for the initial states $|N\rangle\otimes|
F\rangle$ and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ (panel (a) and (b), respectively). $S/\ell$ is plotted against $t/\ell$. The symbols are tDMRG data at long times for different $\Delta$. The star symbols are the Bethe ansatz results. Dash-dotted lines are fits to $S/\ell= s_\infty+
a/\ell+b/\ell^2$, with $a,b$ fitting parameters, and $s_\infty$ the Bethe ansatz results (Figure \[fig1\] (b)). []{data-label="fig2"}](steady_ent){width="0.93\linewidth"}
We now present our main results. We start discussing the steady-state entanglement entropy of a finite region $A'$ of length $\ell$ embedded in part $A$ and placed next to the interface with $B$ (see Figure \[fig0\] (b)). The steady-state entropy is obtained in the limit $\ell/t\to 0$, which identifies the macrostate with $\zeta=0$ (NESS). Since the spatial extension of the region described by this macrostate increases linearly with time, for $t\gg \ell$ the $\zeta=0$ macrostate is expected to describe the entire subsystem $A'$. Similar to Ref. , it is natural to conjecture that the entanglement entropy density $s_\infty\equiv\lim_{t\to\infty}S(t)/\ell$ becomes that of the Yang-Yang entropy of the NESS. The latter is the thermodynamic entropy of the GGE describing (quasi) local observables in space-time regions with $x/t\to0$. Using , this implies $$\label{conj}
s_\infty=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\int d\lambda s^{\scriptscriptstyle(n)}_{YY}[
\rho_{\zeta=0,n},\rho_{\zeta=0,n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}],$$ where $s^{\scriptscriptstyle(n)}_{YY}$ is calculated using the solutions of .
We now turn to the entanglement production rate. For homogeneous quenches, this corresponds to the slope of the linear term in . Physically, Eq. means that $S(t)$ is determined by the total number of quasiparticles that at time $t$ crossed the interface between $A$ and $B$. It is natural to assume that the same applies to the inhomogeneous case. After the quench, the different lightcones associated with different $\zeta$s start spreading from the interface between $A$ and $B$. For short times, all the types of quasiparticles remain confined within $A$, the only ones crossing the boundary between $A$ and the rest are the ones described by the $\zeta=0$ macrostate. At generic time $t$ their number is proportional to the width of the associated lightcone (see Figure \[fig0\] (b)). Equivalently, the entanglement growth at short times reflects the spreading of the NESS. Since the lightcone width increases linearly with time, one should expect the linear behavior $S(t)\propto s't$, with $s'\equiv dS(t)/dt$ the entanglement production rate given as $$\label{conj1}
s'=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\int d\lambda |v_{\zeta=0,n}|s_{YY}^{(n)}[\rho_{\zeta=0,n},
\rho_{\zeta=0,n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}].$$ Formally, Eq. is the same as that for the homogeneous quench conjectured in Ref. . However, here the quasiparticle velocities are not odd under parity, i.e., $v_n(\lambda)\ne-v_n(-\lambda)$, implying that the lightcone is not symmetric (in Figure \[fig0\](b) $v_n^{\scriptscriptstyle(A)}$ and $v_n^{\scriptscriptstyle (B)}$ denote the different quasiparticle velocities in the two reservoirs). Similar to the homogeneous case the velocity of the entangling particles depends only on the local equilibrium state at large times [@alba-2016] (here the NESS). Finally, we should mention that obtaining the full-time dynamics of the entanglement entropy is an arduous task, unlike for homogeneous quenches. The reason is that it requires reconstructing the quasiparticles trajectories. Precisely, since the quasiparticles velocity $v$ is finite, the typical time $t^*$ for the quasiparticles to travel through the subsystem is $t^*\sim\ell$, with $\ell$ the subsystem size. This implies that these quasiparticles should be described by $\zeta=\ell/t^*={\mathcal O}(1)$. A possible direction to determine the quasiparticle trajectories is to use the approach of Ref. .
In the following we provide numerical evidence for and considering the anisotropic spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg chain (XXZ chain). The Hamiltonian reads $$\label{xxz-ham}
H_{XXZ}=J\sum_{i=1}^L[S_i^xS_{i+1}^x+S_i^yS_{i+1}^y+\Delta S_i^zS_{i+1}^z].$$ Here $S_i^{x,y,z}\equiv\sigma_i^{x,y,z}/2$ are spin-$1/2$ operators, $L$ the chain length and $\Delta$ the anisotropy parameter. We set $J=1$ in , restricting ourselves to $\Delta>1$. The XXZ chain is the paradigm of Bethe ansatz solvable models [@taka-book] (see Appendix \[xxz-ba\]).
We consider the inhomogeneous quenches in which parts $A$ or $B$ are prepared in the Néel state $\left|N\right\rangle
\equiv(\left|\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\cdots\right\rangle+\left|
\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\cdots\right\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, the Majumdar-Ghosh or dimer state $\left|MG\right\rangle\equiv[(\left|\uparrow\right\rangle+
\left|\downarrow\right\rangle)/\sqrt{2}]^{L/2}$, and the ferromagnetic state $|F\rangle\equiv\left|\uparrow\uparrow\cdots\right\rangle$. For all these cases the bulk densities $\vartheta_{n}^{\scriptscriptstyle
A(B)}$ (cf. ) are known analytically (see Appendix \[steady\]). Also, for $\Delta>1$ the dynamics from states obtained by joining states with opposite magnetization [@piroli-2017a] leads to diffusive or subdiffusive transport [@ljubotina-2017; @misguich-2017; @stephan-2017]. In contrast, all the initial states considered here lead to ballistic transport (see Appendix \[charge\]).
![ Entanglement dynamics after the quench from a piecewise homogeneous initial state in the XXZ chain: Entanglement production rate. Panels (a,b,c) and (d,e,f) show tDMRG results for the initial states $|N\rangle
\otimes|F\rangle$ and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, respectively. Different symbols are for different $\Delta$ and $\ell\le 64$. $S/\ell$ is plotted versus the rescaled time $t/\ell$. The dash-dotted line is the theoretical result using Bethe ansatz (Figure \[fig1\]) in the thermodynamic limit $\ell\to\infty$. []{data-label="fig3"}](fit_der_fin){width="1.\linewidth"}
The strategy to use and is to first solve the coupled systems of integral equations and for $\zeta=0$. The obtained densities $\rho_{\zeta=0,n},\rho_{\zeta=0,n}^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}$ (some numerical results are shown in Appendix \[neel-ferro\]) are then substituted in and . Our results are summarized in Figure \[fig1\]. The Figure shows the steady-state entropy $s_\infty$ (dotted lines) and the entanglement production rate $s'$ as a function of $\Delta$. For the quench with initial state $|N\rangle\otimes|
F\rangle$, both $s_\infty$ and $s'$ vanish for $\Delta\to\infty$, reflecting that the Néel state is the ground state of the XXZ chain in that limit. Interestingly, for both $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, since the ferromagnet is an exact eigenstate of the XXZ chain at any $\Delta$, no quasiparticle production happens in subsystem $A$. As a consequence, $S(t)$ is fully determined by the quasiparticle transport from $B$ to $A$. However, $s_\infty$ and $s'(t)$ are smaller than the corresponding values for the homogeneous quench from the Néel state and the dimer state [@alba-2016]. It is also interesting to observe that for these quenches only the quasiparticles with $n=1$ contribute in and , i.e., the bound states contribution to the entanglement vanishes (see Appendix \[neel-ferro\]). This is not the case for the quench from $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, for which all bound states contribute and quasiparticles are generated in both reservoirs. In this case both $s_\infty$ and $s'$ exhibit a rather weak dependence on $\Delta$ (see Figure \[fig1\]).
Numerical checks in the XXZ chain
=================================
We now turn to verify the theoretical predictions presented in Figure \[fig1\] using tDMRG simulations [@white-2004; @daley-2004; @uli-2005; @uli-2011; @itensor]. We first focus on the steady-state entropy density $s_\infty$ of a finite block $A'$ of length $\ell$ (Figure \[fig0\] (b)). We consider only the quenches from the states $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, as they are easier to simulate. In fact, in our tDMRG simulations we use the comparatively small value of the bond dimension $\chi\approx 75$. This allows us to obtain reliable results, provided that a space-time average of the data is performaed This surprising efficiency of tDMRG for transport-related quantities has been also observed in Ref. .
Our tDMRG results in the regime $t\gg\ell$ are reported in Figure \[fig2\] (a) and (b), plotting $s_\infty$ versus $1/\ell$. The raw tDMRG data at any time after the quench are reported in Appendix \[tdmrg\]. To minimize the effects of oscillating (with the block size) scaling corrections we averaged the data for $t\gg\ell$. The results are for chains with $L=40$ sites, severals $\Delta$s (different symbols), and $\ell\le 10$. The star symbols are the Bethe ansatz results . The dash-dotted lines are fits to $S/\ell=s_\infty+a/\ell+b/\ell^2$, with $s_\infty$ the thermodynamic limit results, and $a,b$ fitting parameters. Finite-size corrections are clearly visible for small $\ell$. However, for both initial states the numerical data are compatible in the thermodynamic limit with the Bethe ansatz results. Note that for the quench from $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ the dependence on $\Delta$ for large $\ell$ is not visible within the numerical precision, as expected from Figure \[fig1\].
We now focus on the entanglement production rate in Figure \[fig3\], again considering the quench from $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ (panels (a)-(c)) and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ (panels (d)-(e)), plotting $S/\ell$ versus $t/\ell$. The data are now for chains with $L\le 128$. We always consider the half-chain entropy, i.e., $A'=A$ and $A$ half of the chain (see Figure \[fig0\]). A crucial consequence is that only one boundary is present between $A'$ and the rest. The dash-dotted lines are the Bethe ansatz predictions (Figure \[fig1\] and ). After an initial transient, in all cases $S(t)$ exhibits linear behavior. The slope of this linear increase is in agreement with the Bethe ansatz results, already for $\ell\approx 16$. A more systematic analysis of finite-size corrections is presented in Appendix \[s-corr\]. For the quench from $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, again, one should observe the weak dependence on $\Delta$. Finally, in Figure \[fig4\] we show the results for the initial state $|N\rangle\otimes|MG\rangle$. Due to the large amount of entanglement, we can only provide reliable tDMRG data for $\ell\le 24$. tDMRG simulations are performed with $\chi=400$. To highlight finite-size and finite-time corrections we show data for $\ell=8$, which exhibit large deviations from the Bethe ansatz predictions. On the other hand, for $\ell=24$ the data are clearly compatible with .
![ The same as in Figure \[fig3\] for the initial state $|N\rangle\otimes|MG\rangle$. Notice the smaller subystems sizes ($\ell\le 24$) as compared with Figure \[fig3\]. The different panels are for different $\Delta$. The dash-dotted lines are the Bethe ansatz results. []{data-label="fig4"}](fit_der_NMG){width="1.\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
We investigated the entanglement dynamics after the quenche from a piecewise initial state in integrable models. We conjectured an analytic formula for the entanglement production rate after joining two semi-infinite reservoirs as well as for the steady-state entropy of a finite subregion ( and , respectively). Our work opens several promising new directions. For instance, it would be interesting to consider the inhomogeneous quench in which an integrability-breaking term acting at the interface between $A$ and $B$ is added to the Hamiltonian. Already in the case of a defect that preserves integrability this gives non trivial effects [@bertini-2016]. It would be also enlightening to consider a time-dependent bipartition in which subsystem $A'$ moves away from the boundary. By appropriately tuning the speed at which $A'$ changes its position, it should be possible to change the thermodynamic macrostate governing the entanglement production. It should be possible to extend the method to treat the mutual information, as done for free fermions [@eisler-2014; @kormos-2017a]. Finally, it would be interesting to extend the quasiparticle picture to treat multipartite systems as in Ref. [@savona].
I am very grateful to Bruno Bertini for clarifying discussions on several aspects of the integrable hydrodynamic approach. I also acknowledge very fruitful discussions with Maurizio Fagotti and Pasquale Calabrese. This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowoska-Curie grant agreement No 702612 OEMBS.
Bethe ansatz solution of the XXZ chain {#xxz-ba}
======================================
Due to the conservation of the total magnetization $S_z$, the eigenstates of the XXZ can be classified according to the total magnetization $S_T=\sum_i S_i^z$. Equivalently, one can use the total number $M$ of down spins as a good quantum number for the eigenstates.
In the Bethe ansatz [@taka-book] solution of the $XXZ$ chain, the eigenstates in the sector with $M$ down spins (particles) are identified by a set of $M$ rapidities $\lambda_j$, which are solutions of the so-called Bethe equations [@taka-book] $$\label{be}
\left[\frac{\sin(\lambda_j+i\frac{\eta}{2})}{\sin(\lambda_j-i\frac{\eta}{2})}\right]^L=
-\prod\limits_{k=1}^M\frac{\sin(\lambda_j-\lambda_k+i\eta)}{\sin(\lambda_j-\lambda_k-i
\eta)},$$ where $\eta\equiv\textrm{arccosh}(\Delta)$. Here we are interested in the thermodynamic limit $L,M\to\infty$ with $M/L$ fixed. Then, the solutions of the Bethe equations form string patterns in the complex plane. Rapidities forming a $n$-string can be written as $$\lambda^j_{n,\gamma}=\lambda_{n,\gamma}+i\frac{\eta}{2}(n+1-2j)+\delta^j_{n,\gamma},$$ where $j=1,\dots,n$ denotes the different string components, $\lambda_{n,\gamma}$ is the “string center”, and $\delta_{n,\gamma}^j$ are the string deviations. For the majority of the eigenstates of the XXZ chain, the string deviations are exponentially small, i.e., $\delta_{n,\gamma}^j={\mathcal O}(e^{-L})$ (string hypothesis). The $n$-strings describe bound states of $n$ down spins. The string centers $\lambda_{n,\gamma}$ are obtained by solving the Bethe-Gaudin-Takahashi (BGT) equations [@taka-book] $$\label{bgt-eq}
L\theta_n(\lambda_{n,\alpha})=2\pi I_{n,\alpha}+\sum\limits_{(n,\alpha)
\ne(m,\beta)}\Theta_{n,m}(\lambda_{n,\alpha}-
\lambda_{m,\beta}).$$ For $\Delta>1$, one has $\lambda_{n,\gamma}\in[-\pi/2,\pi/2)$. Here we used that $\theta_n(
\lambda)\equiv2\arctan[\tan(\lambda)/\tanh(n\eta/2)]$. The scattering phases $\Theta_{n,m}
(\lambda)$ are given as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Theta}
\Theta_{n,m}(\lambda)\equiv(1-\delta_{n,m})\theta_{|n-m|}(\lambda)+2\theta_{
|n-m|+2}(\lambda)\\+\cdots+\theta_{n+m-2}(\lambda)+\theta_{n+m}(\lambda). \end{gathered}$$ Each choice of the so-called BGT quantum numbers $I_{n,\alpha}\in\frac{1}{2}
\mathbb{Z}$ corresponds to a different set of solutions of , i.e., to a different eigenstate of the chain. The corresponding eigenstate energy $E$ and total momentum $P$ are obtained by summing over all the rapidities as $E=\sum_{n,\alpha}\epsilon_n(\lambda_{n,\alpha})$, and $P=\sum_{n,\alpha}z_n(
\lambda_{n,\alpha})$ with $$\label{eps}
\epsilon_n(\lambda)\equiv-\frac{\sinh(\eta)\sinh(n\eta)}{\cosh(n\eta)-\cos(2\lambda)},
\quad z_n(\lambda_{n,\alpha})=\frac{2\pi I_{n,\alpha}}{L}.$$ In the thermodynamic limit, one works with the rapidity densities. The root densities $\rho_{n,p}$ are formally defined as $$\rho_{n,p}(\lambda)\equiv\lim_{L\to\infty} \frac1{L(\lambda_{n,\alpha+1}-\lambda_{n,\alpha})}.$$ It is also convenient to define the associated hole densities $\rho_{n,h}$, i.e., the density of unoccupied rapidities, and the total densities $\rho_{n,t}=
\rho_{n}+\rho_{n,h}$. The BGT equations in the thermodynamic limit become a system of integral equations $$\label{tba1}
\rho^{(t)}_{n}(\lambda)=a_n(\lambda)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty (a_{n,m}\star\rho_{m})
(\lambda),$$ where we defined $$\begin{aligned}
\label{anm}
a_{nm}(\lambda)=&(1-\delta_{nm})a_{|n-m|}(\lambda)+2a_{|n-m|}(\lambda)\nonumber\\
&+\ldots +2a_{n+m-2}(\lambda)+a_{n+m}(\lambda)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$a_n(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\sinh\left( n\eta\right)}{\cosh (n
\eta) - \cos( 2 \lambda)}\,.$$
Macrostates for homogeneous quenches {#steady}
====================================
Here we report the analytical results for the root densities $\vartheta^{
\scriptscriptstyle(A)}_n(\lambda)$ and $\vartheta^{\scriptscriptstyle(B)}_n(\lambda)$ (see the main text). We consider the homogeneous quenches from the Néel state and the Majumdar-Ghosh state. These densities characterize the thermodynamic macrostate in the bulk of the two systems $A$ and $B$, i.e., for $|\zeta|\to\infty$. We first define the densities $\eta_n\equiv
\rho_{n,h}/\rho_{n}$. In terms of $\eta_n$ one has $\theta_n=1/(1+\eta_n)$.
For both the Néel state and the Majumdar-Ghosh state, the $\eta_n$ obey the recursive equation [@ilievski-2015a; @brockmann-2014] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta-rec}
&\eta_n(\lambda)=\frac{\eta_{n-1}(\lambda+i\frac{\eta}{2})
\eta_{n-1}(\lambda-i\frac{\eta}{2})}{1+\eta_{n-2}(\lambda)}-1,\\
\label{rho-rec}
& \rho_{n,h}(\lambda)=\rho_{n,t}(\lambda+i\frac{\eta}{2})+\rho_{n,t}
(\lambda)-\rho_{n-1,h}(\lambda), \end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_0=0$ and $\rho_{0,h}=0$.
For the Néel state one has [@brockmann-2014] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta-neel}
& \eta_1=\frac{2[2\cosh(\eta)+2\cosh(3\eta)-3\cos(2\lambda)
\sin^2(\lambda)]}{[\cosh(\eta)-\cos(2\lambda)][\cosh(4\eta)-\cos(4\lambda)]}\\
\nonumber
& \rho_{1,h}=a_1\Big(1-\frac{\cosh^2(\eta)}
{a_1\pi^2\sin^2(2\lambda)+\cosh^2(\eta)}\Big), \end{aligned}$$ For the Majumdar-Ghosh one has [@pozsgay-2014A; @mestyan-2015] $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_1=\frac{\cos(4\lambda)-\cosh(2\eta)}{\cos^2\lambda(\cos(2\lambda)
-\cosh(2\eta))}-1,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\rho_{1,h}=a_1(\lambda)+\frac{1}{2\pi}(\omega(\lambda-i\eta/2)+\omega(\lambda+i\eta/2)),$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\omega(\lambda)=-\frac{\sinh(\eta)(-2+\cosh(\eta)+2\cosh(2\eta)}
{4(\cos(2\lambda)-\cosh(2\eta))^2}\\
+\frac{3\cosh(3\eta)+4\cos(2\lambda)(-\cosh(\eta)+\sinh^2(\eta))}
{4(\cos(2\lambda)-\cosh(2\eta))^2}. \end{gathered}$$
Velocities of entangling quasiparticles {#velocities}
=======================================
A crucial ingredient in the integrable hydrodynamic approach [@olalla-2016; @bertini-2016] and in the derivation of our results is the velocity of the low-lying excitations around the TBA macrostates $\rho_n,\rho_n^{\scriptscriptstyle (h)}$. Here we outline its derivation following the approach of Ref. . Given a generic thermodynamic macrostate identified by some densities $\rho_n,
\rho_n^{\scriptscriptstyle(h)}$, one can imagine of choosing among the eigenstates of the XXZ chain a representative of the macrostate. This would be identified by some BGT quantum numbers $I_{n,\alpha}^*$. Low-lying excitations around it can be constructed as particle-hole excitations. In each $n$-string sector, these correspond to the change $I^*_{n,h}\to I_{n,p}$, where $I_{n,p}(I^*_{n,h})$ is the BGT number of the added particle (hole). Since the model is interacting, this local change in quantum numbers affects [*all*]{} the rapidities obtained by solving the new set of Bethe equations. The excess energy of the particle-hole excitation can be written as [@bonnes-2014] $$\label{ph-en}
\delta E_n=e_n(\lambda^*_{n,p})-e_n(\lambda^*_{n,h}).$$ Note that is the same as for free models apart from the dressing of the single particle energy. The change in the total momentum is obtained from as $$\delta P=z_n(\lambda^*_{n,p})-z_n(\lambda^*_{n,h}).$$ The group velocity associated with the particle-hole excitations is by definition $$\label{group-v}
v^*_n(\lambda)\equiv\frac{\partial e_n}{\partial z_n}=\frac{e'_n(\lambda)}{2\pi
\rho_{n}(1+\eta_n(\lambda))},$$ where we used that [@taka-book] $d z_n(\lambda)/d\lambda=2\pi\rho_{n,t}$, and we defined $e'_n(\lambda)=de(\lambda)/d\lambda$. Here $e'_n(\lambda)$ is obtained by solving an infinite system of Fredholm integral equations of the second kind [@bonnes-2014] $$\label{tosolve}
e'_n(\lambda)+\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum\limits_{m=1}^\infty\int\!d\mu e'_m
(\mu)\frac{\Theta'_{m,n}(\mu-\lambda)}{1+\eta^*_m(\mu)}=
\epsilon'_n(\lambda),$$ where $\Theta'_{n,m}(\lambda)\equiv d\Theta_{n,m}(\lambda)/d\lambda$ and $\epsilon'_n(\lambda)\equiv d\epsilon_n(\lambda)/d\lambda$ (cf. also and ).
![ Quantum transport in the XXZ chain after the quench from piecewise homogeneous initial state. Panels (a,b,c) show results for the initial state $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$. Panels (d,e,f) are for the initial state $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$. The figure reports the local energy density $E$, the local magnetization $S^z$, and the energy current $J_E$ plotted versus $\zeta=x/t$, with $x$ the position in the chain, measured from the interface between the two reservoirs. In all panels the symbols are tDMRG data for a chain with $L=300$ and several values of $\Delta$. To obtain smooth behavior a space-time average was performed in a window with $\zeta=x/t\pm\epsilon$ and $\epsilon\approx 0.1$. The dash dotted lines are the theoretical predictions using the Bethe ansatz. []{data-label="fig6"}](loc){width="1.\linewidth"}
![ Integrable hydrodynamics approach for the quench from the state $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$. The results are for the XXZ chain with $\Delta=2$. Panel (a) plots the densities $\vartheta_n$ as a function of the rapidity $\lambda$ for $\zeta=0$. For $n>1$ one has $\vartheta_n=0$. Note that $\vartheta_1$ is nonzero only for $\lambda>0$. Panel (b): Density $\rho_n$ as a function of $\lambda$. Similar to (a) only $\rho_1$ is nonzero for $\lambda>0$, whereas $\rho_n=0$ for $n>1$. Panel (c): group velocities of the quasiparticles excitations $v_n$ plotted as a function of $\lambda$. Different lines correspond to different families of excitations (bound states). Note that for $n>1$, one has that $v_n<0$ at any $\lambda$, whereas $v_1$ changes sign at $\lambda=0$. Note also that $v_n$ have no well defined parity, in contrast with homogeneous quenches for which $v_n(\lambda)=-v_n(-\lambda)$. (d) Contributions to the Yang-Yang entropy of the different quasiparticles families plotted versus $\lambda$. Only $n=1$ gives nonzero contribution for $\lambda>0$. []{data-label="fig7"}](syy){width="1.\linewidth"}
Integrable hydrodynamics: Conserved charges and currents {#charge}
========================================================
In this section we provide some numerical checks of the integrable hydrodynamics approach [@olalla-2016; @bertini-2016], focusing on the XXZ chain in the region with $\Delta>1$. We consider the quenches with initial states $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$. Using tDMRG simulations we investigate the dynamics of the local magnetization $S^z$, the local energy density $E$, and the energy current $J_E$. These are defined as [@bertini-2016] $$\begin{aligned}
& S^z\equiv S_i^z\\
& E\equiv S_i^xS_{i+1}^x+S_i^yS_{i+1}^y+\Delta S_i^zS_{i+1}^z-\frac{\Delta}{4},\\
& J_E\equiv S_{i-1}^xS_i^zS_{i+1}^y-S_{i-1}^yS_i^zS_{i+1}^x\\\nonumber
&-\Delta S_{i-1}^zS_i^xS_{i+1}^y+\Delta S_{i-1}^zS_i^yS_{i+1}^x\\\nonumber
&-\Delta S_{i-1}^xS_i^yS_{i+1}^z+\Delta S_{i-1}^yS_i^xS_{i+1}^z. \end{aligned}$$ In the framework of the Bethe ansatz, these are written in terms of the root densities $\rho_{\zeta,n}(\lambda)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{obs1}
& S_z=\sum_n n\int d\lambda\rho_{\zeta,n},\\
\label{obs2}
& E=\sum_n\int d\lambda\rho_{\zeta,n}\frac{\sinh\eta\sinh(n\eta)}{\cos(2\lambda)-\cosh(n \eta)},\\
\label{obs3}
& J_E=\sum_n\int d\lambda\rho_{\zeta,n}\frac{\sin(2\lambda)\sinh^2\eta\sinh(r\eta)}{
(\cos(2\lambda)-\cosh(n\eta))^2}. \end{aligned}$$ Note that all the observables are functions of $\zeta\equiv x/t$. The dependence on $\zeta$ is encoded in the densities $\rho_{\zeta,n}$ [@bertini-2016].
{width="1.\linewidth"}
The Bethe ansatz results are compared with tDMRG results in Figure \[fig6\]. The upper and lower panels show tDMRG data for the quench with initial states $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ and $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, respectively. The data are for the XXZ chain with $L=300$ sites, up to times $t\lesssim 100$. The results in panels (a-c) are obtained using bond dimension $\chi\sim 20$. For the quench from the state $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ (panels (e-f)) we used $\chi\sim 75$. In all panels the different symbols correspond to different values of $\Delta$. In order to remove spatial and temporal oscillations, we performed a spatio-temporal average. Specifically, for each fixed $\zeta$ the results in the Figure are obtained by averaging the data in a window $\zeta\pm\epsilon$ with $\epsilon\approx 0.1$. The dash-dotted lines are the theoretical results . For $|\zeta|\gg1$ all the observables become $\zeta$ independent. This happens in spatio-temporal regions with $|x|\gg v_Mt$, with $v_M$ the maximum velocity in the system. Remarkably, for both quenches, and for all values of $\Delta$, the tDMRG data are in very good agreement with the Bethe ansatz. Note, however, that the theoretical predictions exhibits some cusp-like behaviors (see for instance the arrow in panel (b)). These are expected and have been discussed in Ref. , although they are not well reproduced by the tDMRG results. It is natural to expect that these deviations should be attributed to the finite $\chi$ and to the finite-time and finite-size effects.
Neel-Ferro quench: Bethe ansatz results {#neel-ferro}
=======================================
In this section we provide some details on the Bethe ansatz results for the quench from the state $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$. Our results are summarized in Figure \[fig7\].
Specifically, panels (a) and (b) show the densities $\vartheta_{\zeta,n}$ and $\rho_{\zeta,n}$, respectively. The results are for $\zeta=0$, which identifies the relevant macrostate to describe the entanglement dynamics after the quench (the subscript $\zeta$ in $\vartheta_{\zeta,n}$ and $\rho_{\zeta,n}$ is omitted in the Figure). First, it is interesting to observe that only $\vartheta_{\zeta,1}$ and $\rho_{\zeta,1}$ are nonzero. Moreover, $\vartheta_1$ is nonzero only for $\lambda>0$. Similar behavior is observed for $\rho_1$ (see panel (b)).
The group velocities of the low-lying excitations around the macrostate with $\zeta=0$ are reported in Figure \[fig7\] (c). These are obtained by numerically solving and using . As anticipated in the main text, one has $v_n(\lambda)\ne-v_n(-\lambda)$. This is in stark contrast with homogeneous quenches, where one has [@alba-2016] $v_n(\lambda)=-v_n(-\lambda)$. As a consequence the lightcone of the entangling quasiparticles is not symmetric. It is also interesting to observe that for any $\lambda$, $v_n<0$ for $n>1$, which implies that there is no transport of bound states from $B$ to $A$ after the quench.
Finally, in Figure \[fig7\] (e) we show the contributions to the Yang-Yang entropy density $s_{YY}^{\scriptscriptstyle(n)}$ (see its definition in the main text) of the quasiparticles. Clearly, only quasiparticles with $n=1$ and $\lambda>0$ contribute to the entropy. Together with the results in panel (c), this implies that the entanglement between the two subsystems is generated by the transport of particles from $B$ to $A$.
Steady-state entropy: DMRG data {#tdmrg}
===============================
In this section we discuss in more detail the numerical data for the steady-state entanglement entropy presented in Figure $3$ in the manuscript, i.e., for the quench from the state $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$. We consider the entanglement entropy of a subsystem $A'$ of length $\ell$ placed next to the boundary between $A$ and $B$. To avoid boundary effects $A'$ is embedded in $A$, which is chosen larger than $A'$.
Our tDMRG results are presented in Figure \[fig5\]. The data are obtained using standard tDMRG simulations with bond dimension $\chi\sim 300$ for the XXZ chain with $L=40$ sites and $t\sim 16$. To calculate the von Neumann entropy we employed the techniques described in Ref. . The different panels correspond to different values of $1.5\le\Delta\le 10$. The figure shows $S/\ell$ plotted versus the time after the quench. In each panel the different symbols are for subsystems of different length $1\le \ell\le 9$. For each $\ell$ a linear increase, followed by a saturation, is observed. The saturation value decreases upon increasing $\Delta$, in agreement with the theoretical predictions. For $t\to\infty$, in the limit $\ell\to\infty$, the entropy density $S/\ell$ should converge to the Bethe ansatz predictions. However, strong finite-size effects are visible in the Figure, due to the small $\ell$ considered. Moreover, it is interesting to observe that upon increasing $\Delta$, the data exhibit strong oscillations with time. The data presented in Figure $3$ correspond to the time average of the tDMRG data in the time window $13\le t\le 16$. Finally, we should mention that similar results are obtained for the quench from the state $|MG\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$.
Scaling corrections {#s-corr}
===================
In this section we discuss in more detail the finite-size corrections of the tDMRG data in Figure $4$ in the manuscript. We focus on the quench from the state $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$, for which the largest system subsystem sizes up to $\ell=64$ are available. We consider the scaling corrections to the entanglement production rate. Figure \[fig7\] shows the deviations $\delta S/\ell$ plotted versus the rescaled time $t/\ell$. The theory predictions are obtained using formula . The different curves in Figure \[fig7\] correspond to different sizes of subsystem $A$ (see Figure $1$ in the manuscript). Clearly, corrections are vanishing in the scaling limit $t,\ell\to\infty$ with fixed ratio $t/\ell$. Interestingly, the dependence of the corrections on $t/\ell$ becomes weaker upon increasing $\ell$. By comparing the data for $\ell=32$ and $\ell=64$, it is clear that corrections decay as $1/\ell$ in the thermodynamic limit. This is supported in the inset of Figure \[fig7\] showing the data for fixed $t/\ell\approx 0.1$ and $t/\ell\approx 0.27$ plotted versus $1/\ell$. We should mention that a similar behavior as $1/\ell$ has been observed for homogeneous quenches [@alba-2016].
![ Entanglement production rate for the quench from the $|N\rangle\otimes|F\rangle$ quench: finite-size corrections. In the main panel the curves are the deviations $\delta S/\ell$ from the Bethe ansatz predictions for the quench with $\Delta=1.75$ (panel (a) in Figure $4$ in the manuscript). Here $\delta S/\ell$ is plotted against the rescaled time $t/\ell$. The different curves correspond to the different subsystem sizes $\ell=16,32,64$. Corrections are clearly vanishing in the scaling limit. Inset: $1/\ell$ behavior of the scaling corrections. Here $\delta S/\ell$ at fixed $t/\ell\approx 0.1$ and $t/\ell\approx0.27$ (data are marked with the same symbols in the main panel) is plotted versus $1/\ell$. []{data-label="fig7"}](fits){width="1.\linewidth"}
[99]{} R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system. Nature [**528**]{}, 77 (2015).
A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system. Science [**353**]{}, 794 (2016).
S. Sotiriadis and J. Cardy, Inhomogeneous Quantum Quenches, J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P11003.
D. Bernard and B. Doyon, Energy flow in non-equilibrium conformal field theory, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{} (2012), 362001.
M. J. Bhaseen, B. Doyon, A. Lucas, and K. Schalm, Far from equilibrium energy flow in quantum critical systems, Nat. Phys. [**11**]{}, 509 (2015).
N. Allegra, J. Dubail, J.-M. Stephan, and J. Viti, Inhomogeneous field theory inside the arctic circle, J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 053108.
J. Dubail, J.-M. Stephan, J. Viti, and P. Calabrese, Conformal Field Theory for Inhomogeneous One-dimensional Quantum Systems: the Example of Non-Interacting Fermi Gases, SciPost Phys. [**2**]{}, 002 (2017).
J. Dubail, J.-M. Stephan, and P. Calabrese, Emergence of curved light-cones in a class of inhomogeneous Luttinger liquids, arXiv:1705.00679.
V. Eisler, F. Igloi, and I. Peschel, Entanglement in spin chains with gradients, J. Stat. Mech. (2009) P02011.
A. De Luca, J. Viti, D. Bernard, and B. Doyon, Non-equilibrium thermal transport in the quantum Ising chain, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 134301 (2013).
T. Sabetta and G. Misguich, Non-equilibrium steady states in the quantum XXZ spin chain, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 245114 (2013).
V. Eisler and Z. Racz, Full counting statistics in a propagating quantum front and random matrix spectra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 060602 (2013).
V. Alba and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Entanglement spreading after a geometric quench in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 075144 (2014).
M. Collura and G. Martelloni, Non-equilibrium transport in d-dimensional non-interacting Fermi gases, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P08006.
A. De Luca, G. Martelloni, and J. Viti, Stationary states in a free fermionic chain from the quench action method, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 021603(R).
V. Eisler, F. Maislinger, H. G. Evertz, Universal front propagation in the quantum Ising chain with domain-wall initial states SciPost Phys. [**1**]{}, 014 (2016).
J. Viti, J.-M. Stephan, J. Dubail, and M. Haque, Inhomogeneous quenches in a fermionic chain: exact results, EPL [**115**]{} (2016) 40011.
M. Kormos, Inhomogeneous quenches in the transverse field Ising chain: scaling and front dynamics, arXiv:1704.03744.
G. Perfetto and A. Gambassi, Ballistic front dynamics after joining two semi-infinite quantum Ising chains, arXiv:1704.03437.
L. Vidmar, D. Iyer, and M. Rigol, Emergent Eigenstate Solution to Quantum Dynamics Far from Equilibrium, Phys. Rev. X [**7**]{}, 021012 (2017).
A. De Luca, J. Viti, L. Mazza, and D. Rossini, Energy transport in Heisenberg chains beyond the Luttinger liquid paradigm, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 161101 (2014).
O. Castro-Alvaredo, Y. Chen, B. Doyon, and M. Hoogeveen, Thermodynamic Bethe ansatz for non-equilibrium steady states: exact energy current and fluctuations in integrable QFT, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P03011.
A. Biella, A. De Luca, J. Viti, D. Rossini, L. Mazza, and R. Fazio, Energy transport between two integrable spin chains, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 205121 (2016).
X. Zotos, F. Naef, and P. Prelovsek, Transport and conservation laws, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 11029 (1997).
X. Zotos, Finite Temperature Drude Weight of the One-Dimensional Spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1764 (1999).
T. Prosen, Open XXZ Spin Chain: Nonequilibrium Steady State and a Strict Bound on Ballistic Transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 217206 (2011).
T. Prosen and E. Ilievski, Families of Quasilocal Conservation Laws and Quantum Spin Transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 057203 (2013).
E. Ilievski, M. Medenjak, and T. Prosen, Quasilocal Conserved Operators in the Isotropic Heisenberg Spin-1/2 Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 120601 (2015).
F. Heidrich-Meisner, A. Honecker, D. C. Cabra, and W. Brenig, Zero-frequency transport properties of one-dimensional spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ systems, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 134436.
D. Gobert, C. Kollath, U. Schollwöck, and G. Schütz, Real-time dynamics in spin-12 chains with adaptive time-dependent density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 036102 (2005).
S. Langer, F. Heidrich-Meisner, J. Gemmer, I. P. McCulloch, and U. Schollwöck, Real-time study of diffusive and ballistic transport in spin-$1/2$ chains using the adaptive time-dependent density matrix renormalization group method, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 214409 (2009).
C. Karrasch, J. H. Bardarson, and J. E. Moore, Finite-Temperature Dynamical Density Matrix Renormalization Group and the Drude Weight of Spin-1/2 Chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 227206 (2012).
C. Karrasch, R. Ilan, and J. E. Moore, Nonequilibrium thermal transport and its relation to linear response, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 195129 (2013).
O. A. Castro-Alvared, B. Doyon, and T. Yoshimura, Emergent hydrodynamics in integrable systems out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. X [**6**]{}, 041065 (2016).
B. Bertini and M. Fagotti, Determination of the Nonequilibrium Steady State Emerging from a Defect, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 130402 (2016).
B. Doyon and T. Yoshimura, A note on generalized hydrodynamics: inhomogeneous fields and other concepts, arXiv:1611.08225.
B. Doyon and T. Yoshimura, A note on integrable hydrodynamics: inhomogeneous fields and other concepts, arxiv:1611.08225.
A. De Luca, M. Collura, and J. De Nardis, Non-equilibrium spin transport in the XXZ chain: steady spin currents and emergence of magnetic domains, arXiv:1612.07265.
B. Doyon and H. Spohn, Dynamics of hard rods with initial domain wall state, arXiv:1703.05971.
B. Doyon, J. Dubail, R. Konik, and T. Yoshimura, Generalized hydrodynamics and density waves in interacting one-dimensional Bose gases, arXiv:1704.04151.
B. Doyon, H. Spohn, and T. Yoshimura, A geometric viewpoint on generalized hydrodynamics, arXiv:1704.04409.
B. Doyon, T. Yoshimura, and J.-S. Caux, Soliton gases and generalized hydrodynamics, arXiv:1704.05482.
V. B. Bulchandani, R. Vasseur, C. Karrasch, J. E. Moore, Bethe-Boltzmann Hydrodynamics and Spin Transport in the XXZ Chain arXiv:1702.06146.
V. B. Bulchandani, R. Vasseur, C. Karrasch, J. E. Moore, Solvable Hydrodynamics of Quantum Integrable Systems, arXiv:1704.03466.
E. Ilievski and J. De Nardis, On the Microscopic Origin of Ideal Conductivity, arXiv:1702.02930.
B. Doyon and H. Spohn, Drude Weight for the Lieb-Liniger Bose Gas, arXiv:1705.08141.
P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of Entanglement Entropy in One-Dimensional Systems. J. Stat. Mech. (2005) P04010.
E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Commun. Math. Phys. [bf 28]{}, 251 (1972).
M. Fagotti and P. Calabrese, Evolution of entanglement entropy following a quantum quench: Analytic results for the XY chain in a transverse magnetic field, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 010306 (2008).
V. Eisler and I. Peschel. Entanglement in a periodic quench, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) [**17**]{}, 410 (2008).
M. Ghasemi Nezhadhaghighi, and M. A. Rajabpour, Entanglement dynamics in short and long-range harmonic oscillators, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 205438 (2014).
A. Coser, E. Tonni, and P. Calabrese, Entanglement negativity after a global quantum quench, J. Stat. Mech. P12017 (2014).
J. S. Cotler, M. P. Hertzberg, M. Mezei, and M. T. Mueller, Entanglement Growth after a Global Quench in Free Scalar Field Theory, JHEP 11 (2016) 166.
A. S. Buyskikh, M. Fagotti, J. Schachenmayer, F. H. L. Essler, and A. J. Daley, Entanglement growth and correlation spreading with variable-range interactions in spin and fermionic tunneling models, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 053620 (2016).
G. De Chiara, S. Montangero, P. Calabrese, and R. Fazio, Entanglement Entropy dynamics in Heisenberg chains, J. Stat. Mech. P03001 (2006).
A. M. Läuchli and C. Kollath, Spreading of correlations and entanglement after a quench in the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model, J. Stat. Mech. P05018 (2008).
H. Kim and D. A. Huse, Ballistic Spreading of Entanglement in a Diffusive Nonintegrable System, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 127205 (2013).
V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani, and T. Takayanagi, A Covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal, JHEP [**0707**]{}, 062 (2007);
J. Abajo-Arrastia, J. Aparicio, and E. Lopez, Holographic Evolution of Entanglement Entropy, JHEP [**1011**]{} 149 (2010).
T. Albash and C. V. Johnson, Evolution of Holographic Entanglement Entropy after Thermal and Electromagnetic Quenches, New J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 045017 (2011).
A. Allais and E. Tonni, Holographic evolution of the mutual information, JHEP [**1201**]{} 102 (2012).
R. Callan, J.-Y. He, and M. Headrick, Strong subadditivity and the covariant holographic entanglement entropy formula, JHEP [**1206**]{}, 081 (2012).
H. Liu and S. J. Suh, Entanglement Tsunami: Universal Scaling in Holographic Thermalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 011601 (2014).
V. Balasubramanian, A. Bernamonti, N. Copland, B. Craps, and F. Galli, Thermalization of mutual and tripartite information in strongly coupled two dimensional conformal field theories. Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 105017 (2011).
H. Liu and S. J. Suh, Entanglement growth during thermalization in holographic systems, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 066012 (2014).
C. T. Asplund and A. Bernamonti, Mutual information after a local quench in conformal field theory, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 066015 (2014).
C. T. Asplund, A. Bernamonti, F. Galli, and T. Hartmann, Entanglement Scrambling in 2d Conformal Field Theory, JHEP [**09**]{}, 110 (2015).
S. Leichenauer and M. Moosa, Entanglement Tsunami in (1+1)-Dimensions, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 126004 (2015).
S. Kundu and J. F. Pedraza, Spread of entanglement for small subsystems in holographic CFTs, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, 086008 (2017).
S. F. Lokhande, G. W. J. Oling, and J. F. Pedraza, Linear response of entanglement entropy from holography, arXiv:1705.10324.
V. Alba and P. Calabrese, Entanglement and thermodynamics after a quantum quench in integrable systems. arXiv:1608.00614.
M. Mestyán, B. Bertini, L. Piroli, and P. Calabrese, Exact solution for the quench dynamics of a nested integrable system, arXiv:1705.00851.
H. Liu and S. J. Suh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 011601 (2014). H. Liu and S. J. Suh, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 066012 (2014). T. Hartman and J. Maldacena, JHEP [**5**]{}, 014 (2013). M. Alishahiha, A. Faraji Astaneh, and M. R. Mohammadi Mozaffar, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 046004 (2014). P. Fonda, L. Franti, V. Keränen, E. Keski-Vakkuri, L. Thorlacius, and E. Tonni, JHEP [**8**]{}, 51 (2014). T. Hartman and N. Afkhami-Jeddi, arXiv:1512.02695. M. Mezei, arXiv:1612.00082. D. Roberts and B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 091602 (2016).
H. Casini, H. Liu, and M. Mezei, JHEP [**7**]{}, 77 (2016). M. Mezei and D. Stanford, JHEP [**5**]{}, 065 (2017).
C. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovsky, F. Pollmann, and S. Sondhi, arXiv:1705.09810. A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X [**7**]{}, 031016 (2017). A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, arXiv:1705.08975.
J. Erdmenger, D. Fernandez, M. Flory, E. Megias, A.-K. Straub, and P. Witkowski, Time evolution of entanglement for holographic steady state formation, arXiv:1705.04696.
M. Takahashi, [*Thermodynamics of one-dimensional solvable models*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
C. N. Yang and C.P. Yang, Thermodynamics of a One-Dimensional System of Bosons with Repulsive Delta Function Interaction, J. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1115 (1969).
Rigol M, Dunjko V, and Olshanii M. Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems. Nature [**452**]{}, 854 (2008).
A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalattore, [*Colloquium*]{}: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**83**]{}, 863 (2011).
M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii, Relaxation in a Completely Integrable Many-Body Quantum System: An [*Ab Initio*]{} Study of the Dynamics of the Highly Excited States of 1D Lattice Hard-Core Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 050405 (2007).
M. A. Cazalilla, Effect of Suddenly Turning on Interactions in the Luttinger Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 156403 (2006).
T. Barthel and U. Schollwöck, Dephasing and the Steady State in Quantum Many-Particle Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 100601 (2008).
M. Cramer, C. W. Dawson, J. Eisert, and T. J. Osborne, Exact Relaxation in a Class of Nonequilibrium Quantum Lattice Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 030602 (2008).
M. Cramer and J. Eisert, A quantum central limit theorem for non-equilibrium systems: exact local relaxation of correlated states, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 055020 (2010).
P. Calabrese, F. H. L. Essler, and M. Fagotti, Quantum Quench in the Transverse-Field Ising Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 227203 (2011).
M. A. Cazalilla, A. Iucci, and M.-C. Chung, Thermalization and quantum correlations in exactly solvable models, Phys. Rev. E [**85**]{}, 011133 (2012).
P. Calabrese, F. H. L. Essler, and M. Fagotti, Quantum Quench in the Transverse Field Ising Chain II: Stationary State Properties, J. Stat. Mech. (2012) P07022.
S. Sotiriadis, D. Fioretto, and G. Mussardo, Zamolodchikov-Faddeev Algebra and Quantum Quenches in Integrable Field Theories, J. Stat. Mech. (2012) P02017.
M. Collura, S. Sotiriadis, and P. Calabrese, Equilibration of a Tonks-Girardeau Gas Following a Trap Release, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 245301 (2013).
M. Collura, S. Sotiriadis, and P. Calabrese, Quench dynamics of a Tonks-Girardeau gas released from a harmonic trap, J. Stat. Mech. P09025 (2013).
M. Fagotti and F. H. L. Essler, Stationary behaviour of observables after a quantum quench in the spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg $XXZ$ chain, J. Stat. Mech. (2013) P07012.
M. Fagotti, M. Collura, F. H. L. Essler, and P. Calabrese, Relaxation after quantum quenches in the spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg XXZ chain. Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 125101 (2014).
M. Kormos, M. Collura, and P. Calabrese, Analytic results for a quantum quench from free to hard-core one-dimensional bosons, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 013609 (2014).
G. Delfino, Quantum quenches with integrable pre-quench dynamics. J. Phys. A [**47**]{} (2014) 402001.
S. Sotiriadis and P. Calabrese, Validity of the GGE for quantum quenches from interacting to noninteracting models, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P07024.
E. Ilieveski, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters, J.-S. Caux, F. H. L. Essler, and T. Prosen, Complete Generalized Gibbs Ensembles in an Interacting Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 157201 (2015).
V. Alba, Simulating the Generalized Gibbs Ensemble (GGE): a Hilbert space Monte Carlo approach, arXiv:1507.06994.
F. H. L. Essler, G. Mussardo, and M. Panfil, Generalized Gibbs ensembles for quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 051602 (2015).
J. Cardy, Quantum quenches to a critical point in one dimension: some further results, J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 023103.
S. Sotiriadis, Memory-preserving equilibration after a quantum quench in a 1d critical model, Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 031605 (2016).
A. Bastianello and S. Sotiriadis, Quasi locality of the GGE in interacting-to-free quenches in relativistic field theories, arXiv:1608.00924.
E. Vernier and A. C. Cubero, Quasilocal charges and the complete GGE for field theories with non diagonal scattering, arXiv:1609.03220.
L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, Generalized Gibbs ensemble in integrable lattice models, J. Stat. Mech. 064007 (2016).
C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**79**]{}, 056001 (2016).
Essler FHL and Fagotti M. Quench dynamics and relaxation in isolated integrable quantum spin chains. J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 064002.
P. Calabrese, F. H. L. Essler, and G. Mussardo, Introduction to “Quantum Integrability in Out of Equilibrium Systems” (2016) 064001.
L. Piroli, B. Pozsgay, and E. Vernier, From the Quantum Transfer Matrix to the Quench Action: The Loschmidt echo in the XXZ Heisenberg spin chains, J. Stat. Mech. (2017) P023106.
L. Piroli, E. Vernier, P. Calabrese, and M. Rigol, Correlations and diagonal entropy after quantum quenches in XXZ chains, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 054308 (2017).
L. Bonnes, F. H. L. Essler, A. M. Läuchli, “Light-cone” dynamics after quantum quenches in spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 187203 (2014).
J.-S. Caux, and F. H. L. Essler, Time evolution of local observables after quenching to an integrable model, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 257203 (2013).
B. Wouters, M. Brockmann, J. De Nardis, D. Fioretto, M. Rigol, and J.-S. Caux, Quenching the Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain: Exact Solution and Generalized Gibbs Ensemble Predictions, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 117202 (2014).
B. Pozsgay, M. Mestyán, M. A. Werner, M. Kormos, G. Zaránd, and G. Takács, Correlations after Quantum Quenches in the XXZ Spin Chain: Failure of the Generalized Gibbs Ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 117203 (2014).
B. Bertini, D. Schuricht, and F. H. L. Essler, Quantum quench in the sine-Gordon model, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P10035.
J. De Nardis, B. Wouters, M. Brockmann, and J.-S. Caux, Solution for an interaction quench in the Lieb-Liniger Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 033601 (2014).
L. Bucciantini, Stationary State After a Quench to the Lieb-Liniger from Rotating BECs, J. Stat. Phys. [**164**]{}, 621 (2016).
V. Alba and P. Calabrese, The quench action approach in finite integrable spin chains, J. Stat. Mech. (2016), 043105.
L. Piroli, P. Calabrese, and F. H. L. Essler, Multiparticle Bound-State Formation following a Quantum Quench to the One-Dimensional Bose Gas with Attractive Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 070408 (2016).
L. Piroli, P. Calabrese, and F. H. L. Essler, Quantum quenches to the attractive one-dimensional Bose gas: exact results, SciPost Phys. 1(1), 001 (2016).
M. Mestyán, B. Pozsgay, G. Takács, and M. A. Werner MA. Quenching the XXZ spin chain: quench action approach versus generalized Gibbs ensemble, J. Stat. Mech. (2015) P04001.
M. Brockmann, B. Wouters, D. Fioretto, J. De Nardis, R. Vlijm, and J.-S. Caux, Quench action approach for releasing the Neel state into the spin-1/2 XXZ chain, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P12009.
E. Ilievski, E. Quinn, J. De Nardis, and M. Brockmann, String-charge duality in integrable lattice models, J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 063101.
L. Piroli, E. Vernier, and P. Calabrese, Exact steady states for quantum quenches in integrable Heisenberg spin chains, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 054313 (2016).
B. Bertini, L. Piroli, and P. Calabrese, Quantum quenches in the sinh-Gordon model: steady state and one-point correlation functions, J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 063102.
J.-S. Caux, The Quench Action, J. Stat. Mech. (2016) 064006.
B. Doyon, Exact large-scale correlations in integrable systems out of equilibrium, arXiv:1711.04568.
M. Ljubotina, M. Znidaric, and T. Prosen, Nat. Commun. [**8**]{}, 16117 (2017).
G. Misguich, K. Mallick, and P. L. Krapivsky, arXiv:1708.01843.
J.-M. Stephan, J. Stat. Mech. 103108 (2017).
S. R. White and A. E. Feiguin, Real-Time Evolution Using the Density Matrix Renormalization Group, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 076401 (2004).
A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollwock, and G. Vidal, Time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effective Hilbert spaces, J. Stat. Mech. (2004) P04005.
U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 259 (2005).
U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics [**326**]{}, 96 (2011).
Our tDMRG simulations are implemented using the ITENSOR library (<http://itensor.org/>).
E. Leviatan, F. Pollmann, J. H. Bardarson, and E. Altman, Quantum thermalization dynamics with Matrix-Product States, arXiv:1702.08894.
V. Eisler, Z. Zimboras, Area law violation for the mutual information in a nonequilibrium steady state, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 032321 (2014).
M. Kormos, Z. Zimborás, Temperature driven quenches in the Ising model: appearance of negative Rényi mutual information, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**50**]{} 264005 (2017).
E. Mascarenhas, G. Giudice, and V. Savona, arxiv:1703.02934.
L. Piroli, J. De Nardis, M. Collura, B. Bertini, and M. Fagotti, Transport in out-of-equilibrium XXZ chains: non-ballistic behavior and correlation functions, Phys. Rev. B [**96**]{}, 115124 (2017).
P. Ruggiero, V. Alba, and P. Calabrese, Entanglement negativity in random spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035152 (2016).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Anisotropic diffusion processes emerge in various fields such as transport in biological tissue and diffusion in liquid crystals. In such systems, the motion is described by a diffusion tensor. For a proper characterization of processes with more than one diffusion coefficient an average description by the mean squared displacement is often not sufficient. Hence, in this paper, we use the distribution of diffusivities to study diffusion in a homogeneous anisotropic environment. We derive analytical expressions of the distribution and relate its properties to an anisotropy measure based on the mean diffusivity and the asymptotic decay of the distribution. Both quantities are easy to determine from experimental data and reveal the existence of more than one diffusion coefficient, which allows the distinction between isotropic and anisotropic processes. We further discuss the influence on the analysis of projected trajectories, which are typically accessible in experiments. For the experimentally relevant cases of two- and three-dimensional anisotropic diffusion we derive specific expressions, determine the diffusion tensor, characterize the anisotropy, and demonstrate the applicability for simulated trajectories.'
author:
- Mario Heidernätsch
- Michael Bauer
- Günter Radons
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Characterizing N-dimensional anisotropic Brownian motion by the distribution of diffusivities'
---
=1
\[sec:Introduction\]Introduction
================================
The random motion of suspended particles in a fluid, which is usually referred to as Brownian motion, is an old but still fascinating phenomenon. Especially, when inhomogeneous [@vanKampen1988673; @Christensen20035171; @Bringuier2011] or anisotropic media [@schulz2010; @schulz2011; @PhysRevLett.79.4922] are involved, many questions are still open. From the theoretical point of view, much work has been done [@wax1954] to predict the statistical properties of the trajectories of such particles using stochastic methods. On the other side, the development of experiments only recently allows obtaining the paths of individual molecules and particles. Especially the observation of two-dimensional trajectories using video-microscopic methods, for instance by single-particle tracking (SPT), is already successfully applied in biological systems [@SaxtonAnnuRef1997; @Dahan17102003] or to understand the microrheological properties of complex liquids [@PhysRevLett.90.108301; @PhysRevLett.79.3282]. But also the observation of three-dimensional paths becomes feasible [@NanoLett.7.11; @An.Chem.80.24; @spille2012]. The statistical analysis of these trajectories is usually accomplished by measuring the mean square displacement (msd) in order to get the diffusion coefficients for the matching theoretical description. However, in the anisotropic case the diffusive properties depend on the direction of motion and are described by a diffusion tensor. In such systems, the analysis of msds turned out to be not sufficient to determine the anisotropy and extract the values of the diffusion coefficients [@PhysRevE.75.021112; @kaerger2012; @hanasaki2012]. For similar reasons, we already introduced the distribution of single-particle diffusivities as an advanced method to analyze stochastic motion in heterogeneous systems [@bauer2011] involving more than one diffusion coefficient. It should be noted that this distribution is closely related to the displacement distribution [@hellriegel2005; @hoefling2013]. However, the distribution of diffusivities is superior since it is stationary for time-homogeneous diffusion processes. Thus, experiments conducted on different time scales can be compared easily. Furthermore, this new method was extended to the distribution of generalized diffusivities to characterize data from anomalous diffusion processes, which offers, for instance, a deeper understanding of weak ergodicity breaking [@albers2013].
In the current article, we show the applicability of the distribution of diffusivities to analyze trajectories of homogeneous anisotropic Brownian motion. We present the properties of the distribution as well as their relations to established quantities. In order to assess the parameters of the process, we calculate the characteristic function, cumulants and moments of the distribution. For the asymptotic decay of the distribution of diffusivities, we derive a general expression, which involves the largest diffusion coefficient of the system. In conjunction with the mean diffusion coefficient of the system, the asymptotic decay enables a data-based distinction between isotropic and anisotropic processes. Based on these quantities, we provide a measure to characterize the anisotropy of the process from the analysis of SPT data. Since in experiments the reconstruction of the complete diffusion tensor is of great interest, we extend our concept to tensorial diffusivities, which offer a simple method to determine the entries of the tensor.
Due to restrictions in SPT experiments the complete trajectory is often not accessible [@hellriegel2005; @schulz2010]. Hence, we investigate the influence on the distribution of diffusivities and the detection of the anisotropy if only projections of the actual trajectory are observed. Even in such cases it is possible to estimate bounds of the diffusion coefficients from the given projections of the diffusion tensor. Since especially two-dimensional and three-dimensional diffusion processes have a high relevance in experiments we apply our considerations to these systems. For homogeneous anisotropic diffusion in two dimensions an analytical expression of the distribution of diffusivities exists and its moments can be related to the diffusion coefficients, which enter the anisotropy measure. Moreover, we explain the details of reconstructing the diffusion tensor from the tensorial diffusivities as well as from projections of the trajectory. Three-dimensional processes are investigated analogously although a closed-form expression of the distribution of diffusivities does not exist. Additionally, we deal with anisotropic processes where one diffusion coefficient is degenerated corresponding to diffusion of uniaxial molecules typical for liquid crystalline systems [@deGennes_B95].
The paper is organized as follows. In [Sec. \[sec:Definition\]]{}, we briefly recall the theoretical principles of anisotropic Brownian motion based on the diffusion tensor and introduce the distribution of single-particle diffusivities, its properties and relations to established quantities. To apply our new concepts to $N$-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic diffusion processes, we provide in [Sec. \[sec:properties\]]{} a general expression for the distribution of diffusivities. We demonstrate how to distinguish between isotropic and anisotropic processes and explain the reconstruction of the diffusion tensor. Since in experiments typically a projection of the motion is observed we characterize the distribution of diffusivities of the projected trajectories. Finally, in [Sec. \[sec:Specific systems\]]{}, we apply our results to specific systems of anisotropic diffusion which are typical for experimental setups. We substantiate the applicability of our findings by analyzing data from simulated anisotropic diffusion processes.
\[sec:Definition\]Definitions
=============================
\[sec:definitions anisotropic diffusion\]Anisotropic diffusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
An $N$-dimensional anisotropic Brownian motion is completely defined by its propagator [@Risken1989] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:n-propagator}
p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}, t| {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}' , t') = & \frac{(2 \pi)^{-\frac{N}{2}}}{\sqrt{[2 (t-t')]^N \det{{{\bf D}}}}} \nonumber\\
& \times\exp\left[-{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2(t-t')}({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}- {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}'){\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}{{\bf D}}^{-1} ({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}- {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}')\right]\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf D}} = {{\bf O}}{\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}{{\bf O}}$ is the positive definite and symmetric diffusion tensor, ${\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}= \operatorname*{diag}(D_1, D_2, \dotsc, D_N)$ denotes its diagonalized form with the diffusion coefficients $D_{i}$ belonging to the principal axes, and ${{\bf O}}$ is an orthogonal matrix which describes the orientation of the principal axes relative to the frame of reference.
For the simulation of such processes an alternative description exists, where the trajectories are evolved by the Langevin equation $$\label{eqn:langevin-nd}
{\frac{{\ensuremath{\text{d}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}}}}{{\ensuremath{\text{d}t}}}} = \sqrt{ 2 {{\bf D}} } {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\xi}}}}(t)$$ with $\sqrt{{{\bf D}}} = {{\bf O}}{\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}\sqrt{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}{{\bf O}}$ and $\sqrt{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}} = \operatorname*{diag}(\sqrt{D_1}, \sqrt{D_2}, \dotsc, \sqrt{D_N})$. The vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\xi}}}}(t) = [\xi_{1}(t),\dotsc,\xi_{N}(t)]{\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}$ denotes Gaussian white noise in $N$ dimensions with ${\ensuremath{\left\langle{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\xi}}}}(t)\right\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{0}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\langle\xi_i(t) \xi_j(t')\right\rangle}} = \delta_{i j}\delta(t-t') \,\forall\, i,j \in \{1,2,\dotsc,N\}$.
Assuming time-translation invariance [Eq. (\[eqn:n-propagator\])]{} is simplified to the probability density $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}' + {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}, \tau \vert {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}')$ of displacements ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}= {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}-{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}'$ by substituting $\tau = t-t'$. This conditional probability density is averaged by the equilibrium distribution $p_{0}({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}')$ given by the Boltzmann distribution to obtain the ensemble-averaged probability density $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:distribution of displacements}
p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau) &= \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}^{N}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}'}}}\;} p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}' + {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}, \tau \vert {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}') p_{0}({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}') \nonumber\\
&= \frac{(2 \pi)^{-\frac{N}{2}}}{\sqrt{\det {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}} \exp\left(-{\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}{\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}^{-1}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ of a displacement ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}= (r_{1},\dotsc,r_{N}){\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}$ in the time interval $\tau$. Thus, $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)$ is an $N$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with zero mean and covariance tensor ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}} = 2 \tau {{\bf D}}$.
Expressions with dimensionality $N > 3$ may be interesting for simultaneous diffusion of $d$ particles corresponding to an extended many-particle state space ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}_{1}, \dotsc, {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}_{d})$.
\[sec:definitions distribution of diffusivities\]Distribution of diffusivities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By observing a trajectory ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}(t)$ of an arbitrary stochastic process in $N$ dimensions individual displacements during a given time lag $\tau$ can simply be measured for a certain particle. Moreover, it is natural to relate each displacement to a single-particle diffusivity $$\label{eqn:single-particle diffusivity}
{\ensuremath{D_{t}(\tau)}}= \frac{[{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}(t+\tau)-{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}(t)]^{2}}{2N \tau}
\text{.}$$ This simple transformation of displacements to diffusivities offers the advantage to compare these quantities for different experimental setups and different $\tau$. Since for a fixed time lag $\tau$ the single-particle diffusivity is fluctuating along a trajectory an important quantity is given by the probability density $p(D)$. Therefore, the distribution of single-particle diffusivities [@bauer2011] is defined as $$\label{eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities}
p(D,\tau) = {\ensuremath{\left\langle{\ensuremath{\delta\left[D-{\ensuremath{D_{t}(\tau)}}\right]}}\right\rangle}}
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\left\langle\dotso\right\rangle}}$ either denotes a time average ${\ensuremath{\left\langle\dotso\right\rangle}} = \lim_{T \to \infty} 1/T \int_{0}^{T} \dotso {\ensuremath{\text{d}t}}$, which is typically accessible by SPT, or an ensemble average as measured by other experimental methods, such as nuclear magnetic resonance [@price2009]. For ergodic systems, as considered here, time average and ensemble average coincide. It should be noted that other definitions of diffusivity distributions exist in the literature [@saxton1997].
For time-homogeneous systems, i.e., when the distribution of displacements $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)$ is independent of $t$, [Eq. (\[eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities\])]{} can be rewritten as $$\label{eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities in stationary case}
p(D,\tau) = \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}^{N}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}}}}\;} \delta\left(D - \frac{{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^2}{2 N \tau}\right) p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)$$ transforming $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)$ into the distribution of diffusivities.
For data from SPT experiments, displacements from a trajectory are transformed to diffusivities according to [Eq. (\[eqn:single-particle diffusivity\])]{} and the distribution of diffusivities is obtained by binning these diffusivities into a normalized histogram according to [Eq. (\[eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities\])]{}.
For homogeneous isotropic processes in $N$ dimensions the msd grows linearly with $\tau$, since it obeys the well-known Einstein relation ${\ensuremath{\left\langler^2(\tau)\right\rangle}} = 2 N D_c \tau$, where $D_c$ is the diffusion coefficient of the process. Due to the transformation of displacements to diffusivities by [Eq. (\[eqn:single-particle diffusivity\])]{} the linear dependence on $\tau$ is removed. Hence, the corresponding distribution of diffusivities becomes stationary and comprises single-particle diffusivities fluctuating around $D_c$. For $N$-dimensional homogeneous isotropic processes the distribution of diffusivities $$\label{eqn:dod homogeneous isotropic system in n dimensions}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{D_c}}}(D) = \left(\frac{N}{2 D_c}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}} \frac{D^{\frac{N}{2}-1}}{\Gamma(\frac{N}{2})} \exp\left(-\frac{N}{2 D_c} D\right)$$ is obtained, where $\Gamma(x)$ denotes the gamma function. This distribution is identified as a $\chi^2$-distribution of $N$ degrees of freedom and results directly from the sum of the squares of $N$ independent and identically distributed Gaussian random variables with variance $D_c/N$ and vanishing mean. Since these variables are the squared and rescaled components of the displacement vector $r_i^2(\tau)/(2 N \tau)$, their sum corresponds to the diffusivity.
For inhomogeneous isotropic diffusion processes which are ergodic [Eq. (\[eqn:dod homogeneous isotropic system in n dimensions\])]{} provides a further useful application. Since for normal diffusion in $N$ dimensions the Einstein relation holds for large $\tau$, $p(D,\tau)$ converges to the stationary distribution given by [Eq. (\[eqn:dod homogeneous isotropic system in n dimensions\])]{}. In this case, $D_c$ is the mean diffusion coefficient of the process.
\[sec:definitions general moments\]Moments
------------------------------------------
The distribution of diffusivities is fully characterized by its corresponding moments $$\label{eqn:moments of dod}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{M_{m}}}}}(\tau) = {\ensuremath{\left\langleD(\tau)^{m}\right\rangle}} = \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}D}}}\;} D^{m}\,p(D,\tau)
\text{.}$$ It should be noted that the first moment for large $\tau$ is known as the mean diffusion coefficient, which is obtained by a well-defined integration. This is in contrast to msd measurements, where the mean diffusion coefficient is determined by a numerical fit to the slope of the msd. By inserting [Eq. (\[eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities in stationary case\])]{} into [Eq. (\[eqn:moments of dod\])]{} the integration over $D$ yields as a result the moments $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{M_{m}}}}}(\tau) &=& \frac{1}{(2 N \tau)^m}\int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}^{N}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}}}}\;} {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^{2m} p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau) \nonumber\\
&=& (2 N \tau)^{-m} {\ensuremath{\left\langle{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^{2m}\right\rangle}}
\label{eqn:moments of dod related to moments of propagator}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ They are directly related to the moments of the distribution of displacements and, thus, to the moments of the propagator $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}, t| {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}' , t')$.
\[sec:properties\]Properties of the distribution of diffusivities for homogeneous anisotropic Brownian motion
=============================================================================================================
\[sec:distribution\]Distribution of diffusivities
-------------------------------------------------
For homogeneous anisotropic diffusion in $N$ dimensions, where $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)$ is a Gaussian distribution with zero mean given by [Eq. (\[eqn:distribution of displacements\])]{}, the computation of the distribution of diffusivities, its moments, or its characteristic function is simplified by reformulating the integral of [Eq. (\[eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities in stationary case\])]{}. Applying the coordinate transformation ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}= {{\bf Q}} {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{q}}}}$ with ${{\bf Q}} = \sqrt{2 \tau} {{\bf O}}{\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}\sqrt{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}$ gives for the distribution of diffusivities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:transformation of dod}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) = & \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}q_1}}}\;} \dotsi \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}q_N}}}\;} \nonumber\\
& \times \delta\left(D - \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} D_i q_i^2\right) \prod_{j=1}^{N} p_{(0,1)}(q_j)
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{(0,1)}(q_j) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp(-{\frac{1}{2}}q_j^2)$. Thus, the distribution of diffusivities is calculated by integration over independent standard normally distributed variables with zero mean and unit variance. Since the msd for homogeneous anisotropic diffusion again grows linearly as in the homogeneous isotropic case, the $\tau$ dependency in the distribution of diffusivities vanishes.
By obtaining the distribution of diffusivities, for instance, from displacements along a single trajectory, information about the orientation of the diffusion tensor is lost. However, all directions contribute to the distribution and, thus, it still contains information about the diffusion coefficients corresponding to the principal axes, i.e., the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$.
\[sec:characteristic function\]Characteristic function, cumulants and moments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the transformation [Eq. (\[eqn:transformation of dod\])]{}, the moments and the characteristic function of the distribution of diffusivities of anisotropic Brownian motion can be calculated. For the moments, given by [Eq. (\[eqn:moments of dod\])]{}, this yields $$\label{eqn:general moments of dod}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{M_{m}}}}}^{N\text{d}} = \frac{1}{N^m} \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}q_1}}}\;} \dotsi \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}q_N}}}\;} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N} D_i q_i^2\right)^m \prod_{j=1}^{N} p_{(0,1)}(q_j)
\text{.}$$ So, for instance, the first moment of the distribution of diffusivities is given by $$\label{eqn:general first moment of dod}
{\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^{N\text{d}} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} D_{i} = {\ensuremath{\left\langleD(\tau)\right\rangle}}
\text{,}$$ which is simply the arithmetic mean of all the diffusion coefficients $D_{i}$ and coincides with the slope of the msd. For higher moments of the distribution of diffusivities, it is easier to calculate its characteristic function ${\ensuremath{G^{N\text{d}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(k) = {\ensuremath{\left\langle\exp({\ensuremath{\text{i}}}k D)\right\rangle}} = \int_{0}^{\infty} {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}D}}}\;} \exp({\ensuremath{\text{i}}}k D) {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D)$ by substituting ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D)$ from [Eq. (\[eqn:transformation of dod\])]{} and performing the Fourier transform to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:general characteristic function}
{\ensuremath{G^{N\text{d}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(k) & = \prod_{j=1}^{N} \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}q_j}}}\;} \exp\left({\ensuremath{\text{i}}}k \frac{D_j q_j^2}{N}\right) p_{(0,1)}(q_j) \nonumber\\
& = \prod_{j=1}^{N} \left(1- {\ensuremath{\text{i}}}k \frac{2 D_j}{N}\right)^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$
From the characteristic function [Eq. (\[eqn:general characteristic function\])]{} the cumulants of the distribution ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D)$ are obtained as $$\label{eqn:general cumulants}
\kappa_m = \left.\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\text{i}}}^m} \frac{\partial^m \ln {\ensuremath{G^{N\text{d}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(k)}{\partial k^m}\right|_{k=0}
= \frac{2^{m-1}(m-1)!}{N^m} \sum_{i=1}^N D_i^m$$ for $m>0$. The moments are recursively related to the cumulants by $$\label{eqn:relation_cumulants_moments}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{M_{m}}}}}= \sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\binom{m-1}{k} \kappa_{m-k} {\ensuremath{M_{k}}}$$ with initial value ${\ensuremath{M_{0}}} = 1$ [@Smith1995].
It should be noted that the characteristic function in [Eq. (\[eqn:general characteristic function\])]{} is a product of different characteristic functions in Fourier space. Hence, the distribution of diffusivities of an $N$-dimensional anisotropic system is determined by inverse Fourier transform of the characteristic function ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[{\ensuremath{G^{N\text{d}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(k)\right]}} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\prod_{i=1}^{N} {\ensuremath{G^{1\text{d}}_{D_i/N}}}(k)\right]}}$, where ${\ensuremath{G^{1\text{d}}_{D_i/N}}}(k) = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}\left[{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_i/N}}}(D)\right]}}$ is the Fourier transform of the one-dimensional distribution of diffusivities ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_i/N}}}(D) = 1/\sqrt{2\pi D D_i/N} \exp\left(-N D/(2 D_i)\right)$ with diffusion coefficient $D_i/N$. Correspondingly, the distribution of diffusivities of an $N$-dimensional anisotropic system is obtained by convolution of $N$ one-dimensional distributions of diffusivities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dod_via_convolution}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) = & \{{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_1/N}}} \ast {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_2/N}}} \ast \dotsm \ast {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_N/N}}}\}(D) \nonumber\\
= & \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_1}}}\;} \dotsi \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_N}}}\;} \nonumber\\
& \times \delta\left(D - \sum_{i=1}^{N}\Delta_i\right) \prod_{j=1}^{N} {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_j/N}}}(\Delta_j)
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$ which follows directly from [Eq. (\[eqn:transformation of dod\])]{}. Thus, with [Eqs. (\[eqn:transformation of dod\]), (\[eqn:general characteristic function\]) and (\[eqn:dod\_via\_convolution\])]{}, we provide three equivalent expressions to determine the distribution of diffusivities in terms of the eigenvalues $D_i$ of ${{\bf D}}$. Depending on the considered experimental system each representation offers its own advantages.
\[sec:asymptotic decay\]Asymptotic decay
----------------------------------------
In the following, we present the asymptotic behavior of the distribution of diffusivities for homogeneous anisotropic Brownian motion. We show how the anisotropy of the process can be identified.
Considering an ${M}$-fold degeneracy of the largest diffusion coefficient with $D_1 = \dotsb = D_{M}> D_{{M}+1} \geq \dotsb \geq D_{N}$ the distribution of diffusivities of the homogeneous anisotropic system is obtained from the convolution $$\label{eqn:dod from convolution for degeneracy of largest diffusion coefficient}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) = \{{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{{M}\text{d}}}}_{D_1/N}}} \ast {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_{({M}+1)}/N}}} \ast \dotsm \ast {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_N/N}}}\}(D)
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{{M}\text{d}}}}_{D_1/N}}}(D)$ is the distribution of diffusivities of the ${M}$-dimensional isotropic system [Eq. (\[eqn:dod homogeneous isotropic system in n dimensions\])]{} with diffusion coefficient $D_c = D_1/N$, which results from the convolution of ${M}$ identical one-dimensional distributions ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_1/N}}}(D)$.
For $D \gg D_1 D_{{M}+1}/(D_1-D_{{M}+1})$ an asymptotic expansion for large $D$ is performed and yields the asymptotic behavior of [Eq. (\[eqn:dod from convolution for degeneracy of largest diffusion coefficient\])]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:asymptotic_Nd_aniso}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim}
& \left(\frac{N}{2 D_1}\right)^{\frac{{M}}{2}} \frac{D^{\frac{{M}}{2}-1}}{\Gamma(\frac{{M}}{2})} \nonumber\\
& \times \exp\left(-\frac{N}{2 D_1} D\right) \prod_{j={M}+1}^{N} \sqrt{\frac{D_1}{D_1-D_j}}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the leading behavior in the logarithmic representation is given by $$\label{eqn:log_asymptotic_Nd_aniso}
\log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{N\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim} -\frac{N}{2 {\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}} D
\text{,}$$ with ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}= \max(D_1, D_2, \dotsc, D_N)$, i.e., an exponential decay involving the largest diffusion coefficient of the anisotropic system.
In homogeneous isotropic systems ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}$, which describes the asymptotic decay, is equal to the isotropic diffusion coefficient $D_c$, which further coincides with the first moment ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}$. The corresponding distribution of diffusivities is a $\chi^2$-distribution given by [Eq. (\[eqn:dod homogeneous isotropic system in n dimensions\])]{}. This is in contrast to the anisotropic case, where ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}< {\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}$. Thus, a discrepancy between ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}$ leads to deviations from the $\chi^2$-distribution and rules out a homogeneous isotropic process. In general, this can be exploited to detect that the observed system comprises more than one diffusion coefficient. By further assuming homogeneity such a system is identified as an anisotropic one.
A quantitative measure for the discrepancy between ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}$ is given by $$\label{eqn:anisotropy measure from asymptotic decays}
{\ensuremath{\eta}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}}{{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}} - 1$$ which characterizes the deviation from the homogeneous isotropic case. Thus, for homogeneous systems it quantifies the anisotropy of the process. In cases where both values coincide, i.e., the system is isotropic, ${\ensuremath{\eta}}$ becomes zero. In contrast, if one diffusion coefficient is much larger than all others, ${\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}} \to {\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}/N$ resulting in ${\ensuremath{\eta}}= N-1$, which denotes the largest possible anisotropy in $N$ dimensions. Thus, ${\ensuremath{\eta}}$ is a measure of the anisotropy, but it is not suitable to compare systems of different dimensionality $N$. It should be noted that similar measures exist [@Hess1991; @PhysRevE.75.021112].
From experimental data, both quantities for the anisotropy measure [Eq. (\[eqn:anisotropy measure from asymptotic decays\])]{} can be determined easily. The mean diffusion coefficient ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}$ corresponds to the first moment of the distribution of diffusivities and is obtained by averaging the diffusivities. The decay for large $D$ is obtained from a fit to $f(D) = c \exp(-\lambda_\text{fit} D)$ to calculate ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}= N/(2 \lambda_\text{fit})$. The actual dimensionality ${\ensuremath{N_\text{eff}}}$ of processes observed in $N \geq {\ensuremath{N_\text{eff}}}$ dimensions can be estimated with ${\ensuremath{N_\text{eff}}}= 2 {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}\lambda_\text{fit}$ leading to ${\ensuremath{\eta}}= N/{\ensuremath{N_\text{eff}}}-1$. For example, if an observed $N$-dimensional motion yields the largest anisotropy value of ${\ensuremath{\eta}}= N-1$, the process is effectively a one-dimensional motion.
\[sec:general reconstruction\]Reconstruction of the diffusion tensor
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For experiments it is of great interest to reconstruct the diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$ from measurements. If complete information about the trajectories is available, the diffusion tensor of the homogeneous anisotropic process can be estimated via the displacements. By defining tensorial diffusivities analogously to [Eq. (\[eqn:single-particle diffusivity\])]{} $$\label{eqn:tensorial diffusivities}
D^{ij}_t(\tau) = \frac{[x_i(t+\tau)-x_i(t)][x_j(t+\tau)-x_j(t)]}{2 \tau}
\text{,}$$ where $x_{i}(t)$ denotes the $i$-th component of the $N$-dimensional trajectory ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}}}(t)$, the linear $\tau$ dependence of the mixed displacements is removed. These tensorial diffusivities are simply averaged $$\label{eqn:tensor estimation}
D_{ij} = {\ensuremath{\left\langleD^{ij}_t(\tau)\right\rangle}}$$ providing an estimator for the corresponding elements of ${{\bf D}}$. Here, ${\ensuremath{\left\langle\dotso\right\rangle}}$ either denotes a time average or an ensemble average depending on the available data.
\[sec:Projection\]Projection to an M-dimensional subspace
=========================================================
Due to experimental restrictions the complete trajectory is often not accessible but its projection on an $M$-dimensional subspace can be measured. Such processes are commonly known as observed diffusion [@dembo1986; @campillo1989].
The projection of the distribution of displacements [Eq. (\[eqn:distribution of displacements\])]{} on the considered subspace is the marginal probability density $$\label{eqn:projected_distribution of displacements}
p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}},\tau) = \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}r_{\alpha_{1}}}}}\;} \dotsi \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}r_{\alpha_{N-M}}}}}\;} p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)
\text{,}$$ where $r_{\alpha_{i}}, i = 1,\dotsc,(N-M)$ denotes $(N-M)$ arbitrarily chosen directions which are integrated out. The vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}} = \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_1 & \dotso & \alpha_{N-M}\end{pmatrix}$ contains the indices $\alpha_{i}$ describing which elements of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}$ are omitted. Alternatively, the projected distribution of displacements is computed by the $M$-dimensional inverse Fourier transform of the characteristic function of $p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}},\tau)$ where the components, $k_{\alpha_{i}}=0,\, \forall i \in \{1,\dotsc,N-M\}$, which correspond to the chosen directions, are discarded. Hence, the distribution of displacements of the subspace is $$\label{eqn:projected distribution of displacements via Fourier transform of characteristic function}
p({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}},\tau) = \int {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}^{M}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}}}}\;} \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{M}}\exp\left[-{\ensuremath{\text{i}}}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}){\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}\right] G({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}})$$ with the characteristic function of the projected propagator $G({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}) = \exp\bigl[- ({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}){\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}\bigr]$. The vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{k}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}$ is an $M$-dimensional sub-vector of the complete $k$-space and ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}}}$ denotes a principal $M \times M$ submatrix of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}$ obtained by deletion of rows and columns with corresponding indices $\alpha_i$.
The distribution of diffusivities of such a projected diffusion process is calculated analogously to [Eq. (\[eqn:definition of distribution of diffusivities in stationary case\])]{} by integrating over ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}$. Since ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}} = 2 \tau {{\bf D}}$ is a symmetric, positive definite matrix for $\tau > 0$, all principal submatrices ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}}}$ are symmetric, positive definite matrices as well and can be diagonalized. Hence, the projected distribution of diffusivities has the $M$-dimensional form of the generic expression [Eq. (\[eqn:transformation of dod\]), (\[eqn:general characteristic function\]) or (\[eqn:dod\_via\_convolution\])]{}. However, it depends on the eigenvalues $D^M_{k,{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}, k = 1,\dotsc,M$ of the projected diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}} = {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}}}/(2 \tau)$. If the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$ are identified as $$\label{eqn:relation of eigenvalues}
D_1 \geq D_2 \geq \dotsb \geq D_N$$ and the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}^{N-1}_{{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \alpha \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}$ are $$\label{eqn:relation of eigenvalues of submatrix}
D^{N-1}_{1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \alpha \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}} \geq D^{N-1}_{2,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \alpha \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}} \geq \dotsb \geq D^{N-1}_{N-1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \alpha \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}},\; \forall \alpha \in \{1,\dotsc,N\} \text{,}$$ the well-known interlacing inequalities [@Cauchy1829] require $$\label{eqn:cauchy interlacing inequalities}
D_k \geq D^{N-1}_{k,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \alpha \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}} \geq D_{k+1},\; \forall k \in \{1,\dotsc,N-1\}$$ for all $\alpha \in \{1,\dotsc,N\}$. This expression is applied recursively (N-M) times to obtain a relation for the eigenvalues of the principal $M\times M$ submatrix [@Fan1957] $$D_k \geq D^M_{k,{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}} \geq D_{k+N-M},\; \forall k \in \{1,\dotsc,M\}$$ for arbitrary ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}$. By implication, if at least two eigenvalues of the submatrix ${{\bf D}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}$ differ, i.e., the projected process is anisotropic, [Eq. (\[eqn:cauchy interlacing inequalities\])]{} states recursively that the complete process is anisotropic as well. Thus, the distribution of diffusivities of the projected $N$-dimensional anisotropic Brownian motion may already indicate the anisotropy of the complete process as well as the magnitude of one of the involved diffusion coefficients. However, a single projection is not sufficient to obtain the underlying diffusion coefficients.
Nevertheless, it is possible to estimate the bounds of the diffusion coefficients. The lower bound of the eigenvalues is given by zero, due to the positive semidefiniteness of ${{\bf D}}$. An upper bound for the largest eigenvalue can be found if enough projections or submatrices are available to comprise all diagonal elements of ${{\bf D}}$. By use of the relation between the trace of an $N\times N$ matrix ${{\bf A}}$ and its eigenvalues $\lambda_i$, $\operatorname*{tr}{{\bf A}} = \sum_i \lambda_i$, subtotals of the trace of ${{\bf D}}$ are given by the sum of the eigenvalues of the respective submatrices. If the non-overlapping orthogonal projections of ${{\bf D}}$ defined by ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}$ compose a partition of the set $\{1,\dotsc,N\}$, the trace of the tensor is given by $$\operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}} = \sum_{i=1}^N D_i = \sum_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}} \operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}}^M_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}} = \sum_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}} \sum_k D^M_{k,{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}}$$ with $\dot{\bigcup} {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}} = \{1,\dotsc,N\}$, where the partition elements ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}$ do not necessarily have identical dimensionality.
For example, if one measures the eigenvalues of two non-overlapping projections of a $3 \times 3$ diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$, the trace of ${{\bf D}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}} & = \operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}}^1_{{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}} + \operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}}^2_{{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}} \nonumber\\
& = D_{1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^1 + D_{1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^2 + D_{2,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^2
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the eigenvalue inequalities for that example using the relations above are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}} \geq & D_1 \geq \max(D_{1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^1, D_{1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^2) \geq D_2 \nonumber \\
D_2 \geq & \min(D_{1,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^1, D_{2,{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}}}^2) \geq D_3 \geq 0
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$ which allows a rough estimation of the diffusion coefficients from the given projections.
\[sec:Specific systems\]Specific systems
========================================
\[sec:Anisotropy2d\]Two-dimensional systems
-------------------------------------------
The distribution of diffusivities of a two-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic system can be calculated explicitly, for instance, via [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_via\_convolution\])]{}, resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dod_2d_aniso}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) =& \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_1}} \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_2}}}\;} \delta\left[D-(\Delta_1+\Delta_2)\right] \nonumber\\
&\times {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_1/2}}}(\Delta_1) {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_2/2}}}(\Delta_2) \nonumber\\
=& \frac{\exp\left[-{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{1}{D_1}+\frac{1}{D_2}\right) D\right]}{\sqrt{D_1D_2}} {\ensuremath{I_{0}}}\left[{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{1}{D_1}-\frac{1}{D_2}\right) D \right]\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{I_{0}}}(x)$ denotes the modified Bessel function of the first kind. The first two moments of this distribution, as given by [Eq. (\[eqn:moments of dod\])]{}, yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:first moment of 2d anisotropic system}
{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{M_{1}}} = \frac{1}{2}(D_1+D_2)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:second moment of 2d anisotropic system}
{\ensuremath{\left\langleD^2\right\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{M_{2}}} = \frac{1}{4}(3 D_1^2+2D_1D_2+3D_2^2)
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the mean diffusion coefficient coincides with the arithmetic mean of the diffusion coefficients belonging to the two directions of the anisotropic system as expected from [Eq. (\[eqn:general first moment of dod\])]{}. Solving the simultaneous [Eqs. (\[eqn:first moment of 2d anisotropic system\]) and (\[eqn:second moment of 2d anisotropic system\])]{} yields the expression $$\label{eqn:eigenvalues2d}
D_{1,2} = {\ensuremath{M_{1}}} \pm \sqrt{{\ensuremath{M_{2}}} - 2 {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2}$$ to obtain the diffusion coefficients $D_1$ and $D_2$ from the moments.
![\[fig:dod of 2d anisotropic diffusion\]The distribution of diffusivities (histogram) from a simulated trajectory of a homogeneous anisotropic diffusion process in two dimensions with diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$ given by [Eq. (\[eqn:simulation\_tensor\_2d\])]{} agrees well with the analytic distribution of diffusivities (solid line) from [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_2d\_aniso\])]{} with $D_1 = 5$ and $D_2 = 1$ denoting the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$. Additionally, the asymptotic function [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_2d\_aniso\])]{} (dotted line, ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}=5$) agrees reasonably for large $D$. Furthermore, a distribution of diffusivities (dashed line) of two-dimensional isotropic diffusion with the same mean diffusion coefficient $D_c = {\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}} = (D_1+ D_2)/2 = 3$ is shown for comparison. The different asymptotic decays are clearly visible and allow the distinction from homogeneous isotropic processes.](images/static_tensor_2d_Comparison_dod)
The asymptotic behavior of [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_2d\_aniso\])]{} for large $D$ is given by [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_Nd\_aniso\])]{} and yields $$\label{eqn:asymptotic_2d_aniso}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim} \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{D}{{\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}}\right)}{\sqrt{{\ensuremath{\left\lvertD_1-D_2\right\rvert}} \pi D}}$$ with ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}= \max(D_1,D_2)$. Thus, the asymptotic behavior in the logarithmic representation is given by $$\label{eqn:log_asymptotic_2d_aniso}
\log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim} -\frac{D}{{\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}}
\text{,}$$ which corresponds to the decay of the distribution of diffusivities in two-dimensional homogeneous isotropic systems with diffusion coefficient ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}$, i.e., an exponential decay with the largest diffusion coefficient of the anisotropic system. Accordingly, the smallest diffusion coefficient is given by $2{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}-{\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}$. From the asymptotic decay and the mean diffusion coefficient the anisotropy of the system is characterized by [Eq. (\[eqn:anisotropy measure from asymptotic decays\])]{} and corresponds to the ratio $$\label{eqn:ratio characterizing anisotropy}
{\ensuremath{\eta}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{\left\lvertD_1-D_2\right\rvert}}}{D_1+D_2} = \frac{\sqrt{{\ensuremath{M_{2}}} - 2 {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2}}{{\ensuremath{M_{1}}}}
\text{,}$$ which is also related to the moments.
The diffusion coefficients $D_1, D_2$ can also be obtained from the asymptotic behavior for vanishing $D$. Since $$\label{eqn:asymptotic behavior for D to 0}
\lim_{D \to 0} {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) = (D_1 D_2)^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}
\text{,}$$ the corresponding value in experimental data is determined by extrapolating the distribution of diffusivities in a log-log plot towards $D = 0$. In conjunction with an estimate of the largest diffusion coefficient from a fit to [Eq. (\[eqn:log\_asymptotic\_2d\_aniso\])]{} both diffusion coefficients can be identified. This provides a consistency check for the calculation via the moments of the distribution of diffusivities given in [Eq. (\[eqn:ratio characterizing anisotropy\])]{}.
To substantiate our analytical expressions by results from simulations, a random walk was performed by numerical integration of the Langevin equation, [Eq. (\[eqn:langevin-nd\])]{}, in two dimensions using the diffusion tensor $$\label{eqn:simulation_tensor_2d}
{{\bf D}} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 4 & \sqrt{3} \\ \sqrt{3} & 2\end{array}\right)$$ with eigenvalues $D_{1} = 5$ and $D_{2} = 1$. The obtained trajectory of the two-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic diffusion process consisted of $10^5$ displacements and its distribution of diffusivities is depicted in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 2d anisotropic diffusion\]]{}. The agreement of the normalized histogram from simulated data with the analytic distribution [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_2d\_aniso\])]{} is obvious. Deviations between simulation and the analytic curve for large $D$ are due to insufficient statistics from the finite number of displacements. Moreover, [Fig. \[fig:dod of 2d anisotropic diffusion\]]{} shows the mono-exponential behavior corresponding to isotropic diffusion in two dimensions for comparison. Although the mean diffusion coefficients of both processes coincide, the asymptotic decays of the distributions differ. The reason is the asymptotic behavior given by [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_2d\_aniso\])]{} in the anisotropic case which decays exponentially with the largest eigenvalue for large $D$ as depicted in the figure. In contrast, for the isotropic system the asymptotic decay corresponds to the mean diffusion coefficient resulting in the observed quantitative difference. Furthermore, the distributions are qualitatively different for small $D$. A characteristic difference between isotropic and anisotropic systems is the convex shape in the logarithmic representation of the anisotropic distribution of diffusivities. This intuitively results from the two different exponential decays related to the distinct diffusion coefficients $D_1$ and $D_2$. In a more rigorous way, since $\frac{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}^2}{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}D^2}\log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \geq 0$, with the equal sign being valid only for isotropic diffusion, the anisotropic distribution of diffusivities is a superconvex function [@kingman1961].
For experimental data, it is easy to calculate the first two moments ${\ensuremath{M_{1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{M_{2}}}$ by averaging the short-time diffusivities of [Eq. (\[eqn:single-particle diffusivity\])]{} and their squares, respectively. The averaging is accomplished either along a single trajectory or from an ensemble of trajectories avoiding any numerical fit. The first two moments are sufficient to calculate $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ by [Eq. (\[eqn:eigenvalues2d\])]{}.
For the sample trajectory used in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 2d anisotropic diffusion\]]{} the first two moments are determined to be ${\ensuremath{\tilde{{\ensuremath{M_{1}}}}}} = 2.987$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{{\ensuremath{M_{2}}}}}} = 21.72$. According to [Eq. (\[eqn:eigenvalues2d\])]{}, the underlying diffusion coefficients yield ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1} = 4.956$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2} = 1.018$. These values agree well with the eigenvalues of the tensor [Eq. (\[eqn:simulation\_tensor\_2d\])]{}, which was used as input parameter of the simulation. The resulting value of ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=2/3$ indicates a considerable anisotropy of the process.
### \[sec:limits Anisotropy2d\]Limiting cases
In the case of identical diffusion coefficients for both directions the anisotropy vanishes as discussed for [Eq. (\[eqn:ratio characterizing anisotropy\])]{}. The resulting isotropic diffusion process is characterized by a single diffusion coefficient $D_c = D_1 = D_2$. Hence, [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_2d\_aniso\])]{} simplifies to the well-known distribution of single-particle diffusivities of two-dimensional isotropic diffusion [@bauer2011] $$\label{eqn:homogeneous dod in 2d}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{D_c}}}(D) = \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{D}{D_c}\right)}{D_c}$$ given by an exponential function.
If, on the contrary, the anisotropy is large, diffusion in one direction will be suppressed. Without loss of generality, this is accomplished by sending one of the diffusion coefficients to zero. Thus, by taking the limit of vanishing $D_2$, the distribution of diffusivities [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_2d\_aniso\])]{} is simplified to $$\label{eqn:homogeneous dod equal to 1d with half diffusion coefficient}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_1}}}(D) = \lim_{D_2 \to 0} {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{2\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) = \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{D}{D_1}\right)}{\sqrt{\pi D_1 D}}
\text{,}$$ which has the structure of the distribution of diffusivities of one-dimensional diffusion [@bauer2011]. Since diffusion into the perpendicular direction is prohibited, as expected, it qualitatively leads to the observation of a one-dimensional process. This can be identified by the characteristic factor $D^{-1/2}$ due to which the distribution of diffusivities diverges for small $D$. Applying [Eq. (\[eqn:moments of dod\])]{} the first moment of [Eq. (\[eqn:homogeneous dod equal to 1d with half diffusion coefficient\])]{}, i.e., the mean diffusion coefficient, yields ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}}}}= D_1/2$. The factor of $1/2$ results from the single-particle diffusivities [Eq. (\[eqn:single-particle diffusivity\])]{} with $N=2$ assuming that a two-dimensional process is observed. However, due to the suppression of one direction this assumption is no longer valid and $N=1$ should have been used instead. This conclusion is also obtained from the anisotropy value ${\ensuremath{\eta}}= 1$, which is equal to its maximum value for two-dimensional anisotropic processes since effectively one-dimensional motion is observed.
### \[sec:projected2dto1d\]Reconstruction of D
In addition to the eigenvalues, it is sometimes of interest to determine the orientation of the principal axes of the system relative to the given frame of reference. This is achieved by the reconstruction of the diffusion tensor $${{\bf D}} = \begin{pmatrix} D_{11} & D_{12} \\ D_{12} & D_{22}\end{pmatrix}
\text{,}$$ where the off-diagonal elements are labeled identically due to symmetry reasons. The reconstruction is accomplished in two ways either by considering the complete two-dimensional trajectory or by using one-dimensional projections of the trajectory.
In the first approach the tensorial diffusivities of [Eq. (\[eqn:tensorial diffusivities\])]{} are used to obtain the tensor entries of ${{\bf D}}$. In accordance with [Eq. (\[eqn:tensor estimation\])]{} the tensor elements are estimated by averaging the tensorial diffusivities along a trajectory or over an ensemble. Moreover, the eigenvalues of the tensor ${{\bf D}}$ are expressed by its entries $$\label{eqn:eigenvalues from entries 2d}
D_{1,2} = {\frac{1}{2}}\left(D_{11} + D_{22} \pm \sqrt{(D_{11}-D_{22})^2 + 4 D_{12}^2}\right)$$ and correspond to the diffusion coefficients of the system.
For the sample trajectory used in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 2d anisotropic diffusion\]]{} the measured values ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{ij}$ yield the diffusion tensor $${\ensuremath{\tilde{{{\bf D}}}}} = \begin{pmatrix} 3.983 & 1.719 \\ 1.719 & 1.990 \end{pmatrix}
\text{,}$$ which agrees reasonably with the input parameters of the simulation. The eigenvalues from this measured tensor ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1} = 4.973$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2} = 1.000$ show a good agreement with the exact eigenvalues of the input tensor $D_1 = 5$ and $D_2 = 1$.
The second approach determines the tensor ${{\bf D}}$ exclusively from one-dimensional projections of the trajectory. In order to obtain results, at least three different projections are necessary. For simplicity, it is preferable to use projections along two perpendicular axes, which define the frame of reference for ${{\bf D}}$. Furthermore, a projection onto an axis is required which is rotated about an angle $\theta$ relatively to the frame of reference. In such a setup, the first moments of the distribution of diffusivities related to the first two projections are identical to the averaged tensorial diffusivities ${\ensuremath{\left\langleD_t^{11}(\tau)\right\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\left\langleD_t^{22}(\tau)\right\rangle}}$. Thus, they yield the two diagonal elements of ${{\bf D}}$. The first moment of the third projection measures the leading diagonal element $D^\theta_{11}$ of the rotated tensor ${{\bf D}}^\theta = {{\bf R}}(\theta){\ensuremath{^\mathsf{T}}}{{\bf D}}{{\bf R}}(\theta)$ with rotation tensor ${{\bf R}}(\theta) = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\ \sin \theta & \cos \theta\end{pmatrix}$. This additional value is sufficient to obtain the off-diagonal element of ${{\bf D}}$ from $$D_{12} = \frac{D^\theta_{11} - D_{11} \cos^2 \theta - D_{22} \sin^2 \theta}{\sin(2 \theta)}
\text{.}$$ For the calculation, any projection of the trajectory onto an arbitrary one-dimensional axis, i.e., any $\theta$, can be used except directions perpendicular or parallel to axes of the frame of reference, i.e., angles $\theta$ which are multiples of $\pi/2$. It should be emphasized that the reconstruction from the distribution of diffusivities of projected trajectories is possible although the definition of the diffusivities omit any directional information.
In the example with ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{11} = 3.983$, ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{22} = 1.990$ and a measured ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{11}^{5\pi/12} = 2.983$, the off-diagonal element yields $D_{12} = 1.719$, which is in good agreement with the value $\sqrt{3} \approx 1.732$ appearing as input parameter of the simulation.
In conclusion, it depends on the constraints of the experiment which of both approaches is more practicable. In either way the complete diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$ is reconstructed reasonably well.
\[sec:Anisotropy3d\]Three-dimensional systems
---------------------------------------------
Analogous to the two-dimensional case, it is possible to calculate the distribution of diffusivities for three-dimensional systems either by inverse Fourier transform of the general characteristic function [Eq. (\[eqn:general characteristic function\])]{} or by the convolution [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_via\_convolution\])]{}. In both cases the analytical integration cannot be performed completely. However, the integration can be accomplished numerically. By integrating two variables [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_via\_convolution\])]{} is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dod_3d_aniso}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) &= \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_1}}\! \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_2}} \int\limits_0^\infty {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_3}}}\;} \delta\left[D-(\Delta_1+\Delta_2+\Delta_3)\right] \nonumber\\
&\times {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_1/3}}}(\Delta_1) {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_2/3}}}(\Delta_2) {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{1\text{d}}}}_{D_3/3}}}(\Delta_3) \nonumber\\
&= \int\limits_0^{D} {\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\text{d}\Delta_1}}}\;} \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{3/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi D_1 D_2 D_3 \Delta_1}} \nonumber\\
&\times\exp\left\{-\frac{3}{4}\left[\left(\frac{1}{D_2}+\frac{1}{D_3}\right)(D-\Delta_1) + \frac{2\Delta_1}{D_1}\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
&\times {\ensuremath{I_{0}}}\left[\frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{1}{D_3} - \frac{1}{D_2}\right)(D-\Delta_1)\right]
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ For further simplification, a series expansion of the modified Bessel function ${\ensuremath{I_{0}}}(x)$ can be applied, which allows performing the last integration. However, this only results in a converging sum, which cannot be simplified any further.
By using the general expression of the cumulants [Eq. (\[eqn:general cumulants\])]{} and the relation between cumulants and moments [Eq. (\[eqn:relation\_cumulants\_moments\])]{}, the first three moments of the distribution of diffusivities of three-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic diffusion processes are $$\label{eqn:m1_general_3d}
{\ensuremath{M_{1}}} = \frac{1}{3}(D_1 + D_2 + D_3)
\text{,}$$ $$\label{eqn:m2_general_3d}
{\ensuremath{M_{2}}} = \frac{1}{9}\left[(D_1 + D_2 + D_3)^2 + 2(D_1^2 + D_2^2 + D_3^2)\right]
\text{,}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:m3_general_3d}
{\ensuremath{M_{3}}} & = \frac{1}{9}\left[5 D_1^3 + 3 D_1^2 (D_2 + D_3)\right.\nonumber \\
& + D_1 (3 D_2^2 + 2 D_2 D_3 + 3 D_3^2)\nonumber \\
& \left.+ (D_2 + D_3) (5 D_2^2 - 2 D_2 D_3 + 5 D_3^2)\right]
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ These expressions are similar to [Eqs. (\[eqn:first moment of 2d anisotropic system\]) to (\[eqn:second moment of 2d anisotropic system\])]{} and relate the moments of the distribution of diffusivities to diffusion coefficients $D_1$ to $D_3$ of the anisotropic process. By solving simultaneously [Eqs. (\[eqn:m1\_general\_3d\]) to (\[eqn:m3\_general\_3d\])]{}, the underlying diffusion coefficients are determined by the measured moments of the distribution. The solution comprises six triplets ($D_1$ to $D_3$), which are permutations of the three diffusion coefficients. Due to the cubic contributions in [Eq. (\[eqn:m3\_general\_3d\])]{} the expressions are too lengthy to be shown here but can be easily obtained.
![\[fig:dod of 3d\_biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]The distribution of diffusivities (histogram) from one simulated trajectory of a homogeneous anisotropic diffusion process in three dimensions with diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$ given by [Eq. (\[eqn:simulation\_tensor\_3d\])]{} agrees well with the distribution of diffusivities (solid line) obtained from numerical integration of [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_aniso\])]{}, using the eigenvalues $D_1 = 5$, $D_2 = 3$ and $D_3 = 1$ of tensor ${{\bf D}}$. For comparison, the distribution of diffusivities (dashed line) of an isotropic diffusion process in three dimensions, given by [Eq. (\[eqn:dod 3d isotropic homogeneous\])]{}, is shown, where the same mean diffusion coefficient $D_c = {\ensuremath{\left\langleD\right\rangle}} = (D_1+ D_2 + D_3)/3 = 3$ as in the anisotropic process was used. The different asymptotic decays are clearly visible and allow the distinction from homogeneous isotropic processes. In the inset, the asymptotic function [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_3d\_aniso\])]{} (dotted line) agrees reasonably for large $D$.](images/static_tensor_3d_biaxial_Comparison_dod)
The asymptotic behavior of [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_aniso\])]{} for large $D$ is given by [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_Nd\_aniso\])]{}, which assumes $D_1 > D_2 > D_3$, and results in $$\label{eqn:asymptotic_3d_aniso}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim} \frac{\sqrt{3 D_1}\exp\left(-\frac{3 D}{2 D_1}\right)}{\sqrt{2 \pi (D_1-D_2)(D_1-D_3) D}}
\text{.}$$ Thus, the behavior in the logarithmic representation is determined by $$\label{eqn:log_asymptotic_3d_aniso}
\log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim} -\frac{3 D}{2 {\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}}
\text{,}$$ which corresponds to the asymptotic decay of a three-dimensional isotropic distribution of diffusivities with ${\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}= \max(D_1,D_2,D_3)$. The anisotropy measure [Eq. (\[eqn:anisotropy measure from asymptotic decays\])]{} in the three-dimensional case corresponds to $${\ensuremath{\eta}}= \frac{({\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}-D_1) + ({\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}-D_2) + ({\ensuremath{D_{\infty}}}-D_3)}{D_1+D_2+D_3}
\text{,}$$ which considers the differences of the individual diffusion coefficients to characterize the anisotropy. It is obvious that the largest anisotropy yields ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=2$.
In order to substantiate our results by simulated data, the simulation of a three-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic random walk was performed using the diffusion tensor $$\label{eqn:simulation_tensor_3d}
{{\bf D}} = \begin{pmatrix}
4 & -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\
-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} & \frac{13}{4} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4} \\
-\frac{1}{2} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4} & \frac{7}{4}
\end{pmatrix}
\text{.}$$ The obtained trajectory consists of $10^5$ displacements and its distribution of diffusivities is depicted in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d\_biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{}. The distribution of diffusivities from the simulated trajectory shows a good agreement with the curve obtained from numerical integration of [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_aniso\])]{}. The deviations for larger values of $D$ result from the finite simulation time, i.e., its insufficient statistics. Furthermore, [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d\_biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{} shows the distribution of an isotropic system where a qualitative distinction at the crossover from the maximum peak to the exponential decay becomes apparent. This behavior of the curvature in the logarithmic representation depends on the observed system and is discussed in [Sec. \[sec:curvature\]]{}. The deviating asymptotic decay of the anisotropic process is clearly visible in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d\_biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{} and allows the distinction from homogeneous isotropic processes. Thus, in conjunction with the mean diffusivity the asymptotic decay provides a measure of the anisotropy. In addition, the asymptotic behavior given by [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_3d\_aniso\])]{} is depicted and provides a reasonable approximation for large $D$. The eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$ for experimental data are easily determined by measuring the leading moments of the diffusivities. For the sample trajectory used in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d\_biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{} the first three moments result in ${\ensuremath{\tilde{{\ensuremath{M_{1}}}}}} = 2.995$, ${\ensuremath{\tilde{{\ensuremath{M_{2}}}}}} = 16.68$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{{\ensuremath{M_{3}}}}}} = 140.2$. By solving the simultaneous [Eqs. (\[eqn:m1\_general\_3d\]) to (\[eqn:m3\_general\_3d\])]{}, the underlying diffusion coefficients are obtained as ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1} = 4.884$, ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2} = 3.153$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{3} = 0.948$. These values agree reasonably well with the eigenvalues of the tensor [Eq. (\[eqn:simulation\_tensor\_3d\])]{}, which was used as input parameter of the simulation. The value of ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=2/3$ indicates a considerable anisotropy of the process.
### \[sec:limits Anisotropy3d\]Limiting cases
If the diffusion coefficients of all three directions coincide with $D_c = D_1 = D_2 = D_3$, the distribution of diffusivities for the three-dimensional isotropic system [@bauer2011] $$\label{eqn:dod 3d isotropic homogeneous}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{D_c}}}(D) = 3\sqrt{\frac{3}{2 \pi} \frac{D}{D_c^3}} \exp\left(-\frac{3 D}{2 D_c}\right)$$ will be obtained from [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_aniso\])]{} in agreement with [Eq. (\[eqn:dod homogeneous isotropic system in n dimensions\])]{}.
If exactly two diffusion coefficients coincide, one usually refers to diffusion processes of uniaxial molecules [@deGennes_B95]. In this case, the general distribution of diffusivities of three-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic diffusion [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_aniso\])]{} simplifies to $$\label{eqn:dod_3d_uniaxial}
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{\text{uni}}}}(D) = \frac{3}{2} \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{3 D}{2 {\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}}\right) \operatorname*{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}(\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}}-\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}})D}\right) }{\sqrt{{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}({\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}-{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}})}}
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}$ are the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$ with multiplicity one and two, respectively. In general, a distinction between the oblate case (${\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}} > {\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}$, disc) and the prolate case (${\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}} < {\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}$, rod) is made for uniaxial molecules. In the prolate case both square roots in [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_uniaxial\])]{} yield complex numbers. However, with $\operatorname*{erf}(\sqrt{-x})/\sqrt{-y} = \operatorname*{erfi}(\sqrt{x})/\sqrt{y}$ for $x,y >0$ and $x,y \in \mathds{R}$, [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_uniaxial\])]{} remains a real-valued function. Hence, a distinction between the two cases for the diffusion coefficients is not required for the distribution of diffusivities.
In the uniaxial case the first three moments simplify to $$\label{eqn:m1_uniaxial_3d}
{\ensuremath{M_{1}}} = \frac{1}{3}({\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}} + 2 {\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}})
\text{,}$$ $$\label{eqn:m2_uniaxial_3d}
{\ensuremath{M_{2}}} = \frac{1}{9}\left(3 {{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}}^2 + 4 {{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}} {{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}} + 8 {{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}}^2\right)$$ and $$\label{eqn:m3_uniaxial_3d}
{\ensuremath{M_{3}}} = \frac{1}{9}\left(5 {{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}}^3 + 6 {{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}}^2 {{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}} + 8 {{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}} {{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}}^2 + 16 {{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}}^3\right)
\text{.}$$ Thus, the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$ are calculated by $$\label{eqn:multiple 1 eigenvalue in dependence on moments}
{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}} = {\ensuremath{M_{1}}} \mp \sqrt{3 {\ensuremath{M_{2}}} - 5 {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2}$$ and $$\label{eqn:multiple 2 eigenvalue in dependence on moments}
{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}} = {\ensuremath{M_{1}}} \pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{3 {\ensuremath{M_{2}}} - 5 {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2}
\text{,}$$ where the sign in the equations depends on the constraint of positive diffusion coefficients. None of the eigenvalues will become complex since with [Eqs. (\[eqn:m1\_uniaxial\_3d\]) and (\[eqn:m2\_uniaxial\_3d\])]{} the expression under the square root $3{\ensuremath{M_{2}}} - 5{\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2 = \frac{4}{9} ({\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}-{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}})^2 > 0$ is always positive and, hence, ${\ensuremath{M_{2}}} > \frac{5}{3} {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2$. It should be noted that for $\frac{5}{3} {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2 < {\ensuremath{M_{2}}} < 2 {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2$ both signs in [Eqs. (\[eqn:multiple 1 eigenvalue in dependence on moments\]) and (\[eqn:multiple 2 eigenvalue in dependence on moments\])]{} yield positive diffusion coefficients. In this case, the third moment has to be exploited in order to decide the correct pair of diffusion coefficients by comparing [Eq. (\[eqn:m3\_uniaxial\_3d\])]{} with the measured value. Hence, there exist distributions of diffusivities with identical moments ${\ensuremath{M_{1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{M_{2}}}$, which result from different diffusion coefficients. In this case, the distinct ${\ensuremath{M_{3}}}$ determines the corresponding diffusion coefficients of the system. In the limit ${\ensuremath{M_{2}}} \to \frac{5}{3} {\ensuremath{M_{1}}}^2$, ${\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}$ approach each other. In this particular case, the decision for the correct pair cannot be made accurately since both pairs yield approximately the same ${\ensuremath{M_{3}}}$ from [Eq. (\[eqn:m3\_uniaxial\_3d\])]{}. However, this limit corresponds to the isotropic system and, hence, the single diffusion coefficient is directly given by the first moment of the distribution.
[Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d uniaxial and biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{} depicts examples of such distributions for the general anisotropic, the prolate, and the oblate case. The differences can be identified qualitatively. In the general and in the prolate case, the decay after the maximum peak has a convex curvature in the logarithmic representation, whereas in the oblate case it decays in a purely concave manner. This qualitative change is obtained from $\frac{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}^2}{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}D^2} \log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{\text{uni}}}}(D)$ and discussed in [Sec. \[sec:curvature\]]{}. In all cases, the exponential decay for large $D$ is determined by the largest diffusion coefficient as given by [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_3d\_aniso\])]{}. However, since the first decay after the peak is dominated by the smallest diffusion coefficient, the curve is shifted to the left for the prolate case in contrast to the oblate case when $D_2$ is changed from $D_3$ to $D_1$. As expected from the first moment, the general case lies in between. A better distinction between the different cases is achieved quantitatively by determining the moments and calculating the diffusion coefficients.
![\[fig:dod of 3d uniaxial and biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]Distribution of diffusivities (lines with open symbols) of different homogeneous anisotropic diffusion processes in three dimensions. A qualitative distinction between the oblate case ([[$\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Diamond}}$]{}]{}; ${\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}} = 1, {\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}} = 5$), the prolate case ([[$\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\pentagon}}$]{}]{}; ${\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}} = 5, {\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}} = 1$), and a general anisotropic case ([[$\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\Circle}}$]{}]{}; $D_1 = 5, D_2 = 3, D_3 = 1$) is possible since the decay after the maximum peak shows a concave curvature in the first case and a convex curvature in the latter cases. The inset shows that each anisotropic case obeys the same asymptotic decay given by the largest diffusion coefficient (dotted line as a guide to the eye). For comparison the isotropic case with the same asymptotic decay ([[$\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\blacktriangle}}$]{}]{}; $D_c = 5$) is given, which always has a concave shape. Thus, it is qualitatively indistinguishable from the oblate case. However, a comparison of the first moment with the asymptotic decay offers a simple distinction between both cases.](images/static_tensor_3d_uniaxial_biaxial_Comparison_dod)
In [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d uniaxial anisotropic diffusion for different ratios d1 d2\]]{} the distribution of diffusivities for different ratios $$\label{eqn:ratio of eigenvalues}
r = {\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}/{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}$$ is shown, ranging from oblate cases ($r<1$) to prolate cases. It can be seen that in the limit ${\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}} \to 0$ and, thus, $r \to 0$, the distribution converges to the two-dimensional isotropic case with $D_c = 2/3{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}$. For $r \to 1$, the distribution converges to the three-dimensional isotropic case. In the prolate cases the distribution separates significantly from the three-dimensional isotropic case for increasing $r$. For further increasing ratios ($r \to \infty$) the distribution converges to the one-dimensional isotropic case with $D_c = 1/3 {\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}$. In contrast, the oblate cases converge rapidly to the two-dimensional isotropic case for decreasing $r$. A qualitative distinction may only be possible for small $D$, where the distribution still deviates from the mono-exponential behavior of the isotropic system. However, quantitatively the anisotropy is characterized by [Eq. (\[eqn:anisotropy measure from asymptotic decays\])]{}, which results in ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=\tfrac{1-r}{2+r}$ and ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=\tfrac{2(r-1)}{2+r}$ for oblate and prolate cases, respectively. Thus, in the oblate case the largest possible anisotropy emerges at small $r$, which yields ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=1/2$ and clearly indicates the anisotropy. In the prolate case, the largest anisotropy will be obtained, if only one direction is preferred. Then, the anisotropy measure ${\ensuremath{\eta}}=2$ is maximal, which corresponds to one-dimensional motion in a three-dimensional system.
![\[fig:dod of 3d uniaxial anisotropic diffusion for different ratios d1 d2\]Distribution of diffusivities (lines with open symbols) for different ratios $r$ given by [Eq. (\[eqn:ratio of eigenvalues\])]{} and fixed ${\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}=1$. The crossover from oblate cases ($r<1$, solid lines) to prolate cases ($r>1$, dashed lines) shows a broadening of the peak for increasing ratios. Again, the behavior after the peak changes from concave to convex, respectively. For comparison, the distribution of diffusivities of the limiting isotropic cases are depicted for two-dimensional ([[$\ensuremath{\scriptstyle\blacksquare}$]{}]{}, $D_c = 2/3$) and three-dimensional processes ([[$\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\blacktriangle}}$]{}]{}, $D_c = 1$). The distinction of prolate cases from the isotropic limits is simpler than for the oblate cases.](images/static_tensor_3d_uniaxial_ratios_dod)
### \[sec:curvature\]Curvature of the distribution of diffusivities
As noticed in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d uniaxial and biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{}, the convex or concave curvature of the probability density in the logarithmic representation depends on the observed system and, thus, on the structure of the diffusion tensor. In the literature, such a concave curvature is known as log-concavity of functions which is a common property of probability distributions and has been studied extensively [@An1998; @Bagnoli2005; @Gupta2012]. However, in the case of log-convex functions there are much less properties known. In the following, we discuss the curvature of the distribution of diffusivities in the logarithmic representation, which can be exploited to determine characteristic properties of the observed processes.
For anisotropic processes the asymptotic curvature of the distribution of diffusivities in the logarithmic representation is obtained from the uniaxial case [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_uniaxial\])]{} since [Eq. (\[eqn:dod\_3d\_aniso\])]{} does not provide a closed-form expression. For isotropic diffusion the curvature of the distribution of diffusivities is determined from [Eq. (\[eqn:dod 3d isotropic homogeneous\])]{}.
The asymptotic expansion of the second derivative for small $D$ yields $$\label{eqn:curvature for small D}
\frac{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}^2}{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}D^2} \log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \overset{D \to 0}{\sim} -1/(2 D^2)
\text{,}$$ which coincides with the curvature of three-dimensional isotropic systems. Analogously, we perform the asymptotic expansion of the second derivative for large $D$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:curvature for large D}
& \frac{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}^2}{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}D^2} \log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D) \nonumber\\
& \overset{D \to \infty}{\sim}
\begin{cases}
1/(2 D^2) & D_1 > D_2 = D_3, \\
- \frac{a^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\pi D}} \exp(-a D) & D_1 = D_2 > D_3, \\
-1/(2 D^2) & D_1 = D_2 = D_3
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ with positive $a = 3/2 (1/{\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}} - 1/{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}})$. The different results depend on the multiplicity of the largest eigenvalue for prolate, oblate and isotropic cases, respectively. In the general anisotropic case with $D_1 \ne D_2 \ne D_3$, the system is dominated by the largest diffusion coefficient for large $D$. Hence, in this case the asymptotic curvature is identical to the prolate case ($D_1 > D_2 = D_3$) and can also be obtained from [Eq. (\[eqn:asymptotic\_Nd\_aniso\])]{}. As expected, a degeneracy of the smaller eigenvalues does not contribute to the asymptotic curvature. Hence, in all systems where the largest eigenvalue is not degenerated, for instance in anisotropic two-dimensional and also one-dimensional systems, we obtain the same behavior for large $D$, which is governed by the largest eigenvalue of the system.
The curvature of the distribution of diffusivities in the logarithmic representation for small $D$ is always concave as given by [Eq. (\[eqn:curvature for small D\])]{}. However, for large $D$ it depends on the observed system showing either a convex or a concave behavior as given in [Eq. (\[eqn:curvature for large D\])]{}. Hence, the sign of the curvature can change with $D$. In the prolate case the corresponding point of inflection is found to be approximately at $1.504 {\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}}/({\ensuremath{D^{(1)}}}-{\ensuremath{D^{(2)}}})$ by numerical evaluation of the root of $\frac{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}^2}{{{\ensuremath{\text{d}}}}D^2} \log {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{p^{3\text{d}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\hat{{{\bf D}}}}}}}}(D)$. For anisotropic systems, only in the oblate case the curvature does not change its sign and the distribution is a log-concave function. If the anisotropy measure becomes zero and the distribution is a log-concave function, a three-dimensional isotropic diffusion process is observed. This qualitative difference in the curvature of distributions with the same asymptotic decay can clearly be identified in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d uniaxial and biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{}.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note in [Eq. (\[eqn:curvature for large D\])]{} that in the oblate case, where the largest eigenvalue exhibits a twofold degeneracy, the asymptotic behavior of the curvature still depends on the diffusion coefficients of the system. In all other cases the dependence on the diffusion coefficients vanishes.
As noted above, for two-dimensional anisotropic processes the asymptotic behavior for large $D$ in the logarithmic representation is identical to the prolate case in [Eq. (\[eqn:curvature for large D\])]{}. However, the asymptotic behavior for small $D$ is given by $1/8 (1/D_1 - 1/D_2)^2$ and clearly differs from that of the three-dimensional process. Since the sign of the curvature does not change with $D$ the curvature is always convex in two-dimensional anisotropic systems. However, for two-dimensional isotropic systems the distribution of diffusivities in the logarithmic representation is just a straight line for all $D$.
### \[sec:reconstruction3d\]Reconstruction of D
As discussed for two-dimensional processes, the diffusion tensor will be easily obtained by measuring the averaged tensorial diffusivities according to [Eq. (\[eqn:tensor estimation\])]{} if the complete three-dimensional trajectory of the homogeneous anisotropic process is available. For the sample trajectory used in [Fig. \[fig:dod of 3d\_biaxial anisotropic diffusion\]]{} the measured values ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{ij}$ yield the diffusion tensor $${\ensuremath{\tilde{{{\bf D}}}}} = \begin{pmatrix}
3.994 & -0.862 & -0.492 \\
-0.862 & 3.233 & 1.296 \\
-0.492 & 1.296 & 1.758
\end{pmatrix}
\text{,}$$ which agrees reasonably with the input parameters of the simulation [Eq. (\[eqn:simulation\_tensor\_3d\])]{}. Further, the eigenvalues from this measured tensor ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1} = 4.983$, ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2} = 2.998$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{3} = 1.004$ show a good agreement with the exact eigenvalues of the input tensor $D_1 = 5$, $D_2 = 3$ and $D_3 = 1$.
However, if only a projection of the complete trajectory is available, e.g. from SPT, only the properties of the respective submatrix of ${{\bf D}}$ can be measured. For instance, if the two-dimensional projection onto the x-y-plane of the sample trajectory is available, the first two moments of the distribution of diffusivities are determined to be ${\ensuremath{\tilde{M}}}_{1,z} = 3.613$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{M}}}_{2,z} = 26.95$. Using [Eq. (\[eqn:eigenvalues2d\])]{}, the eigenvalues of the principal submatrix ${{\bf D}}_{z}^2$ are computed to be ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,z}^2 = 4.531$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,z}^2 = 2.695$. Hence, the eigenvalue inequalities of [Eq. (\[eqn:cauchy interlacing inequalities\])]{} provide the estimate $$D_1 \geq {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,z}^2 = 4.531 \geq D_2 \geq {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,z}^2 = 2.695 \geq D_3 \geq 0 \text{.}$$ of the diffusion coefficients. As explained in [Sec. \[sec:Projection\]]{}, any further observed projection improves the estimates of the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$. An additional projection onto the x-z-plane, for instance, yields the moments ${\ensuremath{\tilde{M}}}_{1,y} = 2.876$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{M}}}_{2,y} = 18.00$ resulting in the eigenvalues ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,y}^2 = 4.083$ and ${\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,y}^2 = 1.668$. Since with two orthogonal two-dimensional projections of the three-dimensional process all diagonal elements of ${{\bf D}}$ are available, an upper bound for the largest eigenvalue is found to be $D_1 \leq \operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}} \leq {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,z}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,z}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,y}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,y}^2 = 12.977$. Hence, the eigenvalue inequalities yield $$\begin{aligned}
12.977 & \geq D_1 \geq \max({\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,z}^2, {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,y}^2) = 4.531 \nonumber\\
\min({\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,z}^2, {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,y}^2) = 4.083 & \geq D_2 \geq \max({\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,z}^2, {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,y}^2) = 2.695 \nonumber\\
\min({\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,z}^2, {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,y}^2) = 1.668 & \geq D_3 \geq 0 \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ If additionally the projection onto the y-z-plane is available the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$ are estimated more precisely similar to the previous steps. To improve the upper bound of $D_1$, the trace of ${{\bf D}}$ is calculated from all these eigenvalues by $\operatorname*{tr}{{\bf D}} = {\frac{1}{2}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,x}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,x}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,y}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,y}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{1,z}^2 + {\ensuremath{\tilde{D}}}_{2,z}^2)$, where the prefactor arises from the overlapping diagonal elements of the submatrices.
In the case of availability of all orthogonal two-dimensional projections of the process the tensorial diffusivities offer an advanced approach to determine the diffusion tensor. Since their first moments yield the entries of the principal submatrices ${{\bf D}}_{x}^2$, ${{\bf D}}_{y}^2$ and ${{\bf D}}_{z}^2$ the underlying diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$ is completely defined.
To summarize, the experimental setup influences the available data and affects how many parameters of the underlying process can be restored. A single two-dimensional projection may already hint at the anisotropy of the process. However, it is not sufficient to give an upper bound for the largest eigenvalue. An additional orthogonal two-dimensional projection or even a one-dimensional projection in the missing direction determines this upper bound and narrows the ranges of the eigenvalues. For a reconstruction of the complete tensor either the complete trajectory or three orthogonal two-dimensional projections of the process are necessary.
\[sec:Conclusions\]Conclusions
==============================
To investigate $N$-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic Brownian motion we applied the distribution of diffusivities as e.g. obtained from single-particle tracking data. We introduced an anisotropy measure depending on the asymptotic decay of the distribution and the mean of the diffusivities, which both are easily determined from experimental data. In general, if this anisotropy measure is larger than zero, the distribution deviates from the $\chi^2$-distribution, which we obtain for homogeneous isotropic diffusion. Thus, the observed process involves more than one diffusion coefficient attributed to an inhomogeneity or an anisotropy of the system. For homogeneous processes we concluded that those systems have to be anisotropic. Furthermore, from the general expression of the distribution of diffusivities we derived relations between its moments or cumulants and the eigenvalues of the diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$. Since, due to experimental restrictions, often only projections of the trajectories are observed we further discussed the consequences and provided an estimate for the bounds of the involved diffusion coefficients.
After our general considerations, we applied the results to specific systems with high relevance to experiments. In particular, we investigated two-dimensional and three-dimensional systems as well as uniaxial molecules in three dimensions. In a two-dimensional homogeneous anisotropic system, the distribution of diffusivities comprises a modified Bessel function and allows a qualitative distinction from the mono-exponential decay observed in isotropic systems. Moreover, the first two moments of the distribution are sufficient to calculate the diffusion coefficients corresponding to the principal axes. Even the orientation of the principal axes and, thus, the complete diffusion tensor ${{\bf D}}$ can be determined by using tensorial diffusivities or three one-dimensional projections of the trajectory. For three-dimensional processes the general expression of the distribution of diffusivities is more elaborated and one integration has to be evaluated numerically. However, we expressed the first three moments in terms of the diffusion coefficients belonging to the principal axes. Conversely, these expressions offer a method to calculate the diffusion coefficients from the moments measured in experiments, where other analysis fails. It is further shown that the isotropic and anisotropic systems differ in the logarithmic representation of the distribution of diffusivities, i.e., the asymptotic decay rate is proportional to the inverse slope of the msd and to the inverse of the largest diffusion coefficient, respectively. Thus, the distribution of diffusivities for anisotropic diffusion asymptotically decays slower than for isotropic diffusion with the same mean diffusion coefficient. The deviation between the asymptotic decay and the first moment provides a suitable measure for the anisotropy of the process. For uniaxial molecules diffusing in three dimensions the third integration was accomplished and the resulting distribution of diffusivities involves an error function. In this case, the diffusion coefficients along the direction of the principal axes depend on the first two moments of the distribution. For different ratios of the diffusion coefficients we distinguish between oblate and prolate cases, which show a concave and a convex curvature in the logarithmic representation, respectively. Finally, we offer a guide to quantify the eigenvalues of ${{\bf D}}$ from projected observations and to reconstruct the diffusion tensor in three dimensions from the moments of the tensorial diffusivities. The reconstruction from projected observations is possible although any directional information is discarded when determining the distribution of diffusivities.
In summary, the distribution of diffusivities provides an advanced analysis of anisotropic diffusion processes. The distribution is easily obtained from measured trajectories or from ensemble measurements such as NMR and allows for a characterization of the processes. For time-homogeneous diffusion processes, this distribution is stationary, which allows us to compare experiments conducted on different time scales. The first moment of the distribution corresponds to the mean of the diffusivities and coincides with the slope of the mean squared displacement. From the discrepancy between the asymptotic decay of the distribution and the mean of the diffusivities it is easy to identify systems which are not sufficiently characterized by a single diffusion coefficient. Hence, we encourage experimentalists to determine these simple quantities in order to detect a discrepancy and to verify their assumptions about homogeneous isotropic processes. Furthermore, if the system is homogeneous and anisotropic, the diffusion coefficients can be reconstructed from the moments of the distribution. Beyond that, the concept of diffusivities as scaled displacements is extended to tensorial diffusivities, which allow the reconstruction of the diffusion tensor from their first moments. Hence, the distribution of diffusivities complements well-established methods, such as investigating mean squared displacements, for the analysis of diffusion data.
In future publications, we will address the distinction between anisotropic and heterogeneous diffusion processes, which also involve more than one diffusion coefficient. Furthermore, since the eigenvalues of the tensor ${{\bf D}}$ are invariant to orthogonal transformations, we will apply our distribution of diffusivities to systems where the diffusion tensor changes its orientation in space and time, such as diffusion of ellipsoidal particles in isotropic media and diffusion in liquid crystalline systems with an inhomogeneous director field.
We thank Sven Schubert for stimulating discussions and valuable suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for funding of the research unit FOR 877 “From Local Constraints to Macroscopic Transport”.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose a streaming model to distinguish voice queries intended for a smart-home device from background speech. The proposed model consists of multiple CNN layers with residual connections, followed by a stacked LSTM architecture. The streaming capability is achieved by using unidirectional LSTM layers and a causal mean aggregation layer to form the final utterance-level prediction up to the current frame. In order to avoid redundant computation during online streaming inference, we use a caching mechanism for every convolution operation. Experimental results on a device-directed vs. non device-directed task show that the proposed model yields an equal error rate reduction of 41% compared to our previous best model on this task. Furthermore, we show that the proposed model is able to accurately predict earlier in time compared to the attention-based models.'
address: ' Amazon, USA '
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Streaming ResLSTM with Causal Mean Aggregation for Device-Directed Utterance Detection'
---
**Index Terms**: speech recognition, human-computer interaction, computational paralinguistics
Introduction
============
The smart-home devices such as Amazon Echo, Google Home, etc. are often used in challenging acoustic conditions, such as a living room with multiple talkers and background media speech. In these situations, it is crucial for the device to respond only to the intended (referred to as device-directed (DD)) and ignore unintended (referred to as non device-directed (ND)) speech. We refer to “device-directed speech detection” as the binary utterance-level classification task, which can be tackled by a binary classifier trained with different types of features. Historically, two main types of features, acoustic features and features from Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) decoding, are used in the studies of device-directed speech detection [@reich2011real; @shriberg2012learning; @yamagata2009system; @lee2013using; @wang2013understanding]. First of all, acoustic features such as energy, pitch, speaking rate, duration and the corresponding statistical summaries are considered in [@shriberg2012learning]. Other acoustic features such as multi-scale Gabor wavelets are studied in [@yamagata2009system]. Secondly, features coming from ASR decoder such as ASR confidence scores and N-grams are also proved to be valuable for the detection task in [@shriberg2012learning; @yamagata2009system]. Comparing to the acoustic features, however the ASR decoder features are computationally more expensive, and some of them may not even be available until the end of the utterance.
Our previous work [@mallidi2018device; @haung2019study] investigated the device-directed speech detection task and proposed a classifier that integrates multiple feature sources, including the acoustic embedding from a pretrained LSTM, speech decoding hypothesis and decoder features from an ASR model, into one single device-directed model. In this paper, we focus in particular on the task of learning utterance-level acoustic embeddings to improve the device-directed speech detection accuracy. We consider two aspects: a) the model topology and b) the aggregation method to convert a frame-wise into an utterance-level embedding.
As for aggregation methods, Norouzian et al. [@norouzian2019exploring] showed the attention mechanism applied to the frame-wise output of the network can improve the equal error rate (EER) performance of the classifier. They used acoustic embedding features only and proposed a model topology consisting of a CNN and a bidirectional LSTM for the device-directed speech detection task. Kao et al. [@kao2020comparison] compared different aggregation methods on top of the LSTM models for rare acoustic event classification, which is also an utterance classification task. The aggregation methods are applied to either the last hidden unit output $h_t$ or the soft label prediction $y_t$.
Besides the aggregation mechanism, different model topologies for audio classification tasks are studied in [@ford2019deep; @bae2016acoustic; @lim2017rare; @cakir2017convolutional; @guo2017attention; @hershey2017cnn]. Cak[i]{}r et al. [@cakir2017convolutional] proposed a CRNN model structure for the sound event detection task, which is similar to the CLDNN model topology proposed in [@sainath2015convolutional]. Since the results were evaluated at frame-level, no aggregation method was considered after the LSTM component. In [@guo2017attention], the authors explored a CLDNN model with bidirectional LSTM combined with the attention aggregation for an acoustic scene classification task. Ford et al. [@ford2019deep] experimented with different ResNet [@he2016deep] structures, and concluded that a 50-layer ResNet shows the best performance on an audio event classification task. In [@bae2016acoustic], instead of stacking the LSTM on top of a CNN component, the authors proposed a parallel structure of LSTM and CNN components. Then, the outputs of LSTM and CNN are concatenated and fed into the fully connected layers.
In this paper, we evaluate the performance of different model topologies on the device-directedness task using acoustic features only and find the ResLSTM to outperform the ResNet, LSTM, or CLDNN model structures. Secondly, we propose a new mechanism to incorporate historical information within an utterance using frame-level causal mean aggregation. Compared to the attention method used in [@haung2019study; @norouzian2019exploring; @kao2020comparison], the causal mean aggregation
- is able to generate prediction at any frame and easily be applied for online streaming with much less computation.
- has same performance as attention aggregation when evaluated at the end of an utterance.
- outperforms the attention aggregation when evaluated at early time point of an utterance.
The rest of paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the overview of the main contribution of this paper. The network architectures and different aggregation methods are discussed with details in Section 3. Section 4 and 5 presents the experiments setup and correspondingly results. We conclude with Section 6.
Model architecture
==================
In this section, we will discuss our network architectures and the aggregation methods.
Model Topologies
----------------
Our ResLSTM model consists of one convolutional layer and one batch norm layer followed by six residual blocks and one average pooling layer, as shown in Figure \[fig:model\_structure\]. Each residual block has two convolution layers, two batch norm layers, and a residual connection. The second ReLU activation in the residual block is applied after the summation. There are 13 convolutional layers in total. The LSTM component has three unidirectional LSTM layers with 64 units. After the LSTM, there are two fully connected layers with hidden size 64.
![The structure of the ResLSTM model[]{data-label="fig:model_structure"}](resnetLSTM.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Aggregation
-----------
After the frame-level embeddings $h_t$ are generated from the network, an aggregation mechanism can be applied to the $h_t$, and we categorize different aggregation methods into the following groups.
### Simple aggregation {#sec:framewise}
There are two types of simple aggregation considered in this paper. First, no aggregation used at all. During training, we do frame-wise backpropagation on every frame with the frame-level labels which are obtained by repeating the utterance label. During inference, we use the embedding of the last frame as the embedding of the entire utterance. Second one is the global mean aggregation, which calculate the mean of the embedding of all frames as the utterance embedding. Then, we backpropagate once for each utterance with the utterance-level label.
### Attention aggregation {#sec:attention}
The attention aggregation calculates the utterance-level representation as a weighted average of all $h_t$. Similar to the global mean aggregation, it uses utterance-level label during training. Our previous work [@haung2019study] showed that the attention method has better performance than utterance-level embedding with global mean aggregation and frame-wise embeddings without any aggregation.
### Causal mean aggregation {#sec:causal}
The drawback of the attention methods used in the previous work [@haung2019study; @norouzian2019exploring; @kao2020comparison; @ford2019deep] is that the attention weights $w_t$ for every frame are calculated once all frames are available, which is not feasible for online streaming tasks. Instead of generating the utterance-level representation at the end of the utterance, we generate frame-level representation by aggregating the past frames. Specifically, we average over all previous $h_i, i\le t$ until current time point $t$ as the representation of the $t$th frame. We call this the causal mean aggregation at frame-level: $$s_t = \frac{1}{t} \sum_{i=1}^{t} h_i = \frac{t-1}{t} \cdot s_{t-1} + \frac{1}{t} h_t
\label{eq1}$$
During online inference, we implement the causal mean aggregation with a counter and a mean operation to express the logic as part of the neural network model definition in order to hide it from the inference engine. We find it convenient to use the LSTMs for this, $LSTM_{counter}$ and $LSTM_{mean}$. The LSTM structure, with state values, naturally allows to “side-loading” the frame count to both $h_t$ and $s_{t-1}$. The $LSTM_{counter}$ is for the frame counting, and the $LSTM_{mean}$ is used for summation and division, which is shown in the Figure \[fig:casual\_mean\]. The two LSTM components have only one layer with fixed weights shown in Equation \[eq3\] and Equation \[eq4\], respectively. All the activation function $\sigma$ in the $LSTM_{counter}$ and $LSTM_{mean}$ components are the LeakyReLU with $\alpha = 1$. The LSTM gates and weights are set as follows: $$\begin{split}
W_f & = 0, U_f = 0, b_f = 1 \Rightarrow f_t =1 \\
W_i & = 0, U_i = 0, b_i = 1 \Rightarrow i_t =1 \\
W_o & = 0, U_o = 0, b_o = 1 \Rightarrow o_t =1 \\
W_c & = 0, U_c = 0, b_c = 1, c_0 = 0 \\
c_t & = f_t \cdot c_{t-1} + 1 \cdot ( 0 \cdot h_t + 0 \cdot h'_t + 1) = c_{t-1} + 1 \\
h'_t & = 1 \cdot c_t = h'_{t-1} + 1 = t
\end{split}
\label{eq3}$$ where $W$, $U$, and $b$ are weights and bias in the forget gate ($f$), input gate ($i$), output gate ($o$), cell input ($c$) in the $LSTM_{counter}$, respectively. $h_t$ is the output of the original LSTM component, and $h'_t$ is the output of the $LSTM_{counter}$ component. Then, we concatenate the reciprocal of $h'_t$ with the original $h_t$ as $[h_t, \frac{1}{h'_t}]$ and feed into the $LSTM_{mean}$. Let’s assume the dimension of $h_t$ is $d$, and the $LSTM_{mean}$ component has one LSTM layer with $d$ hidden units. $$\begin{split}
W'_f & = [0]_{d\times (d+1)}, U'_f = [0]_{d\times d}, b'_f = [1]_{d \times 1} \Rightarrow f'_t = [1]_{d \times 1} \\
W'_i & = [0]_{d\times (d+1)}, U'_i = [0]_{d\times d}, b'_i = [1]_{d \times 1} \Rightarrow i'_t = [1]_{d \times 1} \\
W'_o & =\begin{pmatrix}
[0]_{d \times d} & [1]_{d \times 1}
\end{pmatrix},
U'_o = [0]_{d \times d},
b'_o = [0]_{d \times 1} \\
W'_c & =
\begin{pmatrix}
I_{d \times d} & [0]_{d \times 1}
\end{pmatrix},
U'_c = [0]_{d \times d}, b'_c = [1]_{d \times 1} \\
c'_t & = c'_{t-1} + h_t, o'_t = [\frac{1}{t}]_{d \times 1} \\
s_t & = o'_t \circ c'_t = [\frac{t-1}{t}]_{d \times 1} \circ s_{t-1} + [\frac{1}{t}]_{d \times 1} \circ h_t
\end{split}
\label{eq4}$$ where $W'$, $U'$, and $b'$ are weights and bias in the forget gate ($f$), input gate ($i$), output gate ($o$), cell input ($c$) in the $LSTM_{mean}$, respectively. The $\circ$ is the element-wise product, $[k]_{d\times d}$ is a matrix with all elements equal to $k$ and dimension $d\times d$. Similar to the idea showed in [@kao2020comparison], we also move the aggregation component after the DNN and apply it to the $y_t$ instead of the $h_t$.
The LSTM is not the only choice to the frame counter in our implementation. A one-layer RNN with LeakyReLU $\alpha = 1$ can be used to replace the $LSTM_{counter}$: $$h'_t = W''h_t + U''h'_{t-1} + b''
\label{eq6}$$ where $h$ is the output of the original LSTM component, $W'' = 0$, $U'' = 1$, $b'' = 1$, and $h'$ is initialized with 0. Same as $LSTM_{counter}$, the output of the RNN, $h'_t$ is also the frame index $t$. However, the RNN cannot exactly converge to mimic the $LSTM_{mean}$ because the required weight values ($W'' = \frac{1}{t}$ and $U'' = \frac{t-1}{t}$ in Equation \[eq6\]) are time-dependent, which cannot be achieved by an RNN.
### RNN aggregation {#sec:rnn}
In the previous section, we showed how to calculate the embedding at each frame by causal mean aggregation, and potentially use LSTM or RNN as the frame counter in our implementation. Alternatively, one can use a trainable RNN layer as a different aggregation method besides the casual mean to get the aggregated embedding:
$$s_t = \sigma (W^{T}h_t + U^{T}s_{t-1})
\label{eq5}$$
where $W$ and $U$ are the weights of the representation of the current frame and historical cumulation. The bias term $b$ is set to be 0. Instead of having the weight as fixed or predefined hyper parameter related to $t$ only, we use a one-layer RNN network to learn the weights for us. But the RNN layer potentially suffers from the gradient vanishing problem over time, which we will see in the result session.
Streaming CNN layer
-------------------
In order to enable the model with convolutional operations for online streaming, we use a sliding window over the input of each convolutional layer, shifting in the time dimension during inference [@streamcnn]. As the window is shifting to the right one frame at a time, we drop the oldest computation output from previous window, then cache and feed the rest of output into the next window of the same convolutional layer, which avoids wasting computes on redundant computations. We initialize the “previous” output at the first frame to zeros. As shown in Figure \[fig:model\_inference\], we use one convolutional layer and one residual block with the first three frame inputs as an example for the online inference. For simplicity, we graph the the frequency dimension with size one.
![The implementation of causal mean aggregation for online streaming[]{data-label="fig:casual_mean"}](casualmean.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![Streaming convolutional operation. The shaded squares represent the initialized “previous” zero outputs at the first frame. The squares with a dash frame represent the frames of padded zeros, and the squares with a solid frame represent the frames of real input.[]{data-label="fig:model_inference"}](inference.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Experiments
===========
We use real recordings of natural human interactions with voice-controlled far-field devices for training and testing the models. The training data consists of $4,000$ hours of audio data comprised of 6M utterances. 4M of the utterances are device-directed examples and the rest of 2M are non device-directed examples. The testing data consists of 35,000 utterances.
The ResLSTM model has a kernel size as $3 \times 3$, and stride is $2 \times 1$ in which the time dimension stride is always 1. The output channel size of the first convolution layer is 8, and the following 6 residual blocks have $8, 8, 16, 16, 32, 32$ as the corresponding output channel sizes. After the last average pooling layer, we flat out the frequency dimension with the channel dimension, and feed the outputs to the LSTM. We compared our ResLSTM model with LSTM, ResNet, and CLDNN models individually where we fix the aggregation component to be attention. Two LSTM models are considered here. The LSTM-S has 3 LSTM layers of 64 units which is used in [@haung2019study]. The LSTM-L has 5 layers of 128 units, which is comparable to the ResLSTM model in terms of the number of parameters. The ResNet only model is similar to the one in the [@hershey2017cnn]. We keep most of the ResNet50 [@hershey2017cnn] setup the same except the following changes based on our preliminary experiments. First, we set all kernel sizes and strides to be $3 \times 3$ and $2 \times 1$, respectively. We also remove the max pooling layer after the first convolutional layer. Second, we reduce the channel sizes to be $16, 32, 64, 128$ in each residual block. The CLDNN model we used is similar to the one used in [@guo2017attention]. It has 2 convolutional layers followed by one max pooling layer, and 5 LSTM layers with 128 units. All the convolutional layers are followed by a batch norm layer.
All our models are trained on the 256-dimensional log energy of short-time Fourier transform (log-STFT256) features. For global aggregation methods, such as attention and mean aggregation, the utterance label is used for loss calculation. We use Adam optimizer with the default setting [@torchoptimizer] to minimize the cross-entropy loss. We use low frame rate input which has 30ms for each frame. We truncated the input audio at 300 frames (9 seconds) length.
During the training, we feed the entire utterance input to the network. In order to match the training with the online streaming inference, we pad ($kernel\_size - 1$) on the left side of time dimension of the input for every convolutional layer during training. Therefore, all the convolutional layers only see their corresponding inputs from the past but not future frames. We specify the stride in the time dimension of all convolutional layers to be 1.
Results
=======
We first compare the performance across different model topologies. In the Table \[tab:model\_topo\], we include AUC (area under curve), EER (equal error rate), and ACC (accuracy) as our performance metrics. We also show the number of parameters of each model in the Table \[tab:model\_topo\] We use the results of LSTM-S model as the baseline. Increasing the width and depth of the LSTM-S to LSTM-L does reduce the EER by $22.6\%$ and the number of parameters is increased from 0.3M to 1M. The CNN component in the CLDNN on top of the LSTM-L improves the EER by $30.0\%$. We also find simply adding more CNN layers in the CLDNN structure does not help to improve the performance on the test dataset. The ResNet only model has 50 convolutional layers, and it improves the EER by $38.2\%$ relatively comparing to the baseline. But the number of parameters is about 1.5M, which is larger than other model topologies. Finally the ResLSTM model, which has 0.9M parameters, improves the EER the most by $41.1\%$.
topology AUC EER ACC Para
---------- -------- -------- ------- ------
LSTM-S – – – 0.3M
LSTM-L +7.6% -22.6% +5.8% 1.0M
CLDNN +9.7% -30.0% +6.0% 1.1M
ResNet +11.9% -38.2% +8.8% 1.5M
ResLSTM +12.2% -41.1% +8.7% 0.9M
: Performance of different model topology with attention aggregation[]{data-label="tab:model_topo"}
Next, we fix the model topology to be the ResLSTM and compared different aggregation methods including frame-level training without any aggregation \[sec:framewise\], utterance-level attention \[sec:attention\] and global mean, causal mean \[sec:causal\] and one layer RNN \[sec:rnn\]. We use the results of the ResLSTM without aggregation as the baseline. We applied the causal mean aggregation on either the LSTM output $h_t$ or the prediction output from the DNN $y_t$. Results are shown in the Table \[tab:pooling\]. As expected, the performance of global mean aggregation and attention method improves the EER by $7.8\%$ and $9\%$, respectively, which matched the finding in our previous work [@haung2019study]. The two models with frame-level causal mean aggregation show similar EER performance, which improves the EER by $8.5\%$ and $7.8\%$. We conclude that the model with causal mean aggregation can achieve similar performance as model with attention when evaluate at the end of utterances. Since there is no significant performance difference between the two causal mean methods, we will use causal mean aggregation on the $h_t$ for the rest of the paper. Using one layer RNN with $tanh$ activation function slightly improves the EER by $0.6\%$ comparing to the baseline. RNN with ReLU activation function performed even worse, increases the EER by $2.4\%$ comparing to the baseline. We believe this is due to the gradient vanish issue of the RNN layer over time.
aggregation method AUC EER ACC
---------------------- ------- ------- -------
frame-wise – – –
global mean +1.3% -7.8% +1.0%
attention +1.3% -9.0% +0.6%
causal mean on $h_t$ +1.3% -8.5% +1.1%
causal mean on $y_t$ +1.5% -7.8% +1.7%
RNN-ReLU 0% +2.4% -1.0%
RNN-tanh +0.2% -0.6% 0%
: ResLSTM model with different aggregation methods[]{data-label="tab:pooling"}
Instead of evaluating the prediction results at the end of utterance, we also compared the causal mean aggregation to the attention by evaluating the prediction at early frames in an utterance. In Table \[tab:pooling2\], we evaluate the model performance in the first several seconds of each utterance. The causal mean always performance better than the attention method in terms of EER, especially when evaluating at the first two seconds. Moreover, in Table \[tab:pooling3\], we compare the two aggregation methods by evaluating the prediction results at different portions of each utterance. For example, $0.5L$ means the middle of an utterance. The causal mean aggregation method still consistently outperforms the attention method. Especially evaluating at middle of the utterance, it reduces the EER by $16\%$ comparing to the attention method.
This robustness property of the causal mean aggregation method is critical for streaming ASR applications for two reasons: Firstly, in practice, the end of the utterance is determined by a separate end-of-utterance detector (aka, end-pointer) for the purpose of ASR and can therefore vary significantly from utterance to utterance. Secondly, depending on the application, an early DD/ND decision can be desirable in order to take action prior to reaching the end of the utterance.
We also tried a causal attention aggregation method, which mask out the future frames for the attention calculation at each frame. But the computational cost is prohibitive, since at every frame, the attention calculation has to be repeated which is much more computationally expensive than causal mean aggregation. We will consider this as a future work to continue seeking solution to reduce the training time.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we proposed a ResLSTM model with causal mean aggregation for online streaming classification of device-directed speech detection. Experimental results showed that the ResLSTM model topology outperforms other topologies such as LSTM, ResNet, and CLDNN. We showed how to cache convolutional operations for online streaming inference with CNNs. We also proposed a causal mean aggregation method to obtain a more robust frame-level representation, and showed that causal mean aggregation method can achieve the same performance as the attention aggregation method on full utterances and significantly outperforms attention when used for early decision making, prior to reaching the end-of-utterance.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'En este escrito relatamos cronlógicamente varias situaciones que han permitido madurar y formalizar a los objetos que conocemos como números imaginarios o complejos. Comenzaremos introduciendo la evidencia más antigua que se conoce del cálculo de la raíz cuadrada de una cantidad negativa, la cual involucra al griego Herón de Alejandría, hasta el concepto formal del los números complejos dado por William Rowan Hamilton.'
address: |
Camilo Ramírez Maluendas\
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Manizales\
Manizales, Colombia.
author:
- Camilo Ramírez Maluendas
title: Una breve historia imaginaria
---
La evidencia escrita más antigua que se conoce del cálculo de una raíz cuadrada de una cantidad negativa data de apróximadamente del año 75 d. C. Esta apareció en el libro *Estereometría*, escrito por el griego *Herón de Alejandría* (siglo I d. C.). ?‘Cómo aparece la raíz cuadrada de una cantidad negativa? Pues bien, el griego quería calcular la altura de una *pirámide truncada de base cuadrada* (veáse Figura \[heron\]), donde $a=28$ unidades y $b=4$ unidades eran las medidas de los lados de los cuadrados inferior y superior, respectivamente, y $c=15$ unidades era el valor de la arista inclinada.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Pirámide truncada.*\
Imagen elaborada por NRICH.[]{data-label="heron"}](frustum.pdf "fig:")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabemos que la fórmula para hallar dicha altura es $h=\sqrt{c^2-\left(\dfrac{a-b}{2}\right)^2}$, Herón también lo sabía. En la solución de su problema, Herón escribió (en términos modernos) $$\begin{aligned}
h&=&\sqrt{\left(15\right)^2-\left(\dfrac{28-4}{2}\right)^2}=\sqrt{125-2(144)},\\
&=&\sqrt{125-144-144}=\sqrt{81-144}.\\\end{aligned}$$ De la anterior igualdad concluimos que el valor de la altura de la pirámide es $h=\sqrt{-63}$. Sin embargo, en el siguiente paso Herón calculó $h=\sqrt{144-81}$ (véase *e.g.*, [@NRICH], [@Nah p. 4], [@Smi p. 261]). !‘A lo mejor fue un escribano el que cometió el error de escritura!
Otro griego que se encontró en circunstancias muy parecidas fue Diofanto de Alejandría (siglo III d. C.). En su obra *Aritmética*, de aproximadamente el año 275 d. C., Diofanto deseaba encontrar la medida de los lados de un triángulo rectángulo con área $7$ unidades cuadradas y perímetro $12$ unidades (véase Libro VI, problema 22 [@Ras]). Si $x$ y $y$ denotan las medidas de los lados de dicho triángulo rectángulo, entonces el problema se plantea de la siguiente manera en términos algebraicos $$\frac{xy}{2}=7 \text{\quad y \quad} x^2+y^2=(12-x-y)^2.$$ Del método de sustitución aplicado en las anteriores igualdades obtenemos la ecuación de segundo grado $$\label{ec:cuadratica}
172x-24x^2-336=0.$$ Si usamos la fórmula general cuadrática concluimos que las soluciones de la ecuación (\[ec:cuadratica\]) son $$x=\frac{43\pm \sqrt{-167}}{12}.$$ Sin embargo, Diofanto escribió que la ecuación (\[ec:cuadratica\]) no podría resolverse a menos que la mitad del coeficiente de $x$ multiplicado por sí mismo, menos $24\times 336$ sea un cuadrado. Obviamente, $$\left(\frac{172}{2}\right)^2-(24)(336)=-668$$ !‘no es un cuadrado! Puesto que no podemos encontrar un real tal que su cuadrado sea $-668$.
Después de Diofanto, tal parece que no era aceptada la posibilidad de que un objeto fuese la raíz cuadrada de una cantidad negativa. Alrededor del año 850 d. C. el matemático hindú *Mahaviracarya*[^1] estableció la siguiente ley para tratar a las raíces de las cantidades negativas en su único libro *Ganita Sara Samgraha*:
[ *“Como en la naturaleza de las cosas (cantidades) negativas no son cuadrados (cantidades), por lo tanto, no tienen raíz cuadrada”.* Véase *e.g.*, [@Smi2 p. 312]. ]{}
Así mismo, el conocido matemático y astrónomo hindú *Bhaskara Acharia* (1114-1185) en su libro *Bijaganita* escribió:
[ *“...nunca puede haber un cuadrado negativo como se ha demostrado”.* Véase *e.g.*, [@Str p. 15]. ]{}
Fue hasta el año 1545 en que el italiano *Gerolamo Cardano* (1501-1576) publicó su obra *Ars magna*, en ella introdujo por primera vez los objetos de la forma $a+\sqrt{-1}b$ en el álgebra, con $a$ y $b$ reales [@vander p. 56]. En esta obra, el italiano planteó un método desarrollado por *Scipione del Ferro* (1465-1526) y *Targaglia*[^2] (1501-1557) para encontrar las soluciones de las ecuaciones de tercer grado. También, propuso un método desarrollado junto con *Ludivoco Ferrari* para hallar las soluciones de las ecuaciones de cuatro grado. ?‘Cuál o cuáles son las raíces de una ecuación de tercer grado? La ecuación general cúbica es de la forma $$ay^3+by^2+cy+d=0.$$ Podemos introducir la variable $x=y+\dfrac{b}{3a}$ en la expresión anterior y obtenemos la forma reducida $$\label{forma_reducida}
x^3+px+q=0,$$ donde $$p=\frac{3ac-b^2}{3a^2} \text{\quad y \quad} q=\frac{2b^3-9abc+27a^2d}{27a^3}$$ Ahora, realizamos el cambio de variable $x=u+v$, entonces $$\begin{split}
x^3& =(u+v)^3=u^3+v^3+3u^2v+3v^2u\\
&=u^3+v^3+3uv(u+v)=u^3+v^3+3uvx.
\end{split}$$ De esta última expresión obtenemos $$\label{eq:comparar}
x^3-3uvx-u^3-v^3=0.$$ De la comparación de las ecuaciones (\[forma\_reducida\]) y (\[eq:comparar\]) tenemos que $$\label{eq:final}
\begin{split}
3uv=-p\\
u^3+v^3=-q\\
\end{split}$$ En (\[eq:final\]), en la primera ecuación despejamos $v$ en términos de $p$ y $u$. Luego, sustituimos en la segunda ecuación y así obtenemos $$u^6+qu^3-\frac{p^3}{27}=0.$$ Esta última ecuación la podemos resolver mediante la fórmula cuadrática, pues hacemos $z=u^3$ y tenemos $z^2+qz-\dfrac{p^3}{27}=0$. Entonces $$z=u^3=-\frac{q}{2}\pm\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}},$$ tomamos la raíz positiva[^3] y tenemos que $$\label{eq:u}
u=\sqrt[3]{-\frac{q}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}.$$\[eq:v\] Dado que $v^3=-q-u^3$ (véase ecuación (\[eq:final\])), entonces $$v=\sqrt[3]{-\frac{q}{2}-\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}.$$ Finalmente, como $x=u+v$, entonces $$x=\sqrt[3]{-\frac{q}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}+\sqrt[3]{-\frac{q}{2}-\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}.$$ !‘Esta es la fórmula de Cardano!
En el Capítulo 37 del *Ars magna*, Cardano deseaba encontrar dos números cuya suma fuera $10$ y su producto fuera $40$, en términos algebraicos, quería encontar los valores $x$ y $y$ tales que $$x+y=10 \text{\, y \,} xy=40.$$
Él realizó ciertas operaciones básicas y obtuvo los términos $5+\sqrt{-15}$ y $5-\sqrt{-15}$ (véase [@Cardano p. 219]) como suluciones a las ecuaciones. Luego, Cardano verificó que estos objetos satisfacían las condiciones requeridas. Él escribió:
[ *“Putting aside the mental tortures involved, multiply $5+\sqrt{-15}$ and $5-\sqrt{-15}$, making $25 -(-15)$ which is $+15$. Hence this product is $40$... This is truly sophisticated.”* Véase [@vander p. 56]. ]{}
El italiano *Rafael Bombelli* (1526-1572) fue otro matemático que también estudió las raíces de las ecuaciones cúbicas y cuadráticas. En su obra *L’ Algebra* publicada en 1572 [@Bombelli] llamó al objeto $+\sqrt{-1}$ *più di meno* y a $-\sqrt{-1}$ *meno di meno*. Además, presentó ocho reglas para la multiplicación de raíces con cantidad negativa $\sqrt{-1}$[^4] (véase [@Fla p. 25]):
[ $$\begin{array}{lr}
\text{\emph{``1. Pi\`u via pi\`u di meno f\`a pi\`u di meno}.}& 1 \cdot \sqrt{-1}=\sqrt{-1}.\\
\text{\emph{\, 2. Meno via pi\`u di meno f\`a meno di meno.}} &(-1)\cdot \sqrt{-1}=-\sqrt{-1}.\\
\text{\emph{\, 3. Pi\`u via meno di meno f\`a meno di meno.}}& 1\cdot\left(-\sqrt{-1}\right)=-\sqrt{-1}.\\
\text{\emph{\, 4. Meno via meno di meno f\`a pi\`u di meno}} & (-1)\cdot (-\sqrt{-1})=\sqrt{-1}.\\
\text{\emph{\, 5. Pi\`u di meno via pi\`u di meno f\`a meno.}}& \sqrt{-1}\cdot \sqrt{-1}=-1. \\
\text{\emph{\, 6. Pi\`u di meno via meno di meno f\`a pi\`u.}}& \sqrt{-1}\cdot (-\sqrt{-1})=\sqrt{-1}. \\
\text{\emph{\, 7. Meno di meno via pi\`u di meno f\`a pi\`u.}}& \left(-\sqrt{-1}\right)\cdot \sqrt{-1}=1.\\
\text{\emph{\, 8. Meno di meno via meno di meno f\`a meno.''}} &\left(-\sqrt{-1}\right)\cdot \left(-\sqrt{-1}\right)=-1.\\
\end{array}$$ ]{}
En el Capítulo 2, Bombelli solucionó la ecuación $x^3=15x+4$ usando la fórmula de Cardano: Él encontró la raíz $$x=\sqrt[3]{2+\sqrt{-121}}+\sqrt[3]{2-\sqrt{-121}}.$$ la cual llamó una raíz *sofisticada*. Sin embargo, también notó que $x=4$ era una raíz de la ecuación. Ahora, Bombelli se interesó en investigar qué era la raíz cúbica de un número imaginario, quería encontrar valores $a$ y $b$ tal que $$\label{eq:bom0}
\sqrt[3]{2+\sqrt{-121}}=a+\sqrt{-b},$$ ?‘Cómo halló Bombelli $a$ y $b$? De la anterior expresión dedujo que $$\begin{split}
2+\sqrt{-121}&=(a+\sqrt{-b})^3=a^3+(\sqrt{-b})^3+3a^2\sqrt{-b} +3a(\sqrt{-b})^2\\
&=a^3-3ab + (3a^2-b)\sqrt{-b}.
\end{split}$$ Seguidamente, igualó los coeficientes y obtuvo $$\label{eq:bom1}
2=a^3-3ab$$ y $$\label{eq:bom2}
\sqrt{-121}=(3a^2-b)\sqrt{-121}.$$ Él concluyó que si estas dos últimas igualdades se satisfacían, entonces la siguiente igualdad también era cierta $$\label{eq:bom3}
\sqrt[3]{2-\sqrt{-121}}=a-b\sqrt{-1},$$ Luego, multiplicó las ecuaciones (\[eq:bom0\]) y (\[eq:bom3\]) y, obtuvo $$\label{eq:bom4}
25=\sqrt[3]{125}=a^2+b.$$ Así sustituyó (\[eq:bom4\]) en la ecuación (\[eq:bom1\]) y obtuvo la ecuación cúbica $$4a^3-15a=2,$$ la cual tenía como solución $a=2$. Finalmente, reemplazó en la ecuación (\[eq:bom1\]) y encontró que $b=1$.
Bombelli encontró los complejos conjugados[^5] $$\sqrt[3]{2+\sqrt{-121}}=2+\sqrt{-1} \text{\quad y \quad} \sqrt[3]{2-\sqrt{-121}}=2-\sqrt{-1},$$ tal que al sumarlos obtenía el valor $4.$
En 1637, el francés *René Descartes* (1596-1650) publicó su trabajo *La Géométrie* [@Des], en el cual describió sus ideas geométricas aplicadas al álgebra. Una de ellas fue la posibilidad de asociar longitudes a los segmentos y hallar la longitud de un segmento que satisfaciera una ecuación de segundo grado. En el libro $I$ (véase [@Des p. 14]), Descartes quería construir un segmento cuya longitud satisfaciera la ecuación $$x^2=ax-b^2,$$ siendo $a$ y $b$ reales positivos. De la fórmula cuadrática sabemos que las soluciones de esta ecuación son $$x=\frac{1}{2}a\pm\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}a^2-b^2}.$$ Descartes, para hallar estas raíces, construyó $\overline{NL}$ un segmento de línea recta de longitud $\frac{1}{2}a$ y $\overline{LM}$ un segmento de línea recta de longitud $b$ como se muestra en la Figura \[segmentos\]-a. Luego, trazó la línea recta paralela a $\overline{NL}$ que pasa por el punto $M$ y, la circunferencia con centro en $N$ y radio $NL=\frac{1}{2}a$. Él notó que esta circunferencia cortaba a la línea recta en dos puntos $Q$ y $R$ (véase Figura \[segmentos\]-b.). Entonces, concluyó que las longitudes de los segmentos $\overline{MQ}$ y $\overline{MR}$ eran las raíces de la ecuación, *i.e.*, $MQ=\frac{1}{2}a-\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}a^2-b^2}$ y $MR=\frac{1}{2}a+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}a^2-b^2}$. ?‘Por qué?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Construcción geométrica de las raíces de la ecuación $x^2=ax-b^2$.*[]{data-label="segmentos"}](dibujo.pdf "fig:") ![*Construcción geométrica de las raíces de la ecuación $x^2=ax-b^2$.*[]{data-label="segmentos"}](dibujo1.pdf "fig:")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Del teorema de *Potencia de un punto*; el cual dice: si una tangente y una secante se cortan en un punto exterior al círculo, entonces el cuadrado de la tangente es igual al producto de la secante por su segmento exterior; Descartés dedujo que $$\label{eq:potencia_punto}
MQ \cdot MQ = (LM)^2.$$
A partir de esta última igualdad planteó el siguiente razonamiento. Si la longitud del segmento $\overline{MQ}$ fuese $MQ=x$, entonces la longitud del segmento $\overline{MR}$ debía ser $MR=a-x$. Entonces la ecuación (\[eq:potencia\_punto\]) la reescribió como: $x(a-x)=b^2$ o $x^2=ax-b^2$. De esta igualdad pudo interpretrar que la longitud del segmento $\overline{MQ}$ satisfacía la ecuación $x^2=ax-b^2$.
Contrariamente, si la longitud del segmento $\overline{MR}$ fuese $MR=x$, entonces la longitud del segmento $\overline{MQ}$ debía ser $MQ=a-x$. Entonces, la ecuación (\[eq:potencia\_punto\]) la reescribió como: $x(a-x)=b^2$ o $x^2=ax-b^2$. De esta última igualdad pudo interpretar que la longitud del segmento $\overleftarrow{MR}$ satisfacía la ecuación $x^2=ax-b^2$.
Nótese que la construcción geométrica de Descartes estaba basada en el hecho $\frac{1}{2}a\geq b$, de lo contrario la circunferencia no intersectaría a la recta que pasa por $R$ y $Q$ y, las raíces de la ecuación serían de la forma $a \pm \sqrt{-b}$. A esta observación Descartes escribió:
[ *“Et si le cercle, qui ayant son centre au point $N$ passe par le point $L$, ne coupe ni ne touche la ligne droite $MQR$, il n’y a aucune racine en l’équation, de façon qu’ on peut assurer que la construction du problème proposé est impossible.”* Véase [@Des p. 15]. ]{}
Por esta razón a las raíces sofisticadas se les empezó a conocer como números *imposibles*. Descartes también les acuñó el calificativo de *imaginarios* desde que expresó en el libro $III$:
[ *“...on ne fçaurait les rendre autres qu’ imaginaires.”* Véase [@Des p. 174]. ]{}
Podríamos pensar que Descartes trató de encontrar un significado geométrico a las cantidades imaginarias o imposibles, pero sus escritos indican que no tuvo éxito. Otro intento por construir geométricamente la cantidad $\sqrt{-1}$ apunta hacia el matemático inglés *John Wallis*[^6] (1616-1703), en su obra *Trataise of Algebra* (1685), Capítulo LXVI, conociendo los números negativos, a cada punto de una línea recta le asoció un único número real y viceversa. !‘Esta es la representación geométrica de la recta real que conocemos! Parece ser que Wallis tenía idea de dónde construir geométricamente los números imaginarios, pues escribió:
[ *“Where $\sqrt{}$ implies a Mean Proportional between a Pofitive and a Negative Quantity. For like as $\sqrt{bc}$ fignifies a Mean Proportional between $+b$ and $+c$; or between $-b$ and $-c$; (either of which, by Multiplication, makes $+bc$) tween $-b$ and $+c$; either of which being Multiplied, makes $-bc$. And this as to Algebraick confiderantion, is the true notion of fuch Imaginary Root, $\sqrt{-bc}$.”* Véase [@Wallis p. 290] ]{}
En el capítulo LXVII, Wallis representó la cantidad $\sqrt{-81}$ como la longitud del segmento de línea recta $\overline{BC}$ cercana al eje perpendicular $\overline{PC}$ (véase Figura \[Wallis\]), el cual conocemos como el eje imaginario. Este trabajo fue un gran progreso a la interpretación geométrica de las raíces imaginarias.
![*Construcción de Wallis.*\
Imagen tomada de *Trataise of Algebra*.[]{data-label="Wallis"}](Wallis.png "fig:")\
Uno de los artifices del *cálculo infinitesimal* también estudió las raíces imaginarias. El alemán *Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz* (1646-1716) probó en 1676 la relación $$\sqrt{1+\sqrt{-3}}+\sqrt{1-\sqrt{-3}}=\sqrt{6}.$$ Además, en 1702 factorizó la expresión $x^4+a^4$ como (véase [@Smi p. 264]) $$x^4+a^4=\left(x+a\sqrt{-\sqrt{-1}}\right)\left(x-a\sqrt{-\sqrt{-1}}\right)\left(x+a\sqrt{\sqrt{-1}}\right)\left(x-a\sqrt{\sqrt{-1}}\right).$$ Con ayuda de la sustitución trigométrica, nosotros nos convencemos que la primitiva de la función $\dfrac{1}{x^2+1}$ es $arcotan (x)$, es decir, $$\int \frac{1}{x^2+1}dx=arcotan (x)+ C.$$ En 1702, el matemático suizo Johann Bernoulli (1667-1748) descompuso la función fraccionaria $\dfrac{1}{x^2+1}$ como la suma de otras dos fracciones más “sencillas” $$\frac{1}{x^2+1}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-1}} \left(\frac{1}{x-\sqrt{-1}}-\frac{1}{x+\sqrt{-1}}\right)$$ y, expresó la función *arcotangente* (salvo constantes) en términos del *logaritmo complejo*[^7] $$\label{eq:bernoulli}
\begin{split}
arcotan(x) &=\int\frac{1}{x^2+1}dx=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-1}}\int \left(\frac{1}{x-\sqrt{-1}}-\frac{1}{x+\sqrt{-1}}\right)dx\\
&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-1}}\ln \left( \frac{x-\sqrt{-1}}{x+\sqrt{-1}}\right).
\end{split}$$ Doce años después, en marzo 1714 el inglés Roger Cotes (1682-1716) publicó el artículo titulado *Logometria* en *Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society*,[^8] en él presentó una fórmula interesante $$\label{eq:Cotes}
\ln\left(\cos (\phi)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi)\right )=\sqrt{-1}\phi,$$ la cual es equivalente a la conocida fórmula de Euler $\cos (\phi)+i\sin(\phi) =e^{i\phi}$.
?‘Cómo obtuvo Cotes esta relación? En términos modernos, él tomó la elipse $\dfrac{x^2}{a^2}+\dfrac{y^2}{b^2}=1$, donde $a$ y $b$ son las longitudes de los semi ejes. Ahora, la curva que se obtiene al intersectar la elipse con el primer cuadrante del plano cartesiano (véase Figure \[elipse\]-a) la giró alrededor del eje $y$ y generó una superficie $S$, la cual es la parte superior de un elipsoide (véase Figura \[elipse\]-b).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Construcción de la superficie $S$.*[]{data-label="elipse"}](elipse.pdf "fig:") ![*Construcción de la superficie $S$.*[]{data-label="elipse"}](elipsoide.pdf "fig:")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luego, calculó el área de la superficie $S$ y obtuvo las relaciones $$\label{area_1}
A(S)=\pi a\left(a +\frac{b^2}{\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}\ln\left(\frac{a+\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}{b}\right) \right), \text{ si } a>b,$$ o $$\label{area_2}
A(S)=\pi a\left(a+\frac{b^2}{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}\sin^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}{b}\right) \right), \text{ si } a<b.$$ Sin embargo, Cotes notó que cualquiera de las expresiones (\[area\_1\]) o (\[area\_2\]) era correcta para ambos casos: $a>b$ y $a<b$, *i.e,* $$\label{eq:igualda_cotes}
\pi a\left(a +\frac{b^2}{\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}\ln\left(\frac{a+\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}{b}\right) \right)=\pi a\left(a+\frac{b^2}{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}\sin^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}{b}\right) \right).$$ El siguiente paso de Cotes fue definir la cantidad $\phi$ de la siguiente manera $$\sin (\phi)= \dfrac{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}{b}=\dfrac{\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}{b} \text{ y } \cos (\phi)=\dfrac{a}{b},$$ y luego, reescribió la ecuación (\[eq:igualda\_cotes\]) como sigue $$\pi a\left(a +\frac{b^2}{\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}\ln\left( \cos(\phi)-\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi)\right) \right)=\pi a\left(a+\frac{b^2}{\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}\sin^{-1}\left(\sin(\phi)\right) \right).$$ De esta última igualdad obtuvo la expresión $$-\sqrt{-1}\phi=\ln\left(\cos(\phi)-\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi)\right),$$ la cual era equivalente a la relación (\[eq:Cotes\]) $$\ln\left(\cos (\phi)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi)\right )=\sqrt{-1}\phi.$$
La fórmula de Cotes le permitió al matemático francés Abraham de Moivre (1667-1754) introducir en 1730 la conocida relación $$(\cos (\phi)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi))^{n}= \cos (n\phi) + \sqrt{-1}\sin (n\phi).$$ Además, si consideramos $\phi=\frac{\pi}{2}$ y reemplazamos en la ecuación dada por Cotes obtendremos $$\frac{\pi}{2}=\frac{\ln\left(\sqrt{-1}\right)}{\sqrt{-1}},$$ una maravillosa manera de representar $\pi$ mediante el logaritmo complejo. !‘Esta representación ya era conocida por *Leonhard Paul Euler* (1707-1783) y Johann Bernoulli! (Véase [@Fla p. 82]). El 18 de octubre de 1740, Euler escribió una carta a Johann Bernoulli contándole que encontró la solución a la ecuación diferencial $$y''+y=0, \quad y(0)=2 \text{\quad y \quad} y'(0)=0,$$ la cual escribió como $$y(x)=2\cos(x) \quad \text{y} \quad y(x)=e^{x\sqrt{-1}}+e^{-x\sqrt{-1}}$$ Así, Euler introdujo las relaciones[^9] (véase [@Nah p. 143]) $$\sin(\phi)=\frac{e^{\sqrt{-1}\phi}-e^{-\sqrt{-1}\phi}}{2\sqrt{-1}} \text{ y } \cos(\phi)=\frac{e^{\sqrt{-1}\phi}+e^{-\sqrt{-1}\phi}}{2}.$$ Euler también desarrolló la notación $a+b\sqrt{-1}=e^{C}(\cos(\phi)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi))=e^{C}e^{\sqrt{-1}(\phi \pm 2\lambda\pi)}$ y la función logaritmo complejo $\ln (a+b\sqrt{-1})=C+\sqrt{-1}(\phi \pm 2\lambda\pi)$, donde $\lambda$ es un entero positivo o cero [@Kline p. 411]. La notación $i$ que actualmente usamos para designar $\sqrt{-1}$ fue introducida también por Euler en su artículo *De formulis differentialibus angularibus maxime irrationalibus, quas tamen per logarithmos et arcus circulares integrare licet. M. S. Academiae exhibit. die 5. Maii 1777*. Allí Euler escribió:
[ *“...formulam $\sqrt{-1}$ littera $i$ in posterum designabo,...”* ]{}
El problema de la representación geométrica de las raíces imaginarias se abordó con mayor éxito el 10 de marzo de 1797. En esta fecha el noruego *Caspar Wessel* (1745-1818) presentó su trabajo titulado *On the Analytical Representation of Direction. An Attempt Applied Chiefly to Solving Plane and Spherical Polygons*[^10] [@Wessel] a *La Real Academia de Ciencias Danesa*, que fue publicado dos años después. En él, representó geométricamente a una raíz imaginaria $a+bi$, mediante un *segmento dirigido*[^11] y, describió la adición y multiplicación de dichos segmentos dirigidos[^12]. Desde el punto de vista geométrico, la suma de segmentos dirigidos correspondía a la regla del paralelogramo. En la Figura \[vectores\]-a se ilustra la suma de los segmentos dirigidos $\overrightarrow{AB}$ y $\overrightarrow{BC}$, la cual escribimos formalmente mediante $\overrightarrow{AB}$+$\overrightarrow{BC}$=$\overrightarrow{AC}$. Para definir el producto entre segmentos dirigidos, Wessel tomó como referencia una línea recta y allí marcó dos puntos, el origen $0$ y otro $E$. Luego, definió la multiplicación de los segmentos dirigidos $\overrightarrow{OA}$ y $\overrightarrow{OB}$ como el segmento dirigido $\overrightarrow{OC}$ el cual tenía longitud el producto de las magnitudes de los segmentos dirigidos $\overrightarrow{OA}$ y $\overrightarrow{OB}$ y, dirección la suma de las direcciones de los segmentos dirigidos $\overrightarrow{OA}$ y $\overrightarrow{OB}$, es decir, el segmento dirigido $\overrightarrow{OC}$ debía tener longitud $\left| \overrightarrow{OA}\right| \cdot \left| \overrightarrow{OB}\right|$[^13] y sentido $m(\angle COE)=m(\angle AOE) +m(\angle BOE)$[^14] (véase Figura \[vectores\]-b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Operaciones con vectores.*[]{data-label="vectores"}](sumavectores.pdf "fig:") ![*Operaciones con vectores.*[]{data-label="vectores"}](productovectores.pdf "fig:")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?‘Cómo descubrió Wessel la multiplicación de números complejos? Lo hizo desde las siguientes observaciones descritas en el Cuadro \[Table:1\].
Multiplicación Representación geométrica (un segmento dirigido)
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
$(1)\cdot (1)=1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $0^{o}.$
$(1)\cdot (-1)=-1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $180^{o}$
$(-1)\cdot (-1)=-1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $0^{o}$.
$(1)\cdot (\sqrt{-1})=\sqrt{-1}$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $90^{o}$.
$(1)\cdot (-\sqrt{-1})=-\sqrt{-1}$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $0^{o}+270^{o}=270^{o}$.
$(-1)\cdot (\sqrt{-1})=-\sqrt{-1}$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $180^{o}+90^{o}=270^{o}$.
$(-1)\cdot (-\sqrt{-1})=\sqrt{-1}$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $180^{o}+270^{o}=360^{o}+90^{o}=90^{o}$.
$(\sqrt{-1})\cdot (\sqrt{-1})=-1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $90^{o}+90^{o}=180^{o}$.
$(\sqrt{-1})\cdot -(\sqrt{-1})=1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $90^{o}+270^{o}=360^{o}=0^{o}$.
$(-\sqrt{-1})\cdot (\sqrt{-1})=1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $270^{o}+90^{o}=360^{o}=0^{o}.$
$(-\sqrt{-1})\cdot -(\sqrt{-1})=-1$ Con longitud $1$ y dirección $270^{o}+270^{o}=360^{o}+180^{o}=180^{o}.$
: *Observaciones de Wessel.*[]{data-label="Table:1"}
?‘Cómo asoció Wessel a cada imaginario $a+\sqrt{-1}b$ un segmento dirigido? Primero tomó el plano euclidiano, trazó dos líneas rectas que se intersectan en un punto $0$ -el origen- y formando cuatro ángulos rectos (los ejes real e imaginario)[^15]. Luego, ubicó sobre dichas rectas los puntos $1$, $-1$, $\sqrt{-1}$ y $-\sqrt{-1}$ (véase Figura \[wessel\]), entonces al número imaginario $a+\sqrt{-1}b$ le asoció el segmento dirigido $\overrightarrow{OA}$ (véase Figura \[wessel\]) con longitud $r:=\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$ y dirección $$\phi= \left\{
\begin{array}{ ll }
arcotan\left(\dfrac{y}{x}\right)-\pi; & \text{ si } y<0,\, x<0; \\
-\dfrac{\pi}{2}; & \text{ si } y<0, \, x=0;\\
arcotan\left(\dfrac{y}{x}\right); & \text{ si } x>0; \\
\dfrac{\pi}{2}; & \text{ si } y>0, \, x=0;\\
arcotan\left(\dfrac{y}{x}\right)+\pi; & \text{ si } y\geq 0,\, x<0. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
![*Ilustración de la construcción de $\sqrt{-1}$ de Wessel.*[]{data-label="wessel"}](vector.pdf "fig:")\
Así, Wessel escribió $a=r\cos(\phi)$, $b=r\sin(\phi)$ y $a+\sqrt{-1}b=r\left(\cos(\phi)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi)\right)$. Luego, demostró que si $c+\sqrt{-1}d=r^{'}\left(\cos(\alpha)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\alpha)\right)$, entonces la multiplicación de números imaginarios estaba dada mediante la expresión $$\begin{split}
\left(a+\sqrt{-1}b\right)\cdot \left(c+\sqrt{-1}d\right) &=rr^{'}\left(\cos(\phi+\alpha)+\sqrt{-1}\sin(\phi+\alpha)\right)\\
&=\left(ac-bd +\sqrt{-1}(ad+bc)\right).
\end{split}$$ Y la suma de números imaginarios estaba dada mediante la expresión $$\begin{split}
\left(a+\sqrt{-1}b\right)+ \left(c+\sqrt{-1}d\right) &=r\cos(\phi)+ r^{'}\cos(\alpha) +\sqrt{-1}\left(r\sin{\phi}+r^{'}\sin(\alpha)\right)\\
&=a+c +\sqrt{-1}\left(b+d\right).
\end{split}$$
?‘Quién fue Jean Robert Argand? Era un contador parisino (1768-1822). Esencialmente, sabemos poco de la vida de este hombre. Desconocemos si contaba con educación matemático. Sin embargo, sabemos que Argand produjo un folleto en 1806, titulado *Essai sur une manière de présenter les quantités imaginaires dans les constructions géométriques*[^16] [@Argand], en el cual no incluyó el nombre del autor. Este panfleto cayó en manos de *Adrien-Marie Legendre* (1752-1833), quien a su vez se lo mencionó a través de una carta a *Francois Francais* (1768-1810), un profesor de matemáticas con un amplio bagaje militar. Cuando murió Francais, su hermano *Jaques* (1775-1833) heredó sus documentos. Jaques también tenía amplios conocimientos militares y matemáticos, él era profesor en *Ecole Impériale d’ Application du Génie et de l’ Artillerie* in Metz. Efectivamente, Jaques encontró la carta de Legendre dirigida a su hermano en la cual le describió los resultados matemáticos de Argand. En esta misiva Legendre no mencionó a Argand. Motivado por estas ideas, Jaques publicó un artículo en 1813 en la revista *Annales de Mathémathiques*, en el cual introdujo las ideas básicas de la geometría compleja. En el último párrafo del documento, Jaques reconoció la carta de Legendre a Francais y pidió al autor desconocido que se relevara. Argand se enteró de la noticia y se lo comunicó a Francais. Entonces, en el siguiente número de la revista, Francais notificó que Argand era el primero que había desarrollado la geometría de los imaginarios (ninguno de los dos había oído hablar de Wessel [@Nah p. 74]).
En su artículo, Argand da una interpretación de los números imaginarios $a+b\sqrt{-1}$ como un punto en el plano y describió las reglas geométricas de la multiplicación y adición de los números imaginarios. Argand también intepretó $\sqrt{-1}$ como una rotación de $180^{o}$.
El principe de las matemáticas *Karl Friedrich Gauss* (1777-1855) también dio valiosos aportes a los conocidos, de momento, como los números imaginarios, pues en abril de 1831, Gauss los renombró como los números *complejos* (véase [@Gauss1 p. 102]). En el año de 1799 presentó su tesis doctoral titulada *Demonstratio nova theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam rationalem integram unius variabilis in factores reales primi vel secundi gradus resolvi posse*[^17] (véase [@Gauss]), en ella introdujo la primera de cuatro demostraciones, que puplicó durante toda su vida, del teorema Fundamental del Álgebra. ?‘Qué nos dice este teorema?
**Teorema Fundamental del Álgebra.** *Consideremos la colección $\{a_0,\ldots,a_{n}\}$ de $n+1$ números complejos tales que $n\geq 1$ y $a_0\neq 0$. Tomemos el polinomio $p(z)=a_nz^n +\ldots+a_{0}$, entonces existe un número complejo $z_0\in\mathbb{C}$ tal que $p(z_0)=0$.*
En 1816, Gauss introdujo dos nuevas pruebas para este teorema en su escrito titulado *Demonstratio nova altera theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam rationalem integram unius variabilis in factores reales primi vel secundi gradus resolvi posse*. Comm. Recentiores (Gottingae), **3**:107-142, 1816. In Werke III, 31-56. Marsden, J. E. en el libro *Basic Complex Analysis* p. 151 presentó la prueba del Teorema Fundamental de Álgebra usando esencialmente las ideas dadas por Gauss en esta publicación. Básicamente, la estrategia consistió en demostrar esta afirmación procediento por contradicción. Supuso que el polinomio $p(z)$ no tenía raíces y constryó la nueva función $f(z)=\frac{1}{p(z)}$, la cual resultaba ser entera y acotada. Luego, aplicó el Teorema de Liouville y dedujo que la función $f$ debía ser constante *ergo*, el polinomio $p(z)$ también era una constante. Este hecho era una contradicción, pues el polinomio $p(z)$ no era constante. Este razonamiento lo llevó a concluir que debía existir un elemento $z_0\in\mathbb{C}$ tal que $p(z_0)=0$.
En abril de 1831, Gauss presentó (véase [@Gauss1 p. 102]) sus ideas geométricas de los complejos en la Real Sociedad de Gotinga, las cuales coincidían con las de Argand. Tal parece, que Gauss ya había desarrollado estas nociones desde 1796 (!‘mucho antes de Wessel!), sin embargo, como muchos otros de sus trabajos, no los publicó hasta que sus ideas estuviesen maduras [@Nah p. 82].
Con el matemático francés *Augustin Louis Cauchy* (1789-1857) se dio inicio al estudio de la funciones de variables que son complejo valuadas, es decir, funciones con regla de correspondencia $f(x+iy)$. En el año de 1814 presentó a la *Academia de Ciencias Francesa* el escrito *Mémoire sur les intégrales définies* que contenía sus aportes al desarrollo de la teoría de funciones complejas [@Ett]. En sus memorias, Cauchy probó que si una función compleja $f$ es analítica en una región $G$ “con ciertas características”, entonces la integral de $f$ a lo largo de la frontera de cualquier rectángulo que está contenido en $G$ es cero. Cauchy también estudió las funciones complejas que son discontinuas en puntos aislados y obtuvo una fórmula, la cual es la esencia del cálculo de los residuos.
?‘Quién introdujo la definición de números complejos que usualmente aprendemos en un curso elemental de variable compleja? El concepto apareció en 1837, fue introducido por el irlandés William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865) cuando publicó *Theory of Conjugate Functions or Algebraic Couples: with a Preliminary Essay on Algebra as a Science of Pure Time* [@Ham]. Allí definió una pareja ordenada $(a,b)$ de números reales $a$ y $b$, la suma y multiplicación de parejas ordenadas como $$\begin{array}{ccl}
(a,b)+(c,d)& := & (a+c,b+d);\\
(a,b)\cdot (c,d) & := & (ac-bd,bc+ad).
\end{array}$$ Además, Hamilton definió la raíz cuadrada de una pareja ordenada. Luego, identificó el número real $a$ con la pareja ordenada $(a,0)$ y, calculó $$\sqrt{-1}=\sqrt{(-1,0)}=(0,1).$$ De esta última igualdad, él escribió
[ *“...be concisely denoted as follows, $\sqrt{-1} = (0, 1)$. In the theory of single numbers, the symbol $\sqrt{-1}$ is absurd, and denotes an impossible extraction, or a merely imaginary number; but in the theory of couples, the same symbol $\sqrt{-1}$ is significant, and denotes a possible extraction, or a real couple, namely (as we have just now seen) the principal square-root of the couple $(−1, 0)$”.* ]{}
?‘Qué ha sucedido después de Hamilton? Aún son demasiadas las anécdotas fascinantes que faltan por relatar. Sin embargo, invitamos a los lectores nutrir *Una breve historia imaginaria*.
Agradecimientos {#agradecimientos .unnumbered}
===============
El autor fue apoyado por la UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA, SEDE MANIZALES. Él dedica este trabajo a su pequeña pero hermosa familia: Marbella y Emilio; en aprecio por su amor y apoyo.
[^1]: El maestro Mahavira.
[^2]: Así era apodado el matemático italiano *Niccolò Fontana* debido a su tartamudez.
[^3]: Si consideramos la raíz negativa obtendremos el mismo valor para $x$.
[^4]: El símbolo $\sqrt{-1}$ fue introducido por *Albert Girard* (1595-1632) su obra *Invention Nouvelle en l’Algèbre* publicado en 1629.
[^5]: El término conjutado fue introducido por Augustin Louis Cauchy en 1821 (véase [@Green p: 103]).
[^6]: Introdujo también el símbolo que conocemos como infinito $\infty$.
[^7]: Desde el punto de vista histórico, podemos pensar que allí surgió este logaritmo.
[^8]: Para una completa versión inglesa *Logometria* véase [@Gow].
[^9]: El trabajo de Euler con este resultado fue publicado en 1748.
[^10]: Su trabajo está escrito en danés, sin embargo este libro contiene la traducción en la lengua inglesa del ensayo escrito por Casper Wessel, presentado a la Real Academia de Ciencias Danesa.
[^11]: Actualmente los conocemos como vectores.
[^12]: Este trabajo dio apertura al nombre de los números imaginarios.
[^13]: El símbolo $|\, |$ denota longitud.
[^14]: El símbolo $m$ denota la medida del ángulo.
[^15]: Los historiadores generalmente atribuyen a Wessel ser el primero en asociar un eje perpendicular -eje de los imaginarios- al eje real (véase [@Nah p. 53]).
[^16]: Del francés al castellano *Ensayo sobre una forma de representar las cantidades imaginarias mediante construcciones geométricas*.
[^17]: Del latín al castellano *Nuevas pruebas del teorema donde cada función integral algebraica de una variable puede resolverse en factores reales de primer o segundo grado*.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Topological defects must respect causality, a statement leading to restrictive constraints on the power spectrum of the total cosmological perturbations they induce. Causality constraints have for long been known to require the presence of an under-density in the surrounding matter compensating the defect network on large scales. This so-called compensation can never be neglected and significantly complicates calculations in defect scenarios, eg. computing cosmic microwave background fluctuations. A quick and dirty way to implement the compensation are the so-called compensation fudge factors. Here we derive the complete photon-baryon-CDM backreaction effects in defect scenarios. The fudge factor comes out as an algebraic identity and so we drop the negative qualifier “fudge”. The compensation scale is computed and physically interpreted. Secondary backreaction effects exist, and neglecting them constitutes the well-defined approximation scheme within which one should consider compensation factor calculations. We quantitatively assess the accuracy of this approximation, and conclude that the considerable pains associated with improving on it are often a waste of effort.'
address: 'The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, UK'
author:
- Charlotte Cheung and João Magueijo
title: Painless causality in defect calculations
---
Introduction
============
When a defect network is formed, causality and energy conservation demand that there must be a compensating under-density in the background matter and radiation. This compensation is exactly anti-correlated with the defects and is of a comparable intensity. It acts as a source for the gravitational potential which in turn drives radiation perturbations. For this reason the compensation cannot be ignored in CMB calculations. In previous work [@alsteb; @us] the compensation has been included by use of compensation fudge factors. These ensure that the overall perturbations have a large-scale behaviour consistent with the causality constraints [@trasch; @traschk4]. However their exact form was never justified by an analytical identity, and hence the words “fudge factor” qualifying them.
In this paper we show that by choosing a suitable gauge it is possible to derive analytically an expression for the compensation which contains a term in the form of the previously discussed fudge factor. Along with the compensation factor we find that there are also terms representing the backreaction from baryons, CDM and radiation which cannot be predicted a priori. We find however that these terms are sub-dominant compared to the defects for any reasonable values of the Hubble constant and the baryon fraction today. The physical implication is that it is the defect rather than any other component which dominates the spectrum of radiation perturbations. Hence by choosing a suitable defect it is possible to have a range of spectra which do not necessarily have the characteristic out of phase spectra associated with defect calculations, as shown in [@us].
This paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec2\] review the equations for a system of photons, baryons, CDM, and defects, in the tight-coupled approximation. We present a trick for easily considering a defect component within a multi-fluid formalism, such as the one presented in Kodama and Sasaki [@KS]. We show how the various gauge-invariant formulations correspond to nothing but different choices of full gauge fixing. We look into all popular choices of gauge. We argue in favour of the flat slicing gauge for the discussion of feedback mechanisms, the compensation, or the causality constraint. Then in Section \[exact\] we present an algebraic manipulation which allows splitting compensation into two terms, one of which is purely a compensation fudge factor. We evaluate then, in Section \[calc\], the quantitative impact of dropping the terms other than the compensation factor term. We find that one would need rather extremely values of the Hubble constant and baryon fraction for these extra terms to have much qualitative effect. In the concluding section we digress on the metaphysical implications of this results, and the practical application which we intend to give it.
The basic equations {#sec2}
===================
We consider the epoch before recombination when it is a good approximation to treat all the cosmic components as a fluid. This is the so-called tight-coupled approximation, which we shall use to develop all our arguments. We will consider a scenario where the Universe is made up of radiation (corresponding variables labelled by $\gamma$), baryons ($b$), cold dark matter ($c$), and a defect component ($s$) where the baryons and radiation are tightly coupled (see eg. [@HS] for a quantitative definition).
Whenever we intend to show the generality of our results we shall also consider a set of extra generic components, denoted by $\alpha$, which may be neutrinos or whatever personal taste requires. In order to extract intuition from our arguments we shall sometimes assume that only defects and radiation are relevant, a statement valid deep in the radiation dominated epoch. The actual calculations will however always be valid considering the other components. This is necessary for generality, since matter-radiation equality may (and in fact usually does) happen before recombination.
We use the gauge-invariant formalism in all the guises discussed in Kodama and Sasaki[@KS] (KS from now on). These different formulations, one should point out, correspond to different choices of gauge. A set of a priori gauge dependent variables defined in a fully fixed gauge is of course gauge invariant. The different possible gauge-invariant contrast variables correspond to nothing but the density contrast as measured in different fully fixed gauges. There is sometimes an inappropriate feeling that “gauge-invariant” and “gauge-dependent” methods are two separate tool boxes. They are in fact one and the same thing. The only exception to this statement is the synchronous gauge [@efst]. This choice of gauge leaves a residual gauge freedom and therefore variables defined in synchronous gauge can never be related algebraically to gauge invariant variables (see [@Bma] for a good dictionary).
In this paper we adopt a multi-lingual attitude towards cosmic perturbation formalisms. We shall use a variety of density contrast variables $\Delta_\alpha$ for a generic component $\alpha$. These will be indexed in the following way. No extra index after the component index $\alpha$ denotes density contrast in the $\alpha$-component rest frame (not in the total rest frame which we found a mess in the presence of defects). An index $s$ denotes the density contrast in the Newtonian slicing (where the perturbed cosmological flow appears to have no shear). An index $g$ denotes the density contrast in the flat slicing (where the equal time slices have no scalar curvature).
We consider all these different gauges in order to connect with previous work. However the main remark in this and the next section is that by choosing the flat slicing contrast variables two desirable (at least for defect practitioners) features may be achieved. Firstly, one gets rid of potential time derivatives in the equations for the radiation (and also for baryons and CDM, but this can also be achieved in other gauges). This is a major technical improvement on the formalism. It allows performing all calculations invoking only defect stress energy components and not their time derivatives. Structure functions for time derivatives are notoriously noisier in defect simulations.
Secondly, as shown in the next Section, in the flat slicing gauge the radiation backreaction naturally separates into two terms. The first is required by the Traschen integral constraints [@trasch] and cannot be set to zero in any approximation scheme, otherwise causality is grossly violated. We will however find an exact expression for this term made up of a factor (independent of the perturbation variables) times a set of defect variables. This factor happens to have the same form as the “compensation fudge factor”. Furthermore the “compensation scale”, left undetermined in compensation factor calculations, can be computed. Hence fudging is an exact equality made obvious in the flat-slice gauge. The second backreaction term is truly unpredictable, but we will be able to show that it is not required by causality, and it is qualitatively sub-dominant.
A defect component in a multi-fluid formalism
---------------------------------------------
We shall add to the multi-fluid formulation of Kodama and Sasaki a defect component. This can be best implemented by noticing that defects have no background stress-energy. We may then regard defects as a fluid for which the background energy and pressure are zero, the perturbation variables are infinite, but the product of the background and perturbation variables is finite and equals the defect stress-energy.
More mathematically let the defects stress-energy tensor $\Theta_{\mu\nu}$ be a pure scalar so that it may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{00}&=&\rho^s\nonumber \\
\Theta_{0i}&=&k_iv^s\nonumber\\
\Theta_{ij}&=&p^s\delta_{ij}+(k_i
k_j-{1\over 3}\delta_{ij}k^2)\Pi^s\end{aligned}$$ Then let us consider a component $\alpha=d$ with $\rho_d=
p_d=0$, infinite perturbation variables (eg. $\delta_d
=\infty$), but finite products of the two. From the way perturbation variables are defined in KS [@KS] from the stress-energy tensor we can then write $$\begin{aligned}
a^2\rho_d\delta_d&=&\rho^s\nonumber\\
a^2(\rho_d+p_d)v_d&=&kv^s\nonumber\\
a^2p_d\Pi^T_d&=&k^2\Pi^s\nonumber\\
a^2p_d\Pi^L_d&=&p^s
\label{defectvar}\end{aligned}$$ Because the background stress-energy of defects is zero, defect variables are gauge-invariant by themselves. However care must be taken when identifying KS defect variables with defect variables. For instance, it may happen that a gauge invariant density contrast variable is given by a combination of defect variables. Using Eqns. \[defectvar\] we can find the identifications: $$\begin{aligned}
a^2\rho_d\Delta_d&=&\rho^s+3hv^s\\
a^2\rho_d\Delta_{sd}&=&a^2\rho_d\Delta_{gd}=\rho^s\end{aligned}$$ For all other variables there is no ambiguity, as the extra terms required to turn gauge-dependent variables into gauge independent ones simply vanish. For instance $$\begin{aligned}
a^2(\rho_d +p_d)V_d&=& a^2(\rho_d +p_d)(v_d-\dot H_T/k)=kv^s\\
a^2p_d\Pi^L_d&=&p^s\\
a^2p_d\Pi^T_d&=&k^2\Pi^s\end{aligned}$$ The conservation equations for the defect component may be written as; $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot\rho}^s+h(3p^s+\rho^s)+k^2v^s&=&0\label{cons1}\\
{\dot v}^s+2hv^s-p^s+{2\over 3}k^2\Pi^s&=&0\label{cons2}\; .\end{aligned}$$ which can be derived from the conservation equations in KS with the identifications made above. The gauge-invariant potentials $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ can be obtained from the Einstein’s equations in KS. These are now sourced by a total density contrast and anisotropic stress which contains defects. We choose to separate the defects from all other components. Hence in all formulae in KS containing totals the following replacements should be introduced $$\begin{aligned}
a^2\rho\Delta_T&\rightarrow
&a^2\rho\Delta_T+\rho^s+3hv^s=a^2\sum\rho_\alpha\Delta_\alpha
+\rho^s+3hv^s\\
a^2(p+\rho)V_T&\rightarrow
&a^2(p+\rho)V_T+kv^s=a^2\sum(p_\alpha+\rho_\alpha)V_\alpha
+kv^s\\
a^2p\Pi^T_T&\rightarrow
&a^2p\Pi^T_T+k^2\Pi^s=a^2\sum p_\alpha\Pi^T_\alpha + k^2\Pi^s\end{aligned}$$ Bearing this in mind, the Einstein equations in the presence of defects may now be read off from KS as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{poteq}
k^2\Phi&=&4\pi{\left(a^2\rho\Delta_T +\rho^s+3
h v^s\right)}\label{poteq1}\\
\Phi+\Psi&=&-8\pi{\left(a^2{p\Pi^T_T\over k^2}+\Pi^s
\right)}\label{poteq2}\end{aligned}$$ In the scenario we are considering the total density contrast, putting defects aside, is given by $$\rho\Delta_T=\rho_b\Delta_b+\rho_{\gamma}\Delta_{\gamma}+\rho_c\Delta_c$$ The fluids viscosity $\Pi^T_T$ is entirely due to the photons brightness quadrupole [@HS]: $$\Pi={12\over5}\Theta_2$$ and can be set to zero in the tight-coupling limit.
The Newtonian slicing equations
-------------------------------
The Newtonian slicing equations for the radiation are what leads to the Hu and Sugyama (HS) formalism [@HS]. During tight-coupling the photon system is described in HS by the monopole and dipole components of the brightness function, $\Theta_0$ and $\Theta_1$. In the fluid description this corresponds to the Newtonian slicing variables $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_0&=&\Delta_{s\gamma}/4\\
\Theta_1&=&V_\gamma\end{aligned}$$ It can be checked that, with this identification, the conservation equations in KS for radiation become the HS equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tighteqns}
{\dot\Theta_0}&=&-{k\over 3}\Theta_1-{\dot \Phi}\nonumber\\
{\dot\Theta_1}&=&-{\dot R \over 1+R}\Theta_1+{k\over 1+R}\Theta_0
+k\Psi\end{aligned}$$ where $R={3\over 4}{\rho_b\over\rho_{\gamma}}$ is the scale factor normalised to $3/4$ at photon-baryon equality. It is for these equations that HS propose a WKB solution, which was used in the study of defect Doppler peaks in [@us]. If one uses this gauge for the radiation one must however change to the comoving gauge before computing the potentials $\Psi$ and $\Phi$. This can be easily done by means of $$\Delta_{\gamma}=4{\left(\Theta_0+h{\Theta_1\over k}\right)}$$
The comoving gauge
------------------
In Hu and White (HW) [@hw] the issue of backreaction is addressed in the comoving gauge (the word gauge being replaced by “representation”). A temperature variable is defined such that $${\cal T}=\Delta_\gamma/4=\Theta_0+h{\Theta_1\over k}$$ and an horrible set of equations is derived for them. The comoving gauge has the advantage that it is the natural gauge for representing the baryons, since in tight coupling baryons and photons share the same rest frame. As shown in HS and HW, the baryons’ density contrast $\Delta_b$ and velocity $V_b$ satisfy the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{baryons}
{\dot \Delta_b}&=&{3\over 4}{\dot \Delta _{\gamma}}\label{adiab}\\
V_b&=&V_{\gamma}\end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten by defining the entropy as $s=\Delta_b-(3/4)
\Delta_{\gamma}$, and rewriting the first equation as $\dot s=0$.
The comoving gauge is also the gauge where the Traschen integral constraints are written [@trasch; @traschk4]. In an expanding Universe a set of energy conservation laws apply to perturbation variables [@trasch]. When applied to a Universe which is initially unperturbed, and then causally made inhomogeneous, these constraints translate into a stringent requirement on the large scale power spectrum of these perturbations [@traschk4]. This requirement is roughly that the power spectrum of the total energy perturbation in the comoving gauge goes like $k^4$ for small $k$. In the presence of defects the energy density subject to this law is: $${\cal U}=a^2\rho\Delta_T+\rho^s+3hv^s$$ which is also the source of the gauge-invariant potential $\Phi$. Hence one can rephrase the causal constraint as the requirement that $\Phi$ goes to a constant at low $k$ (white-noise).
The lack of superhorizon correlations in the defect network requires the power spectrum $P(\rho^s)$ to have a white noise low $k$ tail. Energy conservation Eqn. (\[cons1\]) requires that $v^s$ also have a white noise low $k$ tail. Hence the causal constraint entails the need for the compensation: a low $k$ white-noise tail in the power spectrum of non-defect matter. The compensation must be exactly anticorrelated with the defects’ tail. The quantity to be cancelled is $\rho^s+3hv^s$, and not just $\rho^s$. The density forced to have a $k^4$ power spectrum is ${\cal U}$ and not just a combination of $\Delta_T$ and $\rho^s$.
The flat-slicing gauge
----------------------
We can also define a temperature perturbation in the flat-slicing gauge [@note]: $$\Delta_0=\Theta_0+\Phi=\Delta_{g\gamma}/4$$ In this gauge the photon equations are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tighteqnsft}
{\dot\Delta_0}&=&-{k\over 3}\Theta_1\nonumber\\
{\dot\Theta_1}&=&-{\dot R \over 1+R}\Theta_1+{k\over 1+R}(\Delta_0-\Phi)
+k\Psi\end{aligned}$$ As announced before one gets rid of the potential time derivatives in this gauge. We will also find it useful to represent CDM in this gauge, so that CDM equations are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cdmft}
\dot\Delta_{gc}&=&-kV_c \nonumber\\
\dot V_c&=&-hV_c+k\Psi\end{aligned}$$ There is a good mathematical reason why this gauge may be better for discussing causality and compensation issues. This is the gauge where the fluid equations of motion more resemble Minkowski space-time equations of motion. Hence energy variables in this gauge are akin to the pseudo-energy usually defined in the synchronous gauge, and used to introduce the compensation [@PST; @james].
Exact compensation factors {#exact}
==========================
We start with an algebraic remark. The source for the Einsteins equations are energy density variables in the comoving gauge. In the scenario we are considering $$\begin{aligned}
k^2\Phi&=&4\pi{\{a^2\rho(\Omega_b\Delta_b+\Omega_\gamma\Delta_\gamma
+\Omega_c\Delta_c+\Omega_\alpha\Delta_\alpha)+\rho^s+3hv^s\}}\\
\Phi+\Psi&=&-8\pi\Pi^s\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ represents any other component we may have forgotten, with a sum over $\alpha$ implied, if need be. Now let us express baryons in terms of photons by means of Eq. (\[adiab\]) written as $$\Delta_b={3\over 4}\Delta_\gamma +s$$ and write all other sources in the flat-slice gauge: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\gamma&=&4{\left(\Delta_0-\Phi+h{\Theta_1\over k}\right)}\\
\Delta_c&=&\Delta_{gc}+3{\left(h{V_c\over k}-\Phi\right)}\\
\Delta_\alpha&=&\Delta_{g\alpha}+3(1+w_\alpha){\left(h{V_\alpha\over k}
-\Phi\right)}\end{aligned}$$ With these rearrangements, the first Einstein equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
k^2\Phi=4\pi{\Big(}a^2\rho{\Big(}4\Omega_{\gamma}(1+R){\left(\Delta_0
-\Phi+h{\Theta_1\over k}\right)}+\Omega_bs+&&\nonumber\\
\Omega_c{\left(\Delta_{cg}-3\Phi+3{V_c\over k}\right)}
+\Omega_\alpha{\left(\Delta_{\alpha g}+3(1+w_\alpha)
{\Big (}-\Phi+{V_\alpha\over k}{\Big)}
\right)}{\Big)}+\rho^s+3hv^s{\Big )}&&\end{aligned}$$ The source term can now be split into 3 components: $$k^2\Phi=S+S_1+S_2
\label{aux}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&4\pi(a^2\rho_bs+\rho^s+3hv^s)\\
S_1&=&-4\pi a^2\rho{\left( \Omega_\gamma(1+R)+3\Omega_c+3(1+w_\alpha)
\Omega_\alpha\right)}\Phi\\
S_2&=&4\pi a^2\rho(4\Omega_\gamma(1+R)(\Delta_0+h\Theta_1/k)
+\Omega_c(\Delta_{gc}+3hV_c/k)+
\Omega_\alpha(\Delta_{g\alpha}+3hV_\alpha/k)\end{aligned}$$ $S$ is made up of sources which drive the radiation-baryon-CDM system but which are external to them. We call it the external source. This may be a topological defect. An entropy perturbation may also be regarded as external since it evolves independently of all other perturbations (according to $\dot s=0$). There is a fundamental difference between defects and entropy perturbations. Entropy perturbations satisfy $\dot s=0$. Defect sources, on the contrary, satisfy Eqns. (\[cons1\]) and (\[cons2\]).
The photon-baryon-CDM system is also driven by a backreacting term, here split as $S_1+S_2$. This reflects the fact that baryons, photons and CDM are driven by a potential which they are a source of. There is therefore a (linear) feedback effect which jeopardises for instance the use of the WKB solution in HS for defects. One could hope that defects are the main driving force, and try to neglect backreaction. However this back-reacting term incorporates the compensation. Setting $S_1+S_2$ to zero is therefore an approximation which can never make sense, as it would imply a gross violation of the causality constraint. The potential $\Phi$ power spectrum would diverge like $1/k^4$ at small $k$ rather than go to white noise.
However, in the flat-slice gauge we have an algebraic bootstrap which one may hope already reflects most of the physical feedback mechanism. This bootstrap is created by the term $S_1$. Let us first set $S_2=0$. Then all the backreaction is predictable and fully determined by the defect sources. $S_1$ may be passed to the left hand side of the Einstein equation (\[aux\]) and be incorporated in an equation where the external sources are simply multiplied by a factor independent of photon, baryon or CDM variables. More precisely $$\label{fudgepot}
k^2\Phi=4\pi\gamma_c(a^2\rho_bs+\rho^s+3hv^s)
\label{fudgephi}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_c&=&{1\over 1+(\chi_c/x)^2}\\
\chi_c^2&=&{3\over 2}(h\eta)^2(4\Omega_{\gamma}(1+R)+3\Omega_c
+3(1+w_\alpha)\Omega_\alpha)\end{aligned}$$ The backreaction encoded in $S_1$ is not an independent feedback mechanism operating in the fluid and imprinting a fixed signature in the photons’ power spectrum for any defect theory. From this term we can never expect to derive an out-of-phase signature as the one attributed to defects in [@hw]. The backreaction contained in this term is fully driven by the defects alone, and can be made to behave in whatever way we want by properly designing the defect. It is not surprising that by considering only this backreaction effect we can place the primary Doppler peak anywhere, including the adiabatic and out-of-phase positions [@us]. On the other hand by considering this term one is already taking into account the causality constraint. The potential $\Phi$ according to the new equation (\[fudgephi\]) already goes to white noise at small $k$.
If $S_2\neq 0$ then one must add to equation (\[fudgepot\]) an extra source term, so that $$\label{fudgepottot}
k^2\Phi=\gamma_c(S+S_2)$$ This is an exact expression. The compensation factor has appeared as a result of algebra and the compensation scale is a well defined quantity dependent only on the unperturbed cosmological expansion dynamics. The compensation factor approximation is now the claim that we can set to zero $S_2$. This is a well defined statement which we should be able to assess quantitatively. The term in $S_2$ is the truly unpredictable backreaction. The $S_1+S_2$ split has allowed us to separate what is truly a problem and what is not. By doing so we have implemented an approximation scheme ($S_2\approx 0$) where we may avoid the feedback problem without immediately doing something stupid, like violating the causality constraint.
Physically what this algebraic manipulation amounts to is the realization, made obvious in the flat-slice gauge, that the compensation is made up of 3 terms. One is the energy perturbation as it appears in a gauge where equal time surfaces appear to have no curvature. The other two are a potential perturbation describing the curvature of these slices, and a velocity term. The potential term is caused by the defects as well, and by dropping all other contributions we obtain a non pathological approximation scheme where the compensation is fully gravitational and perfectly correlated to the defect network.
The compensation scale $\chi_c$ varies from ${\sqrt{6}}$ in the radiation epoch to ${\sqrt{18}}$ in the matter epoch. The compensation scale depends purely on the expansion kinematics and is affected by the matter radiation transition. It can be written as $$\chi_c^2=3\eta^2(h^2-\dot h)=12\pi a^2(p+\rho)\eta^2$$ and if $h=\alpha/\eta$ then $\chi_c^2=3\alpha(\alpha+1)$.
Quantitative argument in favour of compensation factors {#calc}
=======================================================
The question remains of how good an approximation setting $S_2=0$ is. We address this question quantitatively. For definiteness we use the source defined in [@hsw]: $$\begin{aligned}
p^s&=&{1\over \eta^{1/2}}{\sin{Ak\eta}\over Ak\eta}\\
\Pi^s&=&0\end{aligned}$$ bearing in mind that this ansatz may preclude arbitrary shifts in peaks’ positions. This property is far from general, as shown in [@neil1; @neil2]. This issue is beyond the scope of this paper, but will be addressed in a future publication [@confusion]. We then solve equations (\[tighteqnsft\]) for radiation, (\[cdmft\]) for CDM, (\[cons1\]) and (\[cons2\]) for the remaining defect variables, and (\[poteq1\]) and (\[poteq2\]) for the potentials (with (\[poteq1\]) rewritten as in (\[fudgepottot\])). The baryons are solved implicitly by the tight-coupled conditions (\[baryons\]). By including $S_2$ as a source of the potential $\Phi$ in (\[fudgepottot\]) one is considering the full backreaction effects, due to baryons, radiation, and CDM. One thus obtains the exact solution to this problem. By dropping the term in $\Delta_{gc}$ and $V_c$ in $S_2$ one neglects the effects of CDM fluctuations on the CMB fluctuations. By setting $S_2=0$ one neglects the effects of backreaction altogether. In the last approximation the source is truly external, and is compensated purely by defect gravitational effects. This is the compensation factor approximation.
We have solved this problem for various values of the Hubble constant and baryon content of the Universe. These are parameterised by $h$, so that the Hubble constant nowadays is $H_0=100h {\rm Km s}^{-1} {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and $\Omega_b=\rho_{b0}/\rho_0$, the baryons density fraction nowadays. We expressed our results in terms of the effective temperature $\Theta_0+\Psi=\Delta_0+(\Psi-\Phi)$ and the dipole $\Theta_1$ at last scattering $\eta=\eta_*$. This is because these are the quantities which are then projected onto $C_l$’s by free-streaming after the last scattering surface [@HS]. We have solved the full problem and compared the full answer with the effect of dropping CDM, and dropping all CDM-photon-baryon backreaction. In all plots these 3 calculation schemes will be represented by dash, dots, and lines, respectively.
The results for a source with $A=1$ are plotted in Figure \[fig1\], and we now comment on them. We have chosen extreme values for $\Omega_b$ and $h$ in order to emphasise the point we wish to make. For popular values of $\Omega_b$ and $h$ the compensation factor approximation works very well. Clearly one needs rather high values for both $h$ and $\Omega_b$ for the compensation factor approximation to become gross.
As $h$ increases the time between equality and last scattering increases. As a result CDM fluctuations have time to start to grow while they still can interfere with the tightly coupled radiation. As a result the CDM contribution cannot really be neglected in scenarios with a large Hubble constant.
As $\Omega_b$ increases the so-called acoustic signature may be imparted on the peaks. This is an asymmetry in amplitude between odd and even peaks resulting from baryons shifting the zero level of the oscillations. After squaring, the peaks will appear alternately big and small. It is interesting to note two things. First the acoustic signature appears already in the compensation factor approximation, although less pronounced. Secondly, if one is to pay attention to detail, then CDM is as important as the baryons in imprinting the full acoustic signature.
Another feature present in the spectra is the shoulder preceding the peaks, ubiquitous in defect scenario. This is not present in $\Delta_0$ and is due to the gravitational redshift term $\Psi-\Phi$. At large scales $\Delta_0\approx 0$ and then goes negative. The potential term $\Psi-\Phi$ is white noise and positive as $k\rightarrow 0$, then goes to zero. This induces a pre-peak which is not acoustic, but merely a gravitational redshift effect at last scattering.
All in all backreaction seems to be negligible in the qualitative study of defects. Historically it has been known that backreaction in defect theories can never be neglected, as a result of the causality constraints. However we have now shown that backreaction can be exactly split into two terms. One is purely gravitational, makes sure that the causality constraints are satisfied, and can be predicted a priori from the defects by means of a compensation factor. The other cannot be predicted a priori but it is not required by causality. It merely reflects the baryons, photons, and CDM trying to make a nuisance of themselves, rebelling against the driving force of the defects, trying to imprint a signature they are allowed to imprint whenever no driving force is present. However for all reasonable values of $\Omega_b$ and $h$ this secondary backreaction is quantitatively sub-dominant. When driven by defects the radiation/baryon/CDM feedback effect is normally weaker than the external force they are subject to. Therefore, it turns out that in defect scenarios, once compensation factors are taken into account, backreaction is precisely something which can be neglected, certainly in any qualitative discussion of defect perturbations.
\[fig1\]
Waste not - a defect factory
============================
In this paper we stressed the technical difficulties induced when considering compensation in defect calculations but have shown how they can be effectively bypassed by means of compensation factors. The compensation results from a feedback mechanism which operates in the photon, CDM, baryon system when an external driving force is applied to them. Some of this backreaction is unpredictable in the sense that by specifying the driving force one does not specify the backreaction before the system of differential equations describing the whole system is evolved. However the dominant compensation term is always predictable in the sense that all one needs to do is to multiply some appropriate combination of defect stress energy components by a compensation factor.
The practical implication of this result is of course not to simplify the numerics of evolving the tight coupled equations; this problem is straightforward enough for simplification to be necessary. However there is another, more metaphysical, side to compensation considerations in the literature: this is the belief that backreaction effects force the Doppler peaks to be out of phase. This could only be a theorem if the compensation was the result of a self-regulatory feedback mechanism operating in the fluid, regardless of the details of the force driving it. The compensation described by the compensation factor, which we showed to be dominant, is precisely the opposite of this. It represents a feedback effect which is directly connected to the driving force, and which has a scale which can be manipulated by tuning the scale of the driving force. It was in fact shown in [@us] that in the compensation factor approximation, a causal source could be designed so as to shift the Doppler peaks about, placing them on the adiabatic position or anywhere to its right.
The fact that the compensation factor approximation also seems to reproduce other effects, such as the acoustic signature, then provides us with the practical application of this work. If the compensation factor approximation works one can write down a solution expressing the monopole and dipole in the photons at last scattering as a function of a defect structure function. We can then invert this expression and instead write down a defect structure function which could give us a given monopole and dipole at last scattering. This trick can then be converted into a defect factory, allowing intelligent guesses of causal sources which exhibit effects under study. In particular one may use this defect factory to produce confusing defects: causal sources exhibiting allegedly inflationary signatures, such as the acoustic signature. Naturally once an educated guess has been made, one should then go and evolve the full system of tightly coupled equations, or even better solve a Boltzmann code for the proposed source. However there is no reason why one should go the complicated way when guessing sources. In a future publication we shall use this approach in the study of confusing defects [@confusion].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank A.Albrecht and W.Hu for discussion and advice. We also thank MRAO for use of computer facilities. C.Cheung acknowledges support from PPARC, and J.Magueijo from the Royal Society.
[99]{} A.Albrecht and A.Stebbins [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} 2615-2618 (1992). A. Albrecht, D. Coulson, P. Ferreira, and J. Magueijo, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{} 1413-1416 (1996); J.Magueijo, A. Albrecht, D. Coulson, P. Ferreira, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}, [**76**]{} 2617 (1996); J.Magueijo, A. Albrecht, P. Ferreira, D. Coulson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 54**]{} 3727 (1996). J.Traschen, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, [**31**]{} 283-289 (1985); [*ibid*]{}, [**29**]{} 1563-1574 (1984). L.F.Abbott and J.Traschen, [*Astrophys.J.*]{} [**302**]{} 39-42 (1986). H.Kodama and M.Sasaki, [*Prog.Th.Phys. Supp.*]{}, [**78**]{} 1-166 (1984). G. Efstathiou, 1990, in Physics of the Early Universe: proceedings of the 36th Scotthish Universities Summer School in Physics, ed. J.A.Peacock, A.E.Heavens, and A.T.Davies (New York: Adam Hilger), 361. Bertschinger and Ma, astro-ph/9506072 W.Hu and N.Sugyiama, [*Astroph.J.*]{}, [**444**]{} 489 (1995), W.Hu and N.Sugyiama, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, [**51**]{} 2599-2630 (1995). Hu and White, Acoustic signatures in the cosmic microwave background, IASSNS-96/6, astro-ph/9602019. Hu, Spergel and White N. Turok, Causality and the doppler peaks, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}3686-3689 (1996). N. Turok, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**77**]{} 4138-4141 (1996). J.Magueijo, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, [**46**]{} 3360-3371 (1992). U. Pen, D.N. Spergel and N. Turok, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, [**49**]{} 692-729 (1994). J. Robinson and B. Wandelt, [*Phys.Rev.D*]{} [**53**]{} 618 (1996). Energy and temperature perturbations for radiation are connected by a factor of 4 in any gauge simply as a result of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation $\rho_\gamma\propto T^4$, or $
\delta\rho_\gamma/\rho_\gamma= 4 \delta T/T$. Cheung and Magueijo, Confusing defects, in preparation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have used the Taurus Tunable Filter to search for Lyman $\alpha$ emitters in the fields of three high redshift quasar fields: two at $z\sim2.2$ (MRC B1256-243 and MRC B2158-206) and one at $z\sim4.5$ (BR B0019-1522). Our observations had a field of view of around 35 square arcminutes, and reached AB magnitudes of magnitudes of $\sim$21 (MRC B1256-243), $\sim$22 (MRC B2158-206), and $\sim$22.6 (BR B0019-1522), dependent on wavelength. We have identified candidate emission line galaxies in all three of the fields, with the higher redshift field being by far the richest. By combining our observations with simulations of the instrumental response, we estimate the total density of emission line galaxies in each field. Seventeen candidate emission line galaxies were found in within 1.5 Mpc of BR0019-1522, a number density of $4.9 \pm 1.2 \times 10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, suggesting a significant galaxy overdensity at $z\sim4.5$.'
author:
- |
John Swinbank$^1$[^1], Joanne Baker$^{2}$, Jordi Barr$^3$, Isobel Hook$^3$, and Joss Bland-Hawthorn$^4$\
$^1$Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 94249, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands\
$^2$Nature, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK\
$^3$Astrophysics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK\
$^4$Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Tunable filter imaging of high redshift quasar fields
---
galaxies: active – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: starburst – quasars: individual: MRC B2158-206 – quasars: individual: MRC B1256-243 – quasars: individual: BR B019-1522
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
[cccccccl]{} Target & Redshift & & Date & Exposure & Axial & Comment\
& & RA & Dec & & Time (s) & Wavelength (Å) &\
MRC B1256-243 & 2.263 & & & 2003 July 27 & 15 $\times$ 60 & 3957.2 & Repeated\
& & & & & & 3967.1 & twice.\
& & & & & & 3977.1 &\
& & & & & & 3987.1 &\
\
MRC B2158-206 & 2.249 & & & 2003 July 27 & 15 $\times$ 60 & 3959.1 & Repeated\
& & & & & & 3969.1 & four\
& & & & & & 3979.1 & times.\
& & & & & & 3989.0 &\
& & & & & & 3999.0 &\
\
BR B0019-1522 & 4.528 & & & 1997 Nov. 6 & 600 & 6709.5 & Repeated\
& & & & & & 6725.9 & eight\
& & & & & & 6742.3 & times.\
The evolution of clustering with cosmic time is widely recognised as one of the most rigid tests of the cold dark matter paradigm [@Kaiser91; @Springel05]. However, locating high redshift clusters is challenging. The traditional methods of X-ray and blind optical searches are limited: X-ray surveys can detect only the most luminous sources at high-$z$, while optical searches are highly vulnerable to projection effects. In order to overcome these limitations, a way of targeting the search is needed.
Since the earliest studies, it has been established that quasars are associated with groups and clusters of galaxies [@Bahcall69; @Oemler72]. More recently, @McLure01 argued that a close match between the space density of clusters and that of quasars indicates that practically all clusters contained an AGN at high redshift. Further, @Rawlings04 propose that radio jets from AGN are a major influence on cluster evolution. They suggest that a galaxy merger within the cluster triggers a radio-jet episode; the jets then delivery energy to the intracluster medium, heating it and preventing it from falling into the other developing cluster galaxies. These galaxies are thus starved of fuel, and star formation within the cluster will effectively shut down. @Rawlings04 speculate that every protocluster undergoes such an episode, strengthening the link postulated by @McLure01.
This relationship between galaxy overdensities and AGN suggests a method for locating high-$z$ clusters: we can use quasars as convenient ‘anchors’ for our search. This technique has already been exploited by others with notable success: for example, @Stiavelli05 tentatively report the detection of clustering around a radio-quiet quasar at $z = 6.28$.
To date most galaxy clusters detected around AGN have been identified based on statistical overdensities of objects observed in their vicinity. A better strategy for overcoming foreground contamination is to identify individual star forming galaxies in the AGN field by their characteristic redshift dependent features. In particular, Lyman $\alpha$ emission has been used to identify high redshift galaxies for some time. Among the first high redshift objects identified by emission lines were the $z = 4.55$ Ly $\alpha$ emitters observed in the field of the quasar BR B2237-0607 by @Hu96. Since then, a series of highly profitable observations of Ly $\alpha$ emitters in AGN fields have been carried out. @Kurk00 and @Pentericci00 used a combination of narrow- and broad-band imaging with follow-up spectroscopy to identify a galaxy overdensity within 1.5 Mpc of the $z = 2.156$ radio galaxy PKS B1138-262. Similar results have been achieved for the radio galaxies TN J1338-1942 [$z=4.1$; @Venemans02], TN J0924-2201 [$z=5.2$; @Venemans04; @Overzier06] and MRC B0316-257 [$z=3.13$; @Venemans05] and 6C0140+326 [$z=4.413$; @Kuiper11].
While this combination of broad and narrowband imaging has produced demonstrably successful results, the more direct antecedents of this work have adopted an alternative approach. The *Taurus Tunable Filter* (TTF) instrument, installed on the Anglo-Australian Telescope, provided a powerful method of narrow-band (of order 10 Å) imaging over a large range of wavelengths [@BH982]. @Bremer99 introduced the strategy used to search for line emitters at a given redshift with TTF: broadly, the tunable filter is stepped across a range of wavelengths around the expected redshifted position of the emission. Emission line galaxies then appear brighter in those frames centred on the spectral line.
Considerable success has been achieved at lower redshifts with this technique. @Baker01 located a cluster around the $z = 0.9$ radio-loud quasar MRC B0450-221 using TTF to search for $[$O[ii]{}$]$ 3727 Å emission. The same technique was used by @Barr04, who examined six radio-loud quasars at redshifts $0.8 < z < 1.3$, identifying a total of 47 candidate emission line galaxies (ELGs), at an average space density around 100 times higher than that found locally.
Further work with TTF was performed by @Francis04, who targeted Ly $\alpha$ emitters within 1 Mpc of the $z=2.159$ radio loud quasar PKS B0424-131 without making [*any*]{} detections. These authors selected this extremely luminous UV source with the expectation of finding Ly $\alpha$ fluorescent clouds in the vicinity of the quasar but these were not detected. With specific application to PKS B0424-131, @Bruns11 demonstrated that the most intrinsically UV-luminous quasars observed beyond $z=1$ suppress star formation in low-mass haloes ($M_{\rm vir} \lesssim 10^{12}$ M$_\odot$) within a megaparsec of the quasar. The intense UV radiation field is expected to photo-evaporate HI clouds which presumably accounts for the lack of detections. We return to this point in our conclusion (§ \[sec:conclusion\]).
The present work continues to push TTF to higher redshifts, searching three quasar fields at redshifts up to $z \sim 4.5$. The objects selected include examples of both radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars, and their environments are compared. Section \[sec:obs\] of this paper describes the observations, including target selection, instrumental characteristics and a note on data reduction. Section \[sec:sim\] describes simulations performed to examine statistical properties and completeness of our sample. Section \[sec:id\] describes how candidate ELGs were identified and presents details on the detections, as well as considering the possible sources of mis-identified ‘interloper’ objects. Section \[sec:properties\] analyses the distribution and properties of the sample. Our conclusions are summarised in Section \[sec:conclusion\]. Throughout, we assume an $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{M}} = 0.3$ cosmology.
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
Target selection
----------------
Two data sources were used for this analysis. The authors used TTF to observe objects drawn from the Molonglo Quasar Sample [MQS; @Kapahi98] of low-frequency-selected radio-loud quasars in July 2003. Six targets had been selected from the MQS on the basis of observability, suitable redshifts being limited by the necessity to place Lyman $\alpha$ within the wavelength ranges accessible to TTF’s order-blocking filters. Due to weather constraints, only two quasars were observed: MRC B1256-243 ($z = 2.263$) and MRC B2158-206 ($z =
2.249$). Immediately following each quasar observation, a standard star was observed with the same instrumental settings for flux calibration. In addition, observations of BR B0019-1522, a $z = 4.528$ radio-quiet quasar, were drawn from the Anglo-Australian Observatory archive. These data were taken on 1997 November 6 by Bland-Hawthorn, Boyle and Glazebrook, and were accompanied by companion observations of a standard star. Details of each target are given in Table \[tab:obs\].
Instrumental setup and characteristics
--------------------------------------
Throughout this work, a distinction is drawn between a *frame* (corresponding to one set of data read from the CCD), an *image* (a number of frames at the same etalon settings which have been combined for analysis) and a *field*, or stack of images of the same area of sky at different etalon settings.
### Wavelength variation and the optical axis {#sec:wlvariation}
Fabry-Pérot images have a quadratic radial wavelength dependence of the form $\lambda_\theta = \lambda_{centre}(1 - \theta^2/2)$ [@Bland89], where $\theta$ is the off-axis angle at the etalon. In a typical observation, the wavelength varies across the field by around 1% of $\lambda_{centre}$. Wavelength calibration is performed with respect to the axial wavelength; for any given pixel position on the image, it is then possible to calculate the wavelength observed at that point.
### Objects at $z \sim 2.2$
The TTF was used at $f/8$ on the AAT in combination with the EEV2 CCD. This resulted in a scale of 0.33” per pixel. After processing, the total useful rectangular field of view in the observations was around 7’ by 5’. The radial wavelength variation described in Section \[sec:wlvariation\] resulted in a shift of 1.4 Å at 2’ from the optical axis and 6.7 Å at 4’ from the axis. Conditions were photometric, and seeing was on the order of 1.5”. The full width at half maximum of the etalon transmission band was 7.5 Å.
The targets were scanned at etalon plate spacings corresponding to a series of wavelength steps of approximately 10 Å, the aim being to straddle the redshifted Ly $\alpha$. However, an intermediate-band order-blocking filter is necessary to eliminate unwanted wavelengths and other orders of interference. In this case, the AAT’s B1 filter was the best available. Unfortunately, the observed wavelengths were at the very edge of the filter transmission, as shown in Fig. \[fig:trans\]: the signal to noise ratio therefore decreases significantly with wavelength. Table \[tab:obs\] and Fig. \[fig:trans\] record observations of MRC B1256-243 at 3987.1 Å. When these data were analysed, it was clear that the reduced filter transmission had resulted in no useful results at this wavelength. These data are not considered further in this work. The MRC B2158-206 observations at 3989.0 Å and 3999.0 Å are included hereafter, but did not include any useful detections.
Each CCD frame contained a total of 30 minutes of observations, taken at two separate axial wavelengths. Each wavelength was exposed for 60 seconds a total of 15 times. This procedure was repeated twice in the case of MRC B1256-243 and four times for MRC B2158-206; the total exposure times at each wavelength are thus 30 minutes and 1 hour, respectively. Between each image, the telescope pointing was shifted slightly: this enabled the easy identification and subsequent elimination of diametric ghosts in the data.
### Objects at $z \sim 4.5$
The TTF was used at $f/8$ on the AAT in combination with the MITLL2 CCD. This resulted in a scale of 0.37” per pixel. After processing, the total useful rectangular field of view in the observations was 9’17” by 4’10”. The radial wavelength variation described in Section \[sec:wlvariation\] resulted in a shift of 5.1 Å at 2’ from the optical axis and 20.3 Å at 4’ from the axis. Conditions were photometric, and the seeing was on the order of 1.5". The full width at half maximum of the etalon transmission band was 9.5 Å. The AAT’s R0 intermediate-band order-blocking filter was used: this provided effectively constant transmission across the wavelength range under consideration.
Each CCD frame contained a total of 30 minutes of observations: ten at each of three axial wavelengths. Eight CCD frames were recorded, resulting in a total of 80 minutes exposure for each axial wavelength. As before, the telescope position was shifted slightly between images.
![On-axis etalon transmission bands for each of the three fields observed shown relative to the relevant order-blocking filter used on the telescope. Away from the optical axis the etalon transmission shifts to shorter wavelengths (§\[sec:wlvariation\]).[]{data-label="fig:trans"}](fig1)
Data reduction and catalogue construction
-----------------------------------------
Data reduction proceeds broadly as for standard broadband imaging. A full consideration of the issues surrounding tunable filter data is given by @Jones012 and @Jones02. The various different images of each field at the same axial wavelengths were aligned by a marginal centroid fit on bright stars and then combined. Wavelength calibration was performed through an emission line, as described by @Jones02; xenon and copper-helium arc lamps were used for the $z \sim 2.2$ fields, and a neon arc lamp for BR B0019-1522.
After the data had been reduced, object detection and fixed aperture photometry were performed on each image using [SExtractor]{} [@Bertin96]. The object detection parameters were defined as described in the next section.
Photometry {#sec:photo}
----------
The observations of the standard stars were reduced in the same way. For each star, [SExtractor]{} was used to perform aperture photometry yielding a count $C_\mathrm{s}$. This corresponds to a known magnitude $m_\mathrm{s}$, based on @Hamuy92 for the lower redshift fields or from the ESO Standard Star Catalogue for that of BR B0019-1522. If the exposure time on the standard is $t_\mathrm{s}$ and that on an object in the field is $t_\mathrm{Obj}$, the AB magnitude of the object is
$$m_\mathrm{AB} = m_\mathrm{s} - 2.5 \log_{10} (C_\mathrm{Obj}t_\mathrm{s})/(C_\mathrm{s}t_\mathrm{Obj}).$$
The AB magnitude system [@Oke74] is defined by $m_\mathrm{AB} = -2.5
\log_{10} f_\nu - 48.60$ where $f_\nu$ is the flux in units of . The monochromatic flux $f_\lambda$, in units of , is then
$$\label{eq:abtoflux}
f_\lambda = (c \times 10^{-\left(m_{\mathrm{AB}} + 48.60\right)/2.5})/\lambda^2.$$
Conversion from $f_\lambda$ to the total flux in the band, $f_\mathrm{total}$ is performed by multiplying by the effective width of the etalon transmission. The etalon transmission band may be taken as Lorentzian, normalised to 1 at the wavelength of peak transmission, thus:
$$\label{eq:ttfpass}
T(\lambda) = (\lambda_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}^2 / 4)/((\lambda - \lambda_\mathrm{c})^2 + \lambda_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}^2 / 4)$$
where $\lambda$ is the wavelength, $\lambda_c$ the central wavelength of the band and $\lambda_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ its full width at half maximum. Assuming that $\lambda_\mathrm{c} \gg \lambda_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$, Equation \[eq:ttfpass\] may be integrated over $0 \le \lambda \le \infty$ to yield a width of $\pi \lambda_{\nicefrac{1}{2}}/2$. Combining this with Equation \[eq:abtoflux\] yields a total flux in the band of
$$\label{eq:fluxinband}
f_{\mathrm{total}} = (\pi c \lambda_{\nicefrac{1}{2}} \times 10^{-\left(m_\mathrm{AB} + 48.60\right)/2.5})/2 \lambda_\mathrm{c}^2$$
with units .
It is worth noting that this measures the flux received in the etalon passband, and is thus a lower limit of the line flux of the ELG: variations of line shapes and widths, and their positions relative to the etalon passband, will cause the fluxes measured to be systematically underestimated. They should therefore be regarded as lower limits.
Simulations {#sec:sim}
===========
We constructed a series of simulated images: data with properties similar to our observations, but containing a known population of objects. The analysis of these enables us to address the following questions:
- What are the most appropriate [SExtractor]{} parameters for extracting useful data from the images?
- To what depth is each field complete–and how does that vary over the field?
- To what extent is our analysis prone to mis-identifying spurious ‘noisy’ features in an image as candidate emission line galaxies?
Construction of simulated images
--------------------------------
Images were simulated in two stages: first, a background was generated, then objects were superimposed on top of it.
Due to the properties of the blocking filter and the variation of wavelength across the image, the background signal is not constant across the image. Each data image was therefore divided into 100 by 100 pixel blocks, and the mean background signal and associated noise was measured in each block. Simulated blocks were then generated matching each of these, and then recombined to form an overall simulated background of the same shape as the data.
A Ruby[^2] code was written to simulate the expected properties of objects we might observe. Objects were simulated at random redshifts (over the range the observations might be expected to cover) and pixel positions within the images. Based on the work of @LeDelliou06, our observations were not expected to be sensitive to continuum emission from ELGs, so this was not considered. Further, the ELGs are spatially unresolved, so were simulated with a Gaussian point spread function equal to the measured seeing. An emission line model was developed based on the widths and profiles of high-$z$ Lyman $\alpha$ emitters based chiefly on the $z \sim 4.5$ objects observed by @Dawson04. Experimentation suggested that the results obtained were not sensitive to line profile; velocity widths in the range 100–1000 kms$^{-1}$ were chosen based on both @Dawson04 and the more extreme example documented by @Tapken04.
The effects of the instrument on the objects’ detectabilty were then considered before they were added to the background images. First a correction for the order-blocking filter transmission was applied, using the position of the object within the field to determine the observed wavelength and hence filter transmission. The line profile was then multiplied by the transmission profile of the etalon for the image under construction.
Results of simulations
----------------------
Following the procedure above, simulations were run of all three fields. For each data image, a total of 500 simulated images were constructed, each containing 500 simulated sources.
### Detection parameters {#sec:detpar}
Source extraction was run multiple times on each image with different [SExtractor]{} configuration parameters. In each case, the results were compared with the catalogue of simulated objects in the image. The combination of parameters that produced the greatest number of detections of known objects combined with the smallest number of spurious detections of noise were then used for the analysis of both the simulations and the observed data. These parameters are listed in Table \[tab:sextractor\].
Parameter Value Description
--------------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------------
[detect\_minarea]{} 6 Minimum number of pixels per detection.
[detect\_thresh]{} 1.3 Detection threshold in $\sigma$ above local background.
[back\_size]{} 64 Size in pixels of mesh used for background estimation.
[phot\_apertures]{} 6 Aperture diameter (pixels).
: Optimal [SExtractor]{} parameters determined by simulations and used throughout this work.[]{data-label="tab:sextractor"}
### Depths of fields {#sec:dof}
As in the previous section, a source detection procedure was run on each image and the results compared with the known simulation inputs. This time, the fraction of the objects at each wavelength and magnitude which were detected was recorded. The results are shown Fig. \[fig:simresults\].
Note that this data can be recorded both in terms of the *simulated* wavelength and magnitude and and their *detected* equivalents. For any given pixel position in a field, an object can only be detected as peaking at one of a limited range of wavelengths, since its peak will be seen to appear at the wavelength of the image in which it occurs (of which there are at most 5). Hence, an object which is simulated with a very bright magnitude, but at a wavelength far from the peak transmission of any of the filters, will be detected with a somewhat dimmer magnitude at a wavelength corresponding to the image in which it is brightest. Fig. \[fig:simresults\] shows both the simulated (on the left) and detected (on the right) quantities for each of the three fields.
Identification of candidate ELGs {#sec:id}
================================
[lccccccc]{} Field & ELG & & Projected distance & Lyman $\alpha$ Peak & AB & Flux in band\
& Id. & R.A. & Decl. & from Quasar (Mpc) & Wavelength (Å) & mag. & (ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1} \times 10^{18}$)\
MRC B1256 & A & & & 1.428 & 3966 & 20.9 & 371\
& B & & & 0.871 & 3966 & 21.1 & 293\
& C & & & 1.257 & 3957 & 20.9 & 363\
& D & & & 1.085 & 3960 & 20.7 & 424\
\
MRC B2158 & A & & & 0.263 & 3956 & 21.8 & 161\
& B & & & 1.986 & 3971 & 21.7 & 192\
\
BR B0019 & A & & & 1.229 & 6673 & 22.5 & 37\
& B & & & 0.898 & 6706 & 22.5 & 37\
& C & & & 0.531 & 6705 & 22.0 & 57\
& D & & & 0.515 & 6704 & 21.7 & 71\
& E & & & 1.105 & 6697 & 22.7 & 31\
& F & & & 0.748 & 6717 & 22.1 & 52\
& G & & & 0.491 & 6716 & 22.1 & 51\
& H & & & 0.471 & 6697 & 22.5 & 37\
& I & & & 0.087 & 6694 & 22.4 & 39\
& J & & & 0.940 & 6701 & 22.3 & 43\
& K & & & 0.785 & 6680 & 22.6 & 32\
& L & & & 0.939 & 6719 & 22.5 & 37\
& M & & & 0.849 & 6716 & 22.2 & 48\
& N & & & 0.405 & 6706 & 22.3 & 43\
& O & & & 1.038 & 6694 & 22.4 & 39\
& P & & & 1.351 & 6685 & 22.4 & 40\
& Q & & & 0.597 & 6689 & 22.5 & 35\
![Relative positions of the ELG candidates detected in each of the three fields. The dimensions of the plots indicate the size of the observed fields. The quasars are located at the origin. The letters refer to the ELG designations used throughout the text.[]{data-label="fig:elgcandidates"}](fig3)
[SExtractor]{} was used with the parameters determined in Section \[sec:detpar\] and a detection threshold of 5$\sigma$ to build a catalogue of sources for each image. Within each field, the catalogues from each image were cross-matched: objects were associated by position, with a three pixel threshold.
These observations are not deep enough to observe continuum flux from a typical Lyman $\alpha$ emitting galaxy [@LeDelliou06]. Given the likely range of line widths [@Dawson04; @Tapken04], we do not expect to observe Lyman $\alpha$ emitters in more than two adjacent passbands. Objects which were identified in either one or two bands were therefore flagged for further investigation.
In order to minimise the risk of contamination by noisy artefacts, all flagged objects were examined eye, and those which appeared unphysical or corresponded to sites of corruption by (for example) heavy cosmic ray or charge trapping activity in the original images were rejected.
MRC B1256-243
-------------
Four candidate emission line galaxies were identified in the field of MRC B1256-243. Details are given in Table \[tab:elgresults\], and their locations are shown in Fig. 3(a). Thumbnail images of the candidate galaxies from each field, together with the measured fluxes, are shown in Fig. \[fig:1256objects\].
MRC B2158-206
-------------
Two candidate emission line galaxies were identified in the field of MRC B2158-206. Details are given in Table \[tab:elgresults\], and their locations are shown in Fig. 3(b). Thumbnail images of the candidate galaxies from each field, together with the measured fluxes, are shown in Fig. \[fig:2158objects\].
BR B0019-1522
-------------
Seventeen candidate emission line galaxies were identified in the field of BR B0019-1522. Details are given in Table \[tab:elgresults\], and their locations are shown in Fig. 3(c). Thumbnail images of the candidate galaxies from each field, together with the measured fluxes, are shown in Fig. \[fig:0019objects\].
Contaminants
------------
This section briefly addresses the likelihood that our method might incorrectly identify another sort of object as an ELG.
### Continuum objects
As per Figs. \[fig:trans\] and \[fig:simresults\], the sensitivity of our instrument varies from image to image. Therefore, it is possible that a flat-spectrum continuum object may be detected in some images but not others, thereby appearing to be a potential ELG.
We use the results of Section \[sec:sim\] to estimate the probability of this occurring. Each of the 250,000 simulated objects was sorted into one of 3,600 bins by wavelength and magnitude (each bin covering 1 Å and 0.1 magnitudes). It is then possible to calculate the completeness of the bin (i.e. the fraction of simulated objects which were recovered). Each candidate ELG is assigned to a bin, and we then check the corresponding bins in adjacent images for completeness. A low completeness value in these bins indicates that a flat-spectrum object may have been ‘lost’.
This procedure calls into question four objects: A in the field of MRC B2158-206, B in the field of MRC B2156-243 and E and K in the field of BR B0019-1522. These sources were examined by eye, but there is no indication of a faint detection in the crucial frame. They have not, therefore, been excluded from this analysis.
### Lower redshift interlopers
Another possibility is other emission lines at lower redshift may appear in our observations. The lines which might be observed are listed in Table \[tab:interlopers\].
------ -------- --------------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -- --
Line Å Flux
(rest) ratio $z$ Number $z$ Number $z$ Number
3727 $0.41\pm0.21$ 0.065 0.05 0.060 0.02 0.803 1.93
4860 $0.14\pm0.06$ - - - - 0.383 1.68
5007 $0.20\pm0.15$ - - - - 0.342 1.41
6548 $1.00\pm0.00$ - - - - 0.027 0.01
6583 $0.43\pm0.16$ - - - - 0.021 0.01
------ -------- --------------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -- --
@Cowie97 and @Gallego95 provide number density counts for star forming galaxies at a range of redshifts. Both adopt a , $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{M}} =
1$ cosmology, which we converted to match that used in this work (Section \[sec:intro\]). In addition, @Gallego95 assume a @Scalo86 IMF; @Cowie97 provide a conversion to a @Salpeter55 IMF, and it is these results we adopt in this work. Based on these, we can estimate the number density of star forming galaxies along our line of sight: see Fig. \[fig:sfgs\].
@Kennicutt98 provides a conversion between star formation rate in a galaxy and luminosity; the ratios given in Table \[tab:interlopers\] make it possible to convert that into expected luminiosities for the other lines. After applying a correction for instrumental effects and galactic extinction [@Schlegel98], a locus of points in the magnitude-wavelength completeness diagrams (Fig. \[fig:simresults\]) on which each line at a given redshift might be detected is determined. This locus is then integrated to estimate the total volume over which the line might be observed at this redshift. This procedure is then repeated along the full length of the curves shown in Fig. \[fig:sfgs\]. In this way, the total number of interlopers which might be observed is estimated. The results are shown in Table \[tab:interlopers\].
It is clear that the estaimted number of interlopers is negligible in the case of the two lower-redshift fields. However, it is possible that as many as five of the candidate ELGs in the BR B0019-1522 field are, in fact, low redshift interlopers. This could only be confirmed by further observations.
Properties of candidate ELGs {#sec:properties}
============================
In this section, we consider the distribution of candidate ELGs around the quasars to determine whether the quasar lies in an identifiable overdensity relative to the field.
The small number of candidates around the lower-$z$ quasars renders a meaningful statistical analysis of the individual fields unreliable. In an attempt to mitigate this, and given the apparent similarity of the fields, they are both considered as one unit in this section.
The distribution of ELG candidates around the quasar is shown in both projection on the sky (left) and velocity distribution (right) in Fig. \[fig:distribution\]. When calculating the projection on the sky, we have normalised the total visible area on the sky in each distance bin. We also plot the distribution of all objects detected by [SExtractor]{} in the field for comparison.
Based on these figures, there is little evidence of projected clustering in the low-$z$ fields. However, there is a notably higher density of objects within 1 Mpc (projected) of BR B0019-1522. This is consistent with what one might expect from an examination of Fig. \[fig:elgcandidates\]: note the large number of objects to the east of the quasar in Fig. 3(c). It is also in-line with the scale lengths observed in clusters around other AGN [@Venemans02; @Bremer02; @Barr04].
There is no suggestion of clustering in velocity space in Fig. \[fig:distribution\]. In part, this may be due to the low number of detections in the low-$z$ fields. In the field of BR B0019-1522, we note that all candidates were observed as bluer than the quasar itself; this is noteworthy, but not implausible given the wavelength range probed (6650–6740 Å, with the quasar at 6722 Å). Although the bluest velocity bins show a lower number of total counts, this can be attributed to the reduced instrumental sensitivity at the relevant wavelengths (see Fig. 3(c)).
The space density of galaxies in the three fields may also be estimated. As alluded to in the previous section, the comoving volume being probed by our measurements varies with wavelength and magnitude. Consider for example Fig. 2(a): a bright object–magnitude 19, say–may be detected at a range of wavelengths, from around 3920 Å to 4010 Å. A fainter object at, for instance, magnitude 22 is only detected if it lies within a much smaller wavelength range: around 3940 Å to 3960 Å. Therefore, we define an ‘accessible volume’, $\mathcal{V}_n$, for each detected object $n$ within the field. $\mathcal{V}_n$ is calculated by taking the locus of points in Fig. \[fig:simresults\] occupied by a source with the observed properties and integrating over all wavelengths. The density is taken as $\rho =
1/\mathcal{V}_1 + 1/\mathcal{V}_2 + ... + 1/\mathcal{V}_n$. The results for our fields are given in Table \[tab:density\].
----------- ---- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Field \# Number density SFR density
(Mpc$^{-3}\,\times\,10^4$) (M$_\odot\;$yr$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-3}$)
MRC B1256 4 $22.48 \pm 11.64$ $0.0346 \pm 0.0174$
MRC B2158 2 $\phantom{0}9.09 \pm \phantom{0}6.52$ $0.0070 \pm 0.0049$
BR B0019 17 $49.09 \pm 12.21$ $0.0484 \pm 0.0117$
----------- ---- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
: Estimated space and star formation rate densities, together with the total number of ELG candidates (\#), for each of the fields observed. Note that our observations are valid only to an approximately defined lower limit of star formation.[]{data-label="tab:density"}
It is also instructive to estimate the star formation rates found in these fields. Based on @Kennicutt94 combined with @Brocklehurst71 and @Hu96, we arrive at the relationship:
$$\mathrm{SFR}(\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}) = 0.91 \times 10^{-42} L(\mathrm{Ly} \alpha) (\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}})
\label{eq:sfr}$$
It should be noted that is a very poor indicator of star formation rate. It is resonantly scattered by neutral hydrogen, and hence has a high chance of absorption either before leaving the galaxy or by clouds in the intergalactic medium [@Haiman99]. Further, @VG93 argues that emission in starbursts is strongly dependent on the age of the burst, rendering the calibration of Equation \[eq:sfr\] unreliable from around $10^7$ years after the burst start. Nevertheless, is the only diagnostic available to us, so we persist in these estimates with caution.
We take the star formation rate density as $\rho_{SFR} = SFR_1/\mathcal{V}_1 +
SFR_2/\mathcal{V}_2 + ... + SFR_n/\mathcal{V}_n$, where $SFR_n$ is the star formation rate associated with ELG candidate $n$ as calculated by Equation \[eq:sfr\]. Recall from Section \[sec:photo\] that the line fluxes are systematically underestimated since objects will fall outside the peaks of the etalon passpands. Making the approximation that objects are evenly spread in wavelength around the etalon peaks, we apply a correction to the observed magnitudes of 0.23 (in the low-$z$ field) or 0.27 (BR B0019-1522 field) to account for this. We correct the results for completeness based on Fig. \[fig:simresults\]: a single detection in an area with a low detection rate is taken as representative of a larger population.
The results are shown in Table \[tab:density\]. Note that our observations are sensitive to galaxies only down to some minimum level of star formation ( in the case of MRC B2158-206 and BR B0019-1522; in the case of MRC B1256-243): there may be a fainter population which we do not probe.
It is noteworthy that the star formation rate in the field of MRC B1256-243 is anomalously high, but the large uncertainties in the field and the higher minimum detectable rate render this result questionable. The most well constrained result is that for BR B0019-1522; our results there are broadly similar to those reported by @Venemans02 around the $z = 4.1$ radio galaxy TN J1338-1942. In all three fields, the number of objects detected is higher than that which might be expected in the absence of any clustering. Based on @Cowie97, we might expect on average 0.86 galaxies in the field of MRC B2158-206, 0.25 in that of MRC B1256-243, and 1.3 in that of BR B0019-1522, while an extrapolation from the results of the LALA [‘Large Area Lyman $\alpha$’; @Rhoads00] survey suggests we should observe 1.1 objects in the field of MRC B2158-206, 0.8 in that of MRC B1256-243 and 2.1 in that of BR B0019-1522 (assuming that the density of emitters is similar at $z \sim 2.2$ to that observed at $z \sim 4.5$).
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
Until recently, it has proved difficult to find high-redshift clusters and, indeed, there are very few known beyond $z \sim 1$. The detection of hot X-ray emission from intracluster gas followed by optical imaging and/or spectroscopic confirmation becomes inefficient for detecting more distant clusters; a manifestly higher success rate is achieved by targeting the vicinity of high redshift radio galaxies and quasars.
We have used tunable filter observations to identify a galaxy overdensity in the field of BR B0019-1522, with a local number density an order of magnitude higher than that which might be expected in the field. This is among the highest-redshift clusters detected around a radio quiet quasar. We have also identified potential overdensities in the fields of and MRC B1256-243 and MRC B2158-208, although deeper observations are required to confirm these detections.
The current observations were made with the Taurus Tunable Filter, an instrument which has now been decommissioned, on the 4 metre class Anglo-Australian Telescope. These observations have clearly demonstrated the success of the tunable imaging technique. The prospects for further progress in this area are strong, as the next generation of tunable filter instruments are now available or becoming available on telescopes such as the GTC 10-m [OSIRIS; @Cepa00], SOAR 4-m [BTFI; @Taylor10], SALT 11-m [PFIS; @Smith06], NTT 3.5-m [3D-NTT; @Marcelin08] and the Magellan 6.5-m [MMTF; @Veilleux10].
With existing telescopes, it is very difficult to extract more information than a few emission lines and broadband photometry for the host galaxies in these high-redshift environments. More detailed spectral information will not be possible until the next generation of extremely large telescopes or the James Webb Space Telescope come on line. But there are other uses for these observations: in particular, @Bruns11 have shown that quasar environments may act as a surrogate for studying the radiative suppression of galaxy formation during the epoch of reionization. Interestingly, the UV suppression reduces the star-forming galaxy counts by a factor of 2–3 but does not suppress them altogether. The time is therefore ripe to further develop this promising method of investigation in order to learn about the occurrence of high-redshift, star forming groups and the impact on these groups by quasar activity.
\
**Figure \[fig:0019objects\] (contd).** ELG candidates in the field of BR B0019-1522.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: <http://www.ruby-lang.org/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Deep Echo State Networks (DeepESNs) recently extended the applicability of Reservoir Computing (RC) methods towards the field of deep learning. In this paper we study the impact of constrained reservoir topologies in the architectural design of deep reservoirs, through numerical experiments on several RC benchmarks. The major outcome of our investigation is to show the remarkable effect, in terms of predictive performance gain, achieved by the synergy between a deep reservoir construction and a structured organization of the recurrent units in each layer. Our results also indicate that a particularly advantageous architectural setting is obtained in correspondence of DeepESNs where reservoir units are structured according to a permutation recurrent matrix.'
author:
- Claudio Gallicchio
- Alessio Micheli
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Reservoir Topology in Deep Echo State Networks
---
[150mm]{}(-2cm,-7cm) *This is a preprint version of the following paper, published in the proceedings of ICANN 2019:*\
Gallicchio C., Micheli A. (2019) Reservoir Topology in Deep Echo State Networks. In: Tetko I., Kůrková V., Karpov P., Theis F. (eds) Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2019: Workshop and Special Sessions. ICANN 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11731. Springer, Cham
Introduction
============
Reservoir Computing (RC) [@Lukosevicius2009; @Verstraeten2007experimental] delineates a class of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) models based on the idea of separating the non-linear dynamical component of the network, i.e. the recurrent hidden reservoir layer, from the feed-forward linear readout layer. The reservoir is initialized randomly under stability constraints and then is left untrained, leaving the burden of training to fall only on the readout part of the architecture, hence resulting in a strikingly efficient approach to RNN design. In this context, the Echo State Network (ESN) model [@Jaeger2004; @Jaeger2001] is a popular realization of the RC paradigm based on implementing the reservoir in terms of a discrete-time non-linear dynamical system. Being featured by untrained dynamics, ESNs represent an important tool to understand and characterize the operation and potentialities of recurrent neural models. Shaping the reservoir architecture in order to achieve desired properties and optimized performance in applications, even in the absence of training of the recurrent connections, is one of the key goals of RC research [@Gallicchio2018randomized].
In this paper we bring together two major trends in the area of ESN architectural studies. The first one focuses on the pattern of connectivity among the recurrent units. In this case, the aim is to constrain the random reservoir initialization process towards topologies that determine specific algebraic properties of the resulting recurrent weight matrices. A relevant class of reservoir variants in this regard is given by ESNs with orthogonal recurrent matrices [@White2004; @Hajnal2006], which were shown to lead to improved performance with respect to random reservoirs both in terms of memorization skills and in terms of predictive performance on non-linear tasks. In particular, reservoirs whose structure is based on permutation matrices represent particularly appealing instances of orthogonal ESNs [@Hajnal2006; @Strauss2012], entailing a simple and very sparse pattern of connectivity among the recurrent units. Other relevant architectural variants are given by reservoirs structured according to a ring topology or to form a chain of units [@Rodan2011; @Strauss2012]. The second major line of research that we consider regards the construction of hierarchically structured reservoir models. While initial studies in this context focused on composing multiple ESN modules to form ad-hoc architectures [@jaeger2007discovering; @triefenbach2010phoneme], recent works started analyzing the effects of stacking multiple untrained reservoir layers with the introduction of the DeepESN model [@Gallicchio2017DeepESN]. On the one hand, the analysis of DeepESN dynamics contributes to uncover the intrinsic computational properties of deep neural networks in the temporal domain [@Gallicchio2017DeepESN; @Gallicchio2018local]. On the other hand, a proper architectural design of deep reservoirs might have a huge impact in real-world applications [@Gallicchio2018design], enabling effective multiple time-scales processing and at the same time preserving the training efficiency typical of RC models.
In this paper we analyze the impact on the predictive performance given by a constrained reservoir topology in DeepESNs. Specifically, we consider deep architectures in which the individual reservoir layers are implemented based on permutation matrices, as well as on ring and on chain topologies. Our study is conducted in comparison to shallow ESN counterparts through numerical experiments on several benchmarks in the RC area.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The DeepESN model is introduced in Section \[sec.DeepESN\], while the investigated reservoir topologies are described in Section \[sec.topology\]. The experimental analysis is reported in Section \[sec.experiments\]. Finally, Section \[sec.conclusions\] draws conclusions and delineates future research directions.
Deep Echo State Networks {#sec.DeepESN}
========================
A DeepESN is an RC model in which the reservoir part is organized into a stacked composition of multiple untrained recurrent hidden layers. The external input is propagated only to the first reservoir layer, while each successive level in the deep architecture is fed by the output of the previous one, as graphically illustrated in Figure \[fig.deepreservoir\].
![Hierarchical reservoir architecture in a DeepESN.[]{data-label="fig.deepreservoir"}](reservoir.eps){width="100.00000%"}
To fix our notation, we use $L$ to indicate the number of layers in the deep reservoir, while $N_U$ and $N_Y$ respectively denote the sizes of input and output spaces. For the sake of simplicity in the presentation of the DeepESN model, here we make the assumption that all the reservoir layers are featured by the same number of units, indicated by $N_R$. The operation of each reservoir layer can be described in terms of a discrete-time non-linear dynamical system, whose state update equation is given in the form of an iterated mapping. In particular, at time-step $t$, the state of the first layer, i.e. ${{\mathbf{x}}^{(1)}}(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N_R}$, is computed as follows: $$\label{eq.layer1}
{{\mathbf{x}}^{(1)}}(t) = \tanh({{\mathbf{W}}_{in}}{\mathbf{u}}(t) + {\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(1)} {{\mathbf{x}}^{(1)}}(t-1)),$$ while the state of each successive layer $l>1$, i.e. ${{\mathbf{x}}^{(l)}}(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N_R}$, is given by: $$\label{eq.layerl}
{{\mathbf{x}}^{(l)}}(t) = \tanh({\mathbf{W}}^{(l)} {{\mathbf{x}}^{(l-1)}}(t) + {\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)} {{\mathbf{x}}^{(l)}}(t-1)).$$ Here, $\tanh$ indicates the element-wise application of the hyperbolic tangent non-linearity, ${\mathbf{u}}(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N_U}$ represents the external input at time-step $t$, while ${{\mathbf{W}}_{in}}$, ${\mathbf{W}}^{(l)}$ and ${\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}$ respectively denote the input weight matrix (that modulates the external input stimulation to the first layer), the inter-layer weight matrix for layer $l$ (that modulates the strength of the connections from layer $l-1$ to layer $l$), and the recurrent reservoir weight matrix for layer $l$. In both the above equations \[eq.layer1\] and \[eq.layerl\] we omitted the bias terms for the ease of notation. The interested reader can find in [@Gallicchio2017DeepESN] a more detailed description of the deep reservoir equations, framed in the more general context of leaky integrator reservoir units. In order to set up initial conditions for the state update equations \[eq.layer1\] and \[eq.layerl\], at time-step $0$ all reservoir layers are set to a null state, i.e. ${\mathbf{x}}^{(l)}(0) = \mathbf{0}$ for all $l = 1,\ldots, L$. Given this framework, it is worth noticing that a standard shallow ESN model can be seen as a special case of DeepESN in which a single reservoir layer is considered, i.e. $L = 1$.
As in standard RC approaches, the parameters of the entire reservoir component, i.e. the elements in all the weight matrices in equations \[eq.layer1\] and \[eq.layerl\], are left untrained after initialization subject to stability constraints. These are required to avoid the system dynamics to fall into unstable regimes, which would make them unsuitable for robust processing of time-series data. In the context of ESNs, the analysis of asymptotic stability is usually described in terms of the Echo State Property (ESP) [@Jaeger2001; @Lukosevicius2009], providing simple algebraic conditions for the initialization of reservoir weight matrices that have been recently extended to cope with the case of deep reservoirs in [@Gallicchio2017echo]. Under a practical view-point, the analysis in [@Gallicchio2017echo] suggests to carefully control the spectral radius of all the reservoir weight matrices in the deep reservoir. In this paper, we use $\rho^{(l)}$ to denote the spectral radius in layer $l$, i.e. the largest among the absolute values of the eigenvalues of ${\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}$. A simple initialization procedure for the reservoir of a DeepESN then consists in choosing the elements in ${\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}$ randomly from a uniform distribution on $[-1,1]$, subsequently re-scaling them to achieve desired values of $\rho^{(l)}$, typically not above unity. Similarly, the elements in ${{\mathbf{W}}_{in}}$ and those in ${\mathbf{W}}^{(l)}$ (for $l>1$) are initialized randomly from a uniform distribution on $[-1,1]$, and then are re-scaled to control the input scaling hyper-parameter $\omega_{in} = \|{{\mathbf{W}}_{in}}\|_2$, and the set of inter-layer scaling hyper-parameters $\omega_{il}^{(l)} = \|{\mathbf{W}}^{(l)}\|_2$.
The output of the DeepESN is computed by a simple readout tool, which linearly combines the reservoir representations developed in all the layers of the deep architecture. In formulas, the output at time-step $t$, denoted as ${\mathbf{y}}(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N_Y}$, is computed by the following equation: $$\label{eq.readout}
{\mathbf{y}}(t) = {{\mathbf{W}}_{out}}\, [{\mathbf{x}}^{(1)}(t); \ldots ; {\mathbf{x}}^{(L)}(t)],$$ where ${{\mathbf{W}}_{out}}$ is the output weight matrix, and $[{\mathbf{x}}^{(1)}(t); \ldots ; {\mathbf{x}}^{(L)}(t)]$ represents the global deep reservoir state at time-step $t$, expressed as the concatenation of all the states in the architecture. The elements in ${{\mathbf{W}}_{out}}$ represent the only learnable weights of the DeepESN, and are typically adjusted to fit a training set by exploiting non-iterative training algorithms as in the case of standard RC models [@Lukosevicius2009]. Notice that, although different patterns of reservoir-to-readout connectivity are possible [@Pascanu2014], the one employed here, where all reservoir layers are used to feed the readout, has the advantage to allow the training algorithms to modulate and exploit differently the variety of representations provided by the different levels in the deep architecture.
A more comprehensive description of the characteristics and advantages of the DeepESN approach can be found in [@Gallicchio2018Layering], while a constantly updated overview on the advancements achieved in this research field is given in [@Gallicchio2017survey]. To date, software implementations of the DeepESN model are made publicly available as libraries for Python[^1], Matlab[^2] and Octave[^3].
Reservoir Topology {#sec.topology}
==================
We consider DeepESN architectural variants where the recurrent weight matrix in each layer $l$, i.e. ${\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}$, is characterized by a specific structure, according to the topologies described in the following. The resulting patterns of reservoir connectivity are graphically exemplified in Figure \[fig.topology\].
![Reservoir topologies of DeepESN layers.[]{data-label="fig.topology"}](topology.eps){width="90.00000%"}
Sparse
: Each reservoir unit is randomly connected to a subset of the others, determining a *sparse* recurrent matrix ${\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}$ (see Figure \[fig.topology\](a)). This corresponds to a common setting used in RC practice and serves here as baseline for our analysis.
Permutation
: The structure of the recurrence matrix ${\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}$ is given by a *permutation* matrix $\mathbf{P}$, i.e. we have: $$\label{eq.permutation}
{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)} = \lambda \, \mathbf{P},$$ where $\mathbf{P}$ is obtained by randomly permuting the columns of the identity matrix, and $\lambda$ is a multiplicative constant that specifies the value of the non-zero recurrent weights. In this case, the spectral radius of ${{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}$ is determined by the value of $\lambda$, i.e. $\rho^{(l)} = \lambda$. The permutation topology implies that each row and each column of the recurrence matrix have exactly one non-zero element, resulting into a reservoir architecture that presents a variable number of disjoint cyclic structures, as graphically exemplified in Figure \[fig.topology\](b). The levels in the deep reservoir architecture are allowed to employ different permutations, i.e. the number of cycles in each reservoir layer can be different.
In the context of shallow ESNs, this kind of topology has been empirically studied in [@Boedecker2009], where it was shown to achieve good memorization skills at the same time improving the performance of randomly initialized reservoirs in tasks involving non-linear mappings. Interestingly, the permutation topology has been investigated in [@Hajnal2006] as a way to implement orthogonal reservoir matrix structures, under the name of Critical ESNs.
Ring
: The reservoir units are organized to form a single *ring*, as shown in Figure \[fig.topology\](c). Accordingly, the recurrent weight matrix ${{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}$ is expressed as: $$\label{eq.ring}
{{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}= \lambda \,
\left[
\begin{array}{c c c c}
0 & 0 & \ldots & 1\\
1 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \ldots & 1 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right],$$ where $\lambda$ is the value of non-zero recurrent weights, and determines the spectral radius of ${{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}$, i.e. $\rho^{(l)} = \lambda$. The ring topology can be easily seen as a special case of the permutation topology, where the pattern of reservoir connectivity is ruled by the specific permutation matrix in equation \[eq.ring\], and the reservoir units are all part of the same cyclic structure.
Reservoirs following this architectural organization have been subject of several studies in literature on shallow RC. Notable instances in this regard are given by the work in [@Strauss2012], in which the ring topology is studied in the context of orthogonal reservoir structures, and by the work in [@Rodan2011], where the study is carried out under the perspective of architectural design simplification for minimum complexity ESN construction. One interesting outcome of previous analysis on the ring topology is that, compared to randomly initialized reservoirs, it shows superior memory capacity that, at least in the linear case, approaches the optimal value [@Rodan2011]. While this optimal memory characterization has been extensively analyzed in literature for the more general class of orthogonal recurrent weight matrices (see e.g. [@White2004; @Jaeger2001short; @Farkas2016]), the ring topology presents the advantage of a strikingly simple (and sparse) dynamical network construction.
Chain
: The recurrent units are arranged in a pipeline, where each unit - except for the first one - receives in input the activation of the previous one, forming a *chain* as in the example in Figure \[fig.topology\](d). The only non-zero elements in ${{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}$ are located in the lower sub-diagonal, i.e. we have: $$\label{eq.chain}
{{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}= \lambda \,
\left[
\begin{array}{c c c c}
0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
1 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \ldots & 1 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right],$$ where as in previous cases $\lambda$ identifies the value of non-zero weights. Although in this case ${{\hat{{\mathbf{W}}}}^{(l)}}$ is nilpotent and hence its spectral radius is always $0$, we still operate on $\lambda$ to control the magnitude of recurrent weights. As such, with a slight abuse of notation, also in this case we set $\rho^{(l)} = \lambda$. Overall, the chain topology results in a particularly simple design strategy that, from the architectural perspective, applies a further simplification to the ring topology by removing one of the connections between the internal units.
Literature works on shallow ESN models pointed out the merits of reservoir organizations based on a chain topology (also called delay-line reservoirs), as a very simple approach to the architectural design of the network, resulting in a model that is easier to analyze [@White2004] and that leads to comparable or even better performance than standard ESNs [@Rodan2011; @Strauss2012].
Experiments {#sec.experiments}
===========
In this section we illustrate the experimental analysis conducted in this paper. Specifically, in Section \[sec.settings\] we detail the datasets considered and the experimental settings adopted in our work, whereas in Section \[sec.results\] we report and discuss the achieved numerical results.
Datasets and Experimental Settings {#sec.settings}
----------------------------------
In our experiments, we considered benchmark datasets featured by univariate time-series (i.e., $N_U = N_Y = 1$).
The first dataset is obtained from a non-linear auto-regressive moving average system of the 10-th order (NARMA10). At each time-step, the input $u(t)$ comes from a uniform distribution over $[0, 0.5]$, whereas the corresponding target output $y_{tg}(t)$ is given by the following relation: $$\label{eq.narma10}
y_{tg}(t) = 0.3 \, y_{tg}(t-1)+0.05 \, y_{tg}(t-1) \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{10} y_{tg}(t-i)
+ 1.5 \, u(t-10) \, u(t-1)+0.1.$$
The second dataset that we considered is the Santa Fe Laser time-series [@Weigend2018time], where the input values $u(t)$ are sampled intensities from a far-infrared laser in chaotic regime, re-scaled by a factor of 0.01. We used the Laser dataset to define a next-step prediction task, where $y_{tg}(t) = u(t+1)$ for each time-step $t$.
The last two datasets are instances of the Mackey-Glass (MG) [@Mackey1977oscillation; @Farmer1982chaotic] time-series, obtained by discretizing the following non-linear differential equation: $$\label{eq.mg}
\frac{\delta u(t)}{\delta t} = \frac{0.2 \, u(t-\tau)}{1+u(t-\tau)^{10}} - 0.1 \, u(t),$$ where $\tau$ is a parameter of the system influencing its dynamical behavior. We generated two MG time-series using $\tau = 17$ (MG17) and $\tau = 30$ (MG30), representing cases with increasingly complex chaotic behavior. In both cases, the elements of the time-series where shifted by -1 and then passed through the $\tanh$ squashing function as in [@Jaeger2004; @Jaeger2001]. The two MG time-series allowed us to set up two next-step prediction tasks, where $y_{tg}(t) = u(t+1)$ for each time-step $t$.
For NARMA10, MG17 and MG30 we generated datasets with 10000 time-steps, while the Laser dataset contained a number of 10092 samples. In all the cases, the available data was split into a training set, comprising the first 5000 time-steps, and a test set, comprising the remaining samples. The first 100 time-steps were used as transient to wash out the initial conditions. The performance of the considered RC models was evaluated in terms of mean squared error (MSE) in all the tasks.
In our experiments, we considered DeepESNs with a total number of $500$ recurrent reservoir units, distributed evenly across the layers of the deep architecture, varying the number of layers $L$ from 2 to 5[^4]. All the reservoir layers in the deep architecture shared the same values for the scaling hyper-parameters $\rho$ and ${\omega_{il}}$, i.e. $\rho = \rho^{(1)} = \ldots = \rho^{(L)}$ and ${\omega_{il}}= {\omega_{il}}^{(2)} = \ldots = {\omega_{il}}^{(L)}$. To account for sparsity, each reservoir unit was randomly connected to 5 units in the previous layer and to 5 units in the same layer. Of course, when considering permutation, ring and chain reservoir topologies, the connectivity of the reservoir units in each layer followed the corresponding specific structure described in Section \[sec.topology\]. In all the cases, we used fully-connected input weight matrices. For every task and choice of the reservoir topology, the DeepESN hyper-parametrization was chosen by model selection on a validation set comprising the last 1000 time-steps of the training split. To this end, we performed a random search with 50 networks configurations for each number of layers, sampling the value of $\rho$ from a uniform distribution in $(0.1, 1]$, and the values of ${\omega_{in}}$ and ${\omega_{il}}$ from uniform distributions in $(0.1, 2]$. The achieved results were averaged on 10 network guesses for each hyper-parametrization explored, and readout training was performed by using pseudo-inversion. Finally, our experimental analysis was conducted in comparison with shallow ESN setups, considering the same reservoir topologies investigated in the DeepESN case, and using the same experimental setting described above, with the only crucial exception that all the available reservoir units were organized into a single layer (i.e. $L = 1$).
Results {#sec.results}
-------
The test MSE values obtained by DeepESNs in correspondence of all the considered types of layer-wise reservoir topology are reported in Table \[tab.results\]. For the sake of comparison, the same table shows the results achieved by shallow ESNs under the same architectural conditions examined in the deep case. In all the cases, the sparse reservoir topology is considered as a baseline setup for our analysis.
[l l l l]{}\
**Topology** $\quad$ & **ESN** & **DeepESN** & Layers\
Sparse & $1.658 \; 10^{-4} \, (3.367 \; 10^{-5}) \quad$ & $1.647 \; 10^{-4} \,(3.415 \; 10^{-5})$ & 2\
Permutation & $1.354 \; 10^{-4} \, (1.589 \; 10^{-5})$ & $\underline{1.243 \; 10^{-4}} \,(1.464 \; 10^{-5})$ & 2\
Ring & $1.494 \; 10^{-4} \, (1.547 \; 10^{-5})$ & $1.482 \; 10^{-4} \,(1.713 \; 10^{-5})$ & 2\
Chain & $1.571 \; 10^{-4} \, (1.780 \; 10^{-5})$ & $1.569 \; 10^{-4} \,(2.594 \; 10^{-5})$ & 2\
\
[l l l l]{}\
**Topology** $\quad$ & **ESN** & **DeepESN** & Layers\
Sparse & $1.226 \; 10^{-3} \, (1.037 \; 10^{-4}) \quad$ & $8.228 \; 10^{-4} \,(2.309 \; 10^{-4})$ & 5\
Permutation & $1.312 \; 10^{-3} \, (1.385 \; 10^{-4})$ & $\underline{6.633 \; 10^{-4}} \,(8.861 \; 10^{-5})$ & 5\
Ring & $1.161 \; 10^{-3} \, (7.541 \; 10^{-5})$ & $7.640 \; 10^{-4} \,(4.331 \; 10^{-5})$ & 4\
Chain & $9.496 \; 10^{-4} \, (1.183 \; 10^{-4})$ & $8.555 \; 10^{-4} \,(8.302 \; 10^{-5})$ & 4\
[l l l l]{}\
**Topology** $\quad$ & **ESN** & **DeepESN** & Layers\
Sparse & $3.739 \; 10^{-9} \, (1.387 \; 10^{-9}) \quad$ & $2.328 \; 10^{-9} \,(8.299 \; 10^{-10})$ & 2\
Permutation & $3.093 \; 10^{-9} \, (3.241 \; 10^{-10})$ & $\underline{4.576\; 10^{-10}} \,(6.280 \; 10^{-10})$ & 5\
Ring & $1.585 \; 10^{-9} \, (2.989 \; 10^{-10})$ & $5.043 \; 10^{-10} \,(3.891 \; 10^{-10})$ & 5\
Chain & $1.950 \; 10^{-9} \, (3.745 \; 10^{-10})$ & $4.913 \; 10^{-10} \,(2.535 \; 10^{-10})$ & 3\
\
[l l l l]{}\
**Topology** $\quad$ & **ESN** & **DeepESN** & Layers\
Sparse & $1.476 \; 10^{-8} \, (1.781 \; 10^{-9}) \quad$ & $1.172 \; 10^{-8} \,(1.406 \; 10^{-9})$ & 2\
Permutation & $1.027 \; 10^{-8} \, (5.412 \; 10^{-10})$ & $\underline{8.618\; 10^{-9}} \,(1.457 \; 10^{-9})$ & 3\
Ring & $1.197 \; 10^{-8} \, (1.549 \; 10^{-9})$ & $1.078 \; 10^{-8} \,(2.066 \; 10^{-9})$ & 5\
Chain & $1.086 \; 10^{-8} \, (9.519 \; 10^{-10})$ & $9.096 \; 10^{-9} \,(1.803 \; 10^{-9})$ & 3\
\
The performance values reported in Table \[tab.results\] allow us to draw several lines of observations. First of all, our results confirm the goodness of the considered reservoir architectural variants already in the shallow setup, showing improved performance (i.e., a smaller MSE) with respect to the sparse baseline in all the cases (with the sole exception of permutation shallow reservoirs on Laser). Second, we observe that the performance of DeepESN with constrained topology (i.e. permutation, ring and chain) enhances that one of sparse DeepESN in all the considered tasks (with the only exception of deep reservoirs with chain architecture on Laser). Moreover, we can see that DeepESN improves the results of shallow ESN in all the tasks and for all the choices of reservoir topology, both in the constrained architectural cases and for the base sparse reservoir setup. Taken together, results in Table \[tab.results\] clearly indicate the performance advantage arising from the synergy between deep organization and constrained topology as factors of architectural design of reservoirs. Giving a structure to the architecture of reservoirs both at a coarser level, i.e. organizing the recurrent units into layers, and at a finer level, i.e. organizing individual layers’ units into cyclic or chain structures, amplifies the benefits brought by the two factors individually. Finally, we notice that the best performing architecture in our experiments is the DeepESN with permutation reservoir topology, which obtained the smallest errors on all the tasks, and is put forward here as a particularly effective (yet sparse and efficient) approach to the architectural design of reservoir models.
Conclusions {#sec.conclusions}
===========
In this paper we have investigated the role of reservoir topology in the architectural design of DeepESNs. Specifically, we focused on analyzing the effects of constraining the recurrent weight matrix of each layer according to permutation, ring and chain topologies. Numerical results on several RC benchmarks pointed out a striking beneficial effect arising from the combination of a deep reservoir construction with a structured organization of the recurrent units in each layer. Our results indicate that DeepESN with reservoir units arranged to obey a permutation scheme (i.e., forming multiple rings) provides a particularly advantageous design strategy for reservoirs, leading to the best performance in all the explored tasks.
While already giving interesting empirical evidences on the potentialities of deep RC architectures, the study presented in this paper opens the way to several directions for further research. First of all, the experimental analysis described here suggests that the use of simplified deep RC models has a great potential that can be exploited massively in real-world applications. Leveraging the parsimonious design approach resulting from structured sparsity of reservoir units, the class of deep neural models studied in this work seems an ideal candidate e.g. for embedding advanced learning capabilities on resource-constrained computing devices. On the methodological side, a natural extension of the work in this paper is to analyze the effect of a broader pool of reservoir architectural variants, including e.g. small-world [@Kawai2019small], cycles with regular jumps [@Rodan2012] and concentric [@bacciu2018concentric] reservoirs. Moreover, future research could pursue even further the simplification of architectural construction in deep RC models, reducing the impact of randomness in the network initialization in the same vein as the works on minimum complexity ESNs [@Rodan2011; @Rodan2012]. Simplifying the reservoir structure locally to each layer can also be exploited from a more theoretically-oriented perspective, easing the mathematical analysis of dynamical properties naturally emerging in deep RNNs. In this concern, it is certainly interesting to extend fundamental mathematical results, e.g. pertaining to short-term memory capacity [@Rodan2011; @White2004; @Jaeger2001short], or to approximation properties [@grigoryeva2018echo] of shallow reservoirs to the case of DeepESN. In addition to this, we believe that the role of orthogonality in deep reservoirs, studied in this paper in relation to the individual layers of the architecture, is an intriguing concept that deserves to be investigated also at the level of global (instead of local) DeepESN dynamics. Finally, the advantages of constrained DeepESN architectures delineated in this paper can be extended to larger classes of models, including e.g. deep RC for complex data structures [@gallicchio2019deep], as well as fully trained deep RNNs.
[^1]: <https://github.com/lucapedrelli/DeepESN>
[^2]: <https://it.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/69402-deepesn>
[^3]: <https://github.com/gallicch/DeepESN_octave>
[^4]: With the only exception of the case $L=3$, where the first two layers contained 167 units and the last one contained 166 units.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons for Floyd’s well known heap construction algorithm, is derived. It is shown that at most $2n - 2\mu(n) - \sigma(n)$ comparisons are executed in the worst case, where $\mu(n)$ is the number of ones and $\sigma(n)$ is the number of zeros after the last one in the binary representation of the number of keys $n$.
analysis, Worst case complexity, Data structures, Heaps
author:
- 'Ioannis K. Paparrizos'
title: 'A tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons for Floyd’s heap construction algorithm'
---
Introduction
============
Floyd’s heap construction algorithm [@paper4] proposed in 1964 as an improvement of the construction phase of the classical heapsort algorithm introduced earlier that year by Williams J.W.J [@paper8] in order to develop an efficient in-place general sorting algorithm. The importance of heaps in representing priority queues and speeding up an amazing variety of algorithms is well documented in the literature. Moreover, the classical heapsort algorithm and, hence, Floyd’s heap construction algorithm as part of it, is contained and analyzed in each textbook discussing algorithm analysis, see [@paper1] and [@paper2] for example.
Floyd’s algorithm is optimal as long as complexity is expressed in terms of sets of functions described via the asymptotic symbols $O$, $\Theta$ and $\Omega$. Indeed, its linear complexity $\Theta(n)$, both in the worst and best case, cannot be improved as each object must be examined at least once. However, it is an established tradition to analyze algorithms solving comparison based problem by counting mainly comparisons, see for example Knuth [@paper5] who states that the theoretical study of comparison counting gives us a good deal of useful insight into the nature of sorting processes.
Despite the overwhelming attention received by the computer community in the more than 45 years of its life, a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons holding for all values of $n$, is, to our knowledge, still unknown. Kruskal et al. [@paper6] showed that $2n - 2 \lceil \log(n+1) \rceil$ is a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons, if $n = 2^k-1$, where $k$ is a positive integer, and, to our knowledge, this is the only value of $n$ for which a tight upper bound has been reported in the literature.
Schaffer [@paper7] showed that $n - \lceil \log(n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n)$, where $\lambda(n)$ is the number of zeros in the binary representation of $n$, is the sum of heights of sub-trees rooted at internal nodes of a complete binary tree, see also [@paper3] for an interesting geometric approach to the same problem. Using this result we show that $2n - 2\mu(n) - \sigma(n)$ is a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons for Floyd’s heap construction algorithm. Here, $\mu(n)$ is the number of ones and $\sigma(n)$ is the number of zeros after the last (right most) one in the binary representation of the number of keys $n$.
Floyd’s heap construction algorithm
===================================
A $maximum \hspace{2 pt} heap$ is an array $H$ the elements of which satisfy the property: $$H ( \lfloor i/2 \rfloor ) \geq H(i), i = 2, 3, ... , n.$$ Relation (1) will be referred to as the heap property. A $minimum \hspace{2 pt} heap$ is similarly defined; just reverse the inequality sign in (1) from $\geq$ to $\leq$. When we simply say a heap we will always mean a maximum heap. A nice property of heaps is that they can be represented by a $complete \hspace{2 pt} binary \hspace{2 pt} tree$. Recall that a complete binary tree is a binary tree in which the root lies in level zero and all the levels except the last one contain the maximum possible number of nodes. In addition, the nodes at the last level are positioned as far to the left as possible. If $n = 2^k - 1$, the last level $\lfloor log n \rfloor = k - 1$ contains the maximum possible number $2^k - 1$ of nodes. In this case the complete binary tree is called $perfect$. The $distinguished \hspace{2 pt} path$, introduced in [@paper5], of a complete binary tree that connects the root node $1$ with the last leaf node $n$, will play an important role in deriving our results. It is well known, see for example [@paper5], that the nodes of the distinguished path correspond to the digits of the binary expression of $n$. *Figure 1* illustrates a complete binary tree, its distinguished path and the corresponding binary expression of $n$. In terms of binary trees the heap property is stated as follows:\
*The value of a child is smaller than or equal to the value of its parent.*\
![A complete binary tree, its distinguished path (dashed edges), a special path (thick edges) and the leftmost path (dotted edges). The numbers by the nodes of the distinguished path are the digits of the binary expression (11001) of $n=25$.[]{data-label="fig:figure12"}](pic1){height="7cm" width="12cm"}
It is easily verified that the value of the root is the largest value. Also, each sub-tree $T_j$ of the complete binary tree representing a heap, is also a heap and, hence, the value $H(j)$ is the largest value among those that correspond to the nodes of $T_j$. A sub-array $H(i:n)$ for which the heap property is satisfied by each node $j$ the parent of which is an element of $H(i:n)$, is also called a heap. Here the expression $j:n$ denotes the sequence of indices $j, j+1, j+2, ... , n.$
An *almost heap* is a sub-array $H(i:n)$ all nodes of which satisfy the heap property except possibly node $i$. If key $H(i)$ violates the heap property, then $H(i) < \max\{H(2i), H(2i+1)\}.$
The main procedure of Floyd’s heap construction algorithm, called in this paper heapdown, works as follows. It is applied to an almost heap $H(j:n)$ and converts it into a heap. In particular, if $m = H(j)$ satisfies the heap property $H(j) \geq \max\{H(2j), H(2j+1)\}$ and, hence, $H(j:n)$ is a heap, the algorithm does nothing. Otherwise, it swaps key $m = H(j)$ with the maximum child key $H(j_{max})$. Then, it considers the child $j_{max}$ which currently contains key $m$, and repeats the procedure until the heap property is restored. *Algorithm 1* shows a formal description of the algorithm.
$k = 2i$ $k = k+1$ $swap(H(i),H(k))$ $i = k$ $H(i...n)$ $swap(H(i),H(n))$ $H(i...n)$
Floyd’s heap construction algorithm, called Floyd - buildheap procedure in this paper, applies procedure heapdown to the sequence of almost heaps $$H ( \lfloor n/2 \rfloor : n), H ( \lfloor n/2 \rfloor - 1 : n), ... , H(1:n).$$ As the sub-array $H( \lfloor n/2 \rfloor +1 : n)$, consists of leafs and, therefore, it is a heap and procedure heapdown converts an almost heap to a heap, the correctness of procedure Floyd - buildheap is easily shown.
When procedure heapdown is applied to the almost heap $H(j:n)$ key $m = H(j)$ moves down one level per iteration. In general, two comparisons are executed per level, one comparison to find the maximum child and one to determine whether key $m$ should be interchanged with the maximum child key. However, there is a case in which just one comparison is executed. This happens when key $m$ is positioned at node $ \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ and $n$ is even. Then, internal node $n/2$ has just one child, the last node $n$, and therefore no comparison is needed to find the maximum child. We will see in the next section, when we will investigate the worst case of procedure Floyd-buildheap, that this situation happens quite often, if $n$ is even. Procedure FLOYD - BUILDHEAP describes formally Floyd’s algorithm.
heapdown(H(i...n)) $H$
A tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons
=====================================================
It is well known that the number of interchanges performed by Floyd’s heap construction algorithm is bounded above by the sum $t(n)$ of heights of sub-trees rooted at the internal nodes of a complete binary tree. Schaffer [@paper7] showed that: $$t(n) = n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n),$$ where $\lambda(n)$ is the number of zeros in the binary representation of $n$. For the sake of completeness of the presentation we provide a short proof based on the geometric idea described in [@paper3]. We associate a *special path* with each internal node of the binary tree. The special path connects a node, say $j$, with a leaf of the subtree $T_j$ rooted at node $j$. The first edge of the special path is a *right edge* and all the remaining edges are *left edges*, see *Picture 1*. In particular, the nodes of the special path are $j, 2j + 1, 2^2j+2, 2^3j+2^2, …, 2^kj+2^{k-1}$. Observe now that the edges of all special paths cover all the edges of the binary tree exactly ones except the $\lfloor logn \rfloor$ edges of the *leftmost path*, see *Picture 1*. As no two special paths contain a common edge, the number of edges of all special paths is $n - 1 - \lfloor logn \rfloor$.
The lengths of special paths are closely related to the heights of the sub-trees. Recall that the *length* of a path is the number of edges it contains. Denote by $sp(j)$ the special path corresponding to node $j$. If internal node $j$ does not belong in the distinguished path, then $length(sp(j)) = h(T_j)$. If internal node $j$ belongs in the distinguished path and the right edge $(j, 2j+1)$ is an edge of the distinguished path, then $length(sp(j)) = h(T_j)$. In that case the first edge of $sp(j)$ belongs in the distinguished path and the digit of the binary expression of $n$ corresponding to node $j$ is $1$. If internal node $j$ belongs in the distinguished path and the left edge $(j, 2j)$ is an edge of the distinguished path, then $h(T_j) = length(sp(j)) + 1$. In that case the first edge of $sp(j)$ does not belong to the distinguished path and the digit of the binary expression of $n$ corresponding to node $j$ is $0$. Summing up all heights of internal nodes we get $$t(n) = n -1 - \lfloor logn \rfloor + \lambda(n) = n - \lceil log (n+1)\rceil + \lambda(n).$$ In computing, our tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons, two cases must be considered, $n$ even and $n$ odd. We first take care of the case $n$ is odd.
### Lemma 1.
Let $n$ be odd. Then the maximum number of comparisons executed by Floyd’s heap construction algorithm is $$2t(n) = 2(n- \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n)).$$
### Proof:
If $n$ is odd, each internal node has exactly two children and, hence, each key swap corresponds to two key comparisons. Therefore $2t(n)$ is an upper bound on the number of comparisons.
We show now that this bound is tight. To this end we construct a special worst case array $H$. In particular $H$ satisfies the following properties
1. The elements of $H$ are the $n$ distinct keys $1,2, ... ,n$.
2. The nodes in the distinguished path are assigned the $ \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil $ largest keys. In particular, the nodes in levels $0, 1, 2, ... , \log(n)$ are assigned the keys $n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + 1, n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + 2, ... , n$ respectively.
3. If $j$ is a node not belonging in the distinguished path, sub-tree $T_j$ is a minimum heap.
Apply now procedure Floyd-buildheap to the array $H$ described previously. When procedure heapdown is called on the almost heap $H(j:n)$ and $j$ is not a node of the distinguished path, key $m = H(j)$ will move all the way down to the bottom level of sub-tree $T_j$. This is so because key $m$ is the smallest among the keys corresponding to nodes of the sub-tree rooted at node $j$, see property 3. Also, two comparisons are executed per level. When procedure heapdown is applied to an almost heap $H(j : n)$, where $j$ is a node of the distinguished path, key $m = h(j)$ will follow the distinguished path all the way down to the bottom level taking the position of leaf node $n$, see property 2. Again, two comparisons are executed per level and, hence, the number $2n - 2 \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + 2\lambda(n)$ is a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons. $\Box$
Next lemma takes care of the case $n$ even.
### Lemma 2.
If $n$ is even the exact worst case number of comparisons for Floyd’s heap construction algorithm is $$2(n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n)) - \sigma(n),$$ where $\sigma(n)$ is the number of zeros after the last one in the binary representation of $n$.
### Proof:
Let $(b_m b_{m-1} ... b_2 b_1 b_0)$ be the binary representation of $n$. Let also $b_k b_{k-1} ...\\ b_2 b_1 b_0$ be the last $k+1$ digits of the binary representation of $n$ such that $b_k = 1$ and $b_{k-1} = b_{k-2} = ... = b_1 = b_0 = 0$.
As $n$ is even $b_0 = 0$ and, hence, $k \geq 1$. Consider now an internal node of height $j \leq k$ lying at the distinguished path. It is easily verified, using inductively the well known property $\lfloor \lfloor n/2 \rfloor / a \rfloor = \lfloor n / a^2 \rfloor $ of the floor function, that the index at that node is $ \lfloor n / 2^j \rfloor $ . When procedure Floyd-buildheap calls procedure heapdown on the almost heap $H( \lfloor n / 2^j \rfloor : n)$ key $m = H( \lfloor n / 2^j \rfloor )$ will move down the levels either following the distinguished path or moving to the right of it at some point. This is so because all the edges $(n, \lfloor n / 2 \rfloor), ( \lfloor n / 2 \rfloor , \lfloor n / 2^2 \rfloor ), ... , ( \lfloor n / 2^{j-1} \rfloor , \lfloor n / 2^j \rfloor)$ of the distinguished path are left edges. In the former case at most $2j - 1$ comparisons are executed and this happens when key $H( \lfloor n / 2^j \rfloor)$ is placed either at the bottom level or at the level next to bottom. In the latter case at most $2(j - 1)$ comparisons are executed. Hence for each node of the distinguished path at height $j = 1, 2, ... , k$ the maximum number of comparisons is one less than 2 times the height of the sub-tree rooted at that node. For all the remaining internal nodes $i$ the maximum number of comparisons is $2h(T_i)$, where $h(T_i)$ is the height of the sub-tree rooted at node $i$. As the number of internal nodes of the distinguished path at heights $1, 2, ... , k$ is $\sigma(n)$, the previous arguments show that the number $$2(n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n)) - \sigma(n)$$ is an upper bound on the number of comparisons for procedure Floyd-buildheap.
We describe now an array $H$ on which procedure Floyd-buildheap executes exactly $2(n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n)) - \sigma(n)$ comparisons, thus showing that this number is a tight upper bound for $n$ even. In order to describe the structure of the worst case example $H$ we partition the nodes of the complete binary tree into 4 sets $A, B, C, D$. Set $A$ contains all the nodes on the left side of the distinguished path. Set $D$ contains all nodes lying on the right side of the distinguished path. Set $C$ contains the nodes of the distinguished path of height $j = 0, 1, 2, ... , k$ and set $B$ contains all the remaining nodes of the distinguished path. *Figure* \[fig:figure1\] illustrates a complete binary tree and the sets of nodes $A, B, C, D$.
![Partition of the nodes of a complete binary tree into sets $A, B, C, D$.[]{data-label="fig:figure1"}](figure1){height="8cm" width="12cm"}
The structure of array $H$ is described in the following properties:
1. The elements of $H$ are the $n$ distinct keys $1, 2, ... , n$.
2. If $i, j, k, l$ are nodes belonging to the sets $A, B, C, D$ respectively, then $$H(i) > H(j) > H(k )> H(l).$$
3. The keys in the distinguished path that belong to the set $B$ are in increasing order from the top to the bottom. The keys in the distinguished path that belong to the set $C$ are in increasing order from the top to the bottom.
4. If $j$ is a node not belonging to the distinguished path, the sub-tree $T_j$ is a minimum heap.
Although there are more than one way to assign the keys $1, 2, ..., n$ to the elements of $H$ so that properties 2), 3) and 4) are satisfied, an easy way to do that is as follows. Place the $|A|$ largest keys to the sub-trees on the left of the distinguished path so that each sub-tree is a minimum heap. The symbol $|A|$ denotes the number of elements of set $A$. Obviously $|A|$ is the number of nodes on the left of the distinguished path. Place in increasing order from top to bottom levels the next $|B|$ largest elements at the nodes of the distinguished path that belong to the set $B$. Also, place in increasing order from top to down levels the next $|C|$ largest elements at the nodes of the distinguished path that belong to the set $C$. Obviously $|B| + |C| = 1 + \lfloor \log(n) \rfloor = \lceil \log(n+1) \rceil$. Finally, place the remaining $|D|$ smallest keys, i.e, the keys $1,2, ... ,|B|$ at the sub-trees right to the distinguished path so that each sub-tree is a minimum heap. *Figure* \[fig:figure2\] illustrates such a worst case example for $n = 44$.
![A worst case complete binary tree for Lemma 2. It is $n = 44$, $k = 2$, $|A| = 23, |B| = 3, |C| = 3, |D| = 15$. The number inside node $j$ is the key $H(j)$.[]{data-label="fig:figure2"}](graph2){height="8cm" width="12cm"}
Apply now procedure Floyd-buildheap on the array $H$ described previously. Let $H(j:n), j = \lfloor n / 2 \rfloor, \lfloor n / 2 \rfloor -1, ... , 1$ be the almost heap on which procedure heapdown is applied to after it is called by procedure Floyd-buildheap. If $j$ is not a node at the distinguished path, key $H(j)$, because of property 4), will move all the way down to the bottom level of sub-tree $T_j$ and $2h(T_j)$ comparisons will be executed. If $j$ is a node of the distinguished path belonging to set $C$, key $H(j)$, because of properties 2), 3) and 4), will follow the distinguished path never making a right turn. In this case, key $H(j)$ will be placed at node $n$ executing $2h(T_j) - 1$ comparisons. Finally, if node $j$ belongs in set $B$, key $H(j)$ will definitely make a left turn before reaching the node $\lfloor n / 2^k \rfloor$ of the distinguished path, see properties 2) and 3). Then it will move all the way down to bottom level executing 2 comparisons per level. Again $2h(T_j)$ comparisons are executed.
Summing up the comparisons for all the calls of procedure heapdown we see that the total number of comparisons is as stated in the Lemma. $\Box$
Observe that the array $H$ described in the previous Lemma is not a minimum heap. In particular the sub-trees rooted at nodes of the distinguished path are not minimum heaps.
### Theorem 1.
The number $2n - 2\mu(n) - \sigma(n)$, where $\mu(n)$ is the number of ones and $\sigma(n)$ is the number of zeros after the last one in the binary representation of $n$, is a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons for Floyd’s heap construction algorithm.
### Proof:
If $n$ is odd, then $b_0 = 1$ and, hence, $\sigma(n) = 0$. Combining Lemmas 1 and 2 we see that a tight bound on the worst-case number of comparisons is the number $2[n - \lceil \log (n+1) \rceil + \lambda(n)] - \sigma(n) = 2[n - (\lambda(n) + \mu(n)) + \lambda(n)] - \sigma(n) = 2n- 2\mu(n) - \sigma(n).$ $\Box$
Conclusion
==========
Deriving worst case tight upper bound examples for an algorithm implies that the worst case complexity of the algorithm cannot be improved. We derived our worst case examples by the use of simple geometric ideas. As the binary trees and heaps are involved in many other algorithms for which worst case tight examples are not known, we hope that our results will contribute in solving those problems.
[4]{}
Aho, V., Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman D.J.: The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms, Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science and Information Processing (1974) Cormen T., Leiserson C., Rivest R. and Stein C.: Introduction to algorithms, 2nd Eddition, MIT press (2001) Goodrich M. T. and Tamassia R.: Algorithm Design, Foundations, Analysis, and Internet Examples, John Wiley and Sons (2002) Floyd R.: Algorithm 245: treesort 3, Communication of the ACM, 7, 701 (1964) Knuth D.: The Art of computer Programming, Vol 3 (2nd edition), Searching and sorting, Addison Wesley, Redwood city, CA (1998) Kruskal C. P. and Weixelbaum D.: The worst case analysis of heapsort, Technical Report no 018a, Department of Computer Science, New York University (1979) Schaffer, R.: Analysis of heapsort, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of computer science, Princeton University (1992) Williams J.W.J.: Algorithm 232: heapsort, Communication of the ACM, 6, 347-348 (1964)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We recently presented radio observations of a large sample of radio-loud broad absorption line (BAL) quasars from the SDSS and FIRST surveys, as well as a well matched sample of unabsorbed quasars, primarily to measure their radio spectral indices and estimate ensemble orientations. Here, we analyze the SDSS spectra of these samples and compare the rest-frame ultraviolet properties of radio-loud BAL and non-BAL quasars. Ultraviolet properties include the continuum shape, emission-line measurements of , , , , and , and BAL properties including the balnicity index (BI), absorption index (AI), and minimum and maximum outflow velocities. We find that radio-loud BAL quasars have similar ultraviolet properties compared to radio-loud non-BAL sources, though they do appear to have redder continua and stronger emission, which is consistent with what is found for radio-quiet BAL sources. No correlations exist between outflow properties and orientation (radio spectral index), suggesting that BAL winds along any line of sight are driven by the same mechanisms. There are also few correlations between spectral index and other properties. We conclude that BAL outflows occur along all lines of sight with similar strengths and velocities.'
author:
- 'M. A. DiPompeo, M. S. Brotherton, S. L. Cales, J. C. Runnoe'
title: 'The rest-frame ultraviolet properties of radio-loud broad absorption line quasars'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Broad absorption line (BAL) quasars represent a significant fraction of the quasar population, likely around 20% (Knigge et al. 2008), but the reason only some quasars show BALs is still under debate. BAL troughs in quasar spectra are the signatures of the most extreme quasar outflows. Understanding their nature is important, as it is likely that quasar outflows can have impacts on both the evolution of the quasar (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998, King 2003), as well as the host that harbors it, for example by regulating star formation rates (Hopkins & Elvis 2010, Cano-Diaz et al. 2012).
Two ideas have emerged to explain the BAL phenomenon, and unfortunately they are often discussed in a mutually exclusive manner. One is based solely on orientation, in which BAL winds are radiatively driven into a mostly equatorial outflow. Note that “equatorial” here is used loosely, as in a true equatorial direction most quasars are likely obscured by dust. Here we mean that the winds are being driven away from the symmetry axis as in Elvis (2000), for example. In this picture all quasars have these types of outflows, and BALs are only seen when our line of sight intersects the outflow at a relatively large angle from the disk symmetry axis. One piece of evidence used to support this view is that the emission-line properties between (radio-quiet) BAL an non-BAL quasars are quite similar (Weymann et al. 1991). However, some differences are found, such as stronger emission and weaker lines in BAL quasars, placing them generally at one extreme of “eigenvector 1” (Boroson & Green 1992, Boroson 2002). As a class, BAL quasars more often show significant (greater than a few percent) optical polarization than their non-BAL counterparts (Ogle et al. 1999, DiPompeo et al. 2010, 2011a). This has a natural geometrical interpretation, with polarization arising from scattering in a polar region and thus stronger from edge-on perspectives, analagous to what is seen in Seyfert type 2 galaxies (Antonucci et al. 1993). However, other explanations for the polarization are viable as well, especially given the generally stronger reddening in BAL sources (and thus less diluting unpolarized direct continuum light), as well as the fact that polarization does not seem to correlate with orienation indicators (DiPompeo et al. 2010).
The strongest evidence against these large inclination only explanations comes from observations at radio wavelengths. Radio spectral index, or the steepness of the radio spectrum, is widely regarded as an orientation indicator because it depends on whether radio cores or lobes dominate the radio emission. In jet-on, low inclination sources, core emission is relativistically boosted and overwhelms the lobe emission. Radio cores tend to have flat spectra due to their higher optical depth. Radio lobes, on the other hand, are optically thin and tend to have steeper spectra. There is significant variation between sources, but when looking at large samples spectral index is a useful tool. Studies on smaller samples found no significant difference between spectral index distributions for BALs when compared to non-BALs, indicating they have similar ranges of viewing angles (Becker et al. 2000, Montenegro-Montes et al. 2008, Fine et al. 2011). More recently, in a larger BAL sample with a well matched non-BAL sample selected specifically for this comparison, a significant difference was found in which BAL sources had an overabundance of steep spectrum sources (DiPompeo et al. 2011b). However, the two samples still cover a similar range in spectral index, and modeling has shown that while at the highest inclinations BALs are much more likely to be present, they very likely are also seen from small viewing angles (DiPompeo et al. 2012). This supports the claims based on short timescale radio variability that some BALs are seen very nearly along the radio jet axis (Zhou et al. 2006, Ghosh & Punsly 2007).
Because of these observations, the other picture that is often proposed is that BAL quasars represent an early (or rejuvinated) phase of all quasar lifetimes, in which they are still enshrouded in a cocoon of gas and dust. The relatively recent advent of large and deep radio surveys such as FIRST (Becker et al. 1995) led to the discovery of the first radio-loud BAL quasars (Becker et al. 1997, Brotherton et al. 1998, Becker 2000), and so they have only recently begun to be studied in larger numbers. Because of their relative rarity some have postulated that the BAL phase evolves into a radio-loud unabsorbed phase (Becker et al. 1997, Gregg et al. 2002, 2006). Additionally, BAL quasars seem to be more compact in radio maps compared to non-BAL quasars (e.g. Becker et al. 2000), and may often have radio spectra typical of gigahertz-peaked spectrum (GPS) or compact-steep spectrum (CSS) sources (Montenegro-Montes et al. 2008). These are generally considered to be young objects (O’Dea 1998, Fanti et al. 1995). However, new results of larger samples of matched BAL and non-BAL quasars studied over a large range of radio frequencies suggest that the GPS/CSS fractions of BAL and non-BALs are similar (Bruni et al. 2012).
As mentioned above, the results of DiPompeo et al. (2011b, 2012) suggest that more edge-on orientations may play a role in the presence of BALs. But it cannot be the only factor, and BALs are seen along all lines of sight that normal quasars are seen from. Other studies have made similar conclusions, that neither edge-on only orientations nor evolutionary sequences are sufficient to describe the BAL subclass. For example, Allen et al. (2011) identify a redshift dependence of the BAL fraction, which seems to rule out orientation only, while Gallagher et al. (2007) find no IR excess in BAL quasars, which we would expect if all BAL sources have the large covering fractions suggested by evolution alone.
All of the quasars used in the work of DiPompeo et al. (2011b) have observed-frame optical (rest-frame ultraviolet at these redshifts) spectra from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Here we present an analysis of the ultraviolet properties of these radio-loud quasars, as well as a comparison with their radio properties, in an attempt to further develop a unified picture of BAL quasars. We adopt the cosmology of Spergel et al. (2007) for all calculated properties, with $H_0 = 71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M=0.27$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} =0.73$.
THE SAMPLE
==========
We will summarize here the sample selection, but for the full details we refer the reader to DiPompeo et al. (2011b). The object names and redshifts are listed in columns 1 and 2 of Table \[proptbl\]. The BAL sample is drawn from the catalog of Gibson et al. (2009, hereafter G09), which is built from SDSS DR5. This catalog is cross-matched with the FIRST and NVSS (Condon et al. 1998) radio catalogs at 1.4 GHz, and sources with integrated flux densities greater than 10 mJy are selected. No formal signal to noise cut was made, but all of the SDSS spectra were inspected by eye to ensure that there was no ambiguity in the BAL classification. The final sample contains 74 objects. The non-BAL sample was selected to match the BAL sample in a one-to-one fashion (for 74 more sources) in redshift, SDSS i-band magnitude, and FIRST integrated radio flux densities. Though the G09 catalog was assembled using measurements of the SDSS DR5 catalog, all measurements performed in this analysis use the spectra from the SDSS DR7, available through the SDSS Data Archive Server (DAS).
We would also like to note here that there was in fact a non-BAL source that was mistakenly included in the BAL sample presented in DiPompeo et al. (2011b), SDSS J095327.96+322551.6. A line-locked absorption doublet on the blue end of the spectrum, combined with strong emission near the line that led to the appearance of a low-ionization trough led this object to be included in the sample when it should not have. Excluding it in no way effects the results of DiPompeo et al. (2011b) or DiPompeo et al. (2012), and it will not be included in any analysis here. The one FeLoBAL in the sample, SDSS J155633.77+351757.3, will also be excluded in this analysis, due to the extreme absorption and associated difficulties in fitting the spectrum.
MEASUREMENTS & DERIVED PARAMETERS
=================================
Radio parameters
----------------
Here we briefly summarize the radio data utilized, but again refer the reader to DiPompeo et al. (2011b) for more detailed information. The samples were observed with the Very Large Array (VLA) or Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA), quasi-simultaneously at 4.9 and 8.4 GHz. Integrated flux densities were measured from the radio maps, and radio spectral indices ($\alpha_{rad}$; $S_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha_{rad}}$, where $S_{\nu}$ is the radio flux density and $\nu$ is the observed frequency) were measured. There were three measures of $\alpha_{rad}$ utlilized; $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$, $\alpha_{4.9}^{1.4}$, and $\alpha_{fit}$, which is a linear fit to multi-frequency data gathered from the literature in addition to the new observations. Due to the simultaneous nature of the measurements at 4.9 and 8.4 GHz, much of the emphasis in DiPompeo et al. (2011b, 2012) was placed on that value. However, a statistically significant difference between BAL and non-BAL $\alpha_{rad}$ distributions is seen, regardless of which $\alpha_{rad}$ is utilized. The distributions of $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ are shown in panel (a) of Figure \[propsfig\]. In this analysis, when comparing parameters to $\alpha_{rad}$, we will use both $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ and $\alpha_{fit}$.
Radio luminosities ($L_r$) are k-corrected to rest-frame 5 GHz from the FIRST survey integrated flux densities, using $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ and the SDSS redshifts. Radio-loudness ($R^{*}$) is computed using the method of Stocke et al. (1992), using the FIRST flux densities k-corrected to 5 GHz and Johnson B magnitudes integrated from the SDSS spectra. There are two BAL sources and two non-BAL sources for which $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ is not available, and so the average values of this spectral index for the full BAL and non-BAL samples (-0.73 and -0.36, respectively) are used. Values of $\log R^{*}$ and $\log L_r$ are listed in columns 3 and 4 of Table \[proptbl\]. There is only one source that does not meet the strict definition of radio-loud ($\log R^{*} > 1.0$); the BAL quasar SDSS J110531.41+151215.9. However, for this object $\log R^{*} = 0.98$, and so we will treat all sources as formally radio-loud. One important note to make is that the use of B-band magnitudes can be problematic when comparing BAL and non-BAL sources. Because BAL quasars are on average more reddened (see below), as well as the fact that the absorption troughs are often located in the B-band, differences can appear between BAL and non-BAL sources when they may in fact be intrinsically the same. However, the $\log R^{*}$ distributions of the two samples here are indistinguishable and the samples are matched in the SDSS i-band (where reddening and BAL features are less of an issue), and so we are comfortable using the traditional definition of $R^{*}$ using B-band magnitudes.
Spectral fits
-------------
The SDSS DR7 spectra were corrected to rest-frame wavelengths (flux densities were preserved as observed-frame), corrected for Galactic extinction using the dust maps of Schlegel et al. (1998), and then fit using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">specfit</span> task (Kriss 1994). The components used in the fits were a power-law continuum ($F_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{- \alpha_{uv}}$), the I Zw 1 UV iron emission template (Vestergaard & Wilkes 2001), and two Gaussians each for the emission lines of $\lambda$1549 Å (for the non-BAL sample only), $\lambda$1857 Å, $\lambda$1909 Å, and $\lambda$ 2799 Å. No attempt to de-blend $\lambda$ 1892 Å from the line was made. One of the Gaussian components for each line was allowed to be narrow enough to be considered a traditional narrow line (FWHM $<$ 1000 km/s), but in all cases both Gaussians were broad in the best fits. In some cases additional Gaussians were used to approximate the $\lambda$ 1640 Å and $\lambda$ 1663 Å emission on the red side if , so that the fitting procedure did not try to use one or both components of to fit the “shelf” created by these other emission lines, artificially increasing the parameters.
We aimed to be as consistent as possible with the regions included in the fits, but the large redshift range limits our ability to do this. In the non-BAL sample, fits were performed beginning at 1450Å (just blueward of the emission), or as far blue as the redshift would allow if 1450Å was not in the spectral window. Fits extended up to 3000Å when possible. In cases where was redshifted out of the spectrum, fits were performed out to 2500Å, and if that was not available, then 2250Å was used. The BAL sample was fit in a similar way, except the emission was excluded because of the uncertainty due to absorption and the fits began at 1600 Å.
Individual spectra were inspected, and regions of bad data or other absorption (due to low-ionization absorption or intervening systems) were excluded from the fit regions. Several sets of fits were run, using the same upper and lower limits for parameters that were used in the prescriptions of Ganguly et al. (2007). This includes allowing the template to be broadened or narrowed, as well as have a velocity shift relative to the other lines; both of these were freely varying parameters in the fits. Separate sets of fits were performed both tying the peak wavelengths of the two Gaussian components of each line together and allowing them to vary independently. Once all fits were run, those with the lowest $\chi^{2}$ for each object were chosen as the final fits, though all fits were inspected to ensure that these ones were indeed the best model of the data. In some cases it was necessary to go back and modify the fits interactively, and in situations where a parameter could not be satisfactorily fit, it was thrown out.
We point out that for sources with particularly strong (or narrow) emission, it was often difficult to get the Vestergaard & Wilkes (2001) template to fit well in all spectral regions (in particular around 2400-2500 Å and immediately to the red side of ), indicating that the template line ratios may not be ideal for all sources. However, it generally would fit well around the emission lines, with the exception of the red side of , and the normalization factor is still a useful diagnostic of strength even with these shortcomings. There are some cases where separating the and emission is difficult, particularly when signal-to-noise is lower, as it is harder to tell if has a distinct peak or if it is completely blended with . However, the fact that our results do not change much when lower SNR spectra are omitted indicates that our fits are robust. In general the fits are well within the noise of the actual spectra, with few systematic discrepancies. Examples of our fits to a BAL and non-BAL source are shown in Figure \[fitsfig\]. The parameters of the continuum fit and normalization (relative to the I Zw 1 template) are shown in columns 2, 3, and 4 of Table \[lineproptbl\]. Distributions of the power-law slopes $\alpha_{uv}$ and scaling factors for the BAL and non-BAL samples are shown in panels (b) and (c) of Figure \[propsfig\]. These are shown because they are two of the most statistically different distributions, as discussed in Section 4.1.
Since the two Gaussian components used for the emission lines are not likely to be from different physical regions (as both components are always broad), we combine them into a single, total line profile. This was done for each emission line numerically. We then measure the centroid, FWHM, and EW of the total line profiles. Finally, the line centers of , , and are converted into blueshifts (in km/s). For consistency with the measurements of Richards et al. (2011), and to test some of their ideas later, we use the modified SDSS redshifts of Hewett & Wild (2010) in this calculation, as opposed to the original SDSS redshifts used in the other calculations. The final EWs, FWHMs, and blueshifts of each line are presented in columns 5-15 of Table \[lineproptbl\].
Errors on the fit parameters were estimated using the following method. Spectra with five representative signal-to-noise ratios (approximately, 5, 10, 15, 25, and 35 in the i-band, as reported in the SDSS headers) were chosen. We then added random Gaussian noise to the original fits of these spectra consistent with their SNR and performed fits to these synthesized spectra. Individual line components were combined in the manner described above, and the process was repeated fifty times for each of the five spectra. We then used the standard deviation of the distributions of each parameter as an estimate of the errors. In order to extrapolate these errors to other spectra, we fit a power-law to the relationship between the errors from the 5 representative spectra (normalized by their values from the initial fits) and SNR. The use of a power-law relationship was chosen by visual inspection of the shape of the normalized error-SNR data. These fits allow us to rescale the errors to other spectra with different SNRs and parameter values without having to fit 50 synthesized spectra for each object, saving significant computing time. We note that using this method may under or over-estimate errors for some parameters in individual spectra, but overall they provide a good representation of the errors.
A few points should be made about this error estimation technique. First, since the mock spectra were generated from the model fits, it is possible for the errors to be underestimated as technically the mock spectra can be fit exactly while the real spectra will almost always have some residuals. However, since generally our fits are within the noise of the spectra (see for example Figure \[fitsfig\]), this effect is minimal. Additionally, since errors on individual objects were extrapolated from just a few representative spectra, issues with the accuracy of the errors are likely dominated by that step. It is important to also note that this method does not fully take into the account the covariance of fit parameters. However, the fact that Gaussians were combined for each of the 50 fits (i.e., a Gaussian from one fit wasn’t combined with a second Gaussian from a different fit), this is accounted for at some level. While the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">specfit</span> task does calculate errors on individual fit components using full covariance matrices, there is no straightforward way of combining these errors on individual Gaussians for an error on the final line profile, particularly the FWHM. Additionally, the covariance matrix method does not take into account the noise in the spectra, which is a significant source of errors. The exact way in which errors are estimated will not effect our final results, and thus we feel that this method is sufficient.
Bolometric luminosity & black hole mass
---------------------------------------
Using the fits described above, we next calculate luminosities and virial black hole masses. Bolometric luminosities ($L_{bol}$) are calculated using a bolometric correction at 2500Å, derived in the same way and with the same sample as the correction at 3000Å in Runnoe et al. (2012). Though not published there, the correction at this wavelength was readily available. Since 2500Å is covered in significantly more of our spectra than 3000Å, less extrapolation of the continuum fits is needed there and so its use is preferred. The correction at this wavelength is: $$\log L_{bol} = 2.653 + 0.957 \log (2500L_{2500}).$$ Bolometric luminosities are listed in column 5 of Table \[proptbl\].
We also estimate virial black hole masses ($M_{bh}$) when the line is in the spectral window. Though the line can also be used to calculate $M_{bh}$, since we did not attempt to fit in the BAL sample we do not use this method here. We follow the prescription of Vestergaard & Osmer (2009), using their luminosity calibration at 2100Å: $$M_{bh} = 10^{6.79} \left( \frac{\rmn{MgII\ FWHM}}{1000\ \rmn{km/s}} \right)^{2} \left( \frac{2100 L_{2100}}{10^{44}\ \rmn{erg/s}} \right) ^{0.5}$$ Black hole masses are listed in column 6 of Table \[proptbl\].
Finally, we use $M_{bh}$ to calculate the Eddington fraction ($L_{bol}/L_{edd} \equiv F_{edd}$) of the sources, using the equation of Peterson (2003) for the Eddington luminosity: $$L_{edd} = 1.51 \times 10^{38}\ M_{bh}$$ Eddington fractions are listed in column 7 of Table \[proptbl\]. The distributions of $L_{bol}$, $M_{bh}$, and $F_{edd}$ are shown in panels (d), (e), and (f) of Figure \[propsfig\].
Absorption properties
---------------------
In order to explore the absorption properties of BALs as a function of viewing angle and other properties, we make several measurements of the absorption features. Though we agree with the idea that many BAL definitions and measurements are somewhat arbitrary (e.g. Ganguly & Brotherton 2008), they can still be useful in searching for correlations between outflow and quasar properties. Using the SuperMongo code made available by Hall et al. (2002), we first measure the traditional “BALnicity index” ($BI$; Weymann et al. 1991): $$BI = \int_{3,000}^{25,000} \left(1-\frac{f(v)}{0.9} \right) C dv$$ where $f(v)$ is the continuum normalized flux density as a function of velocity (in km/s), and $C$ is set to 0 except for in regions where the normalized flux density is below 0.9 for 2000 km/s continuously, where it is equal to one. Values of $BI$ are given in column 8 of Table \[proptbl\]. The continuum used for normalization is not technically the same as the power-law fit discussed above. Because fits were only performed beginning on the red side of the emission line in the BAL sample, in some cases the continuum fit does not extrapolate well to the BAL region. This is particularly true for sources in which reddening causes a turnover in the spectrum around the region. Instead, we fit a 3rd-5th order polynomial to all regions of the spectrum without emission or absorption features, similar to the method of Hall et al. (2002). Over the relatively small wavelength region where BAL features are measured, the differences between a power-law and polynomial fit are generally small. For consistency we have measured the absorption properties of all sources using the polynomial fit, but in cases where the power-law fit appears to extend through the BAL region fairly well we have checked that the power-law and polynomial fits give consistent answers.
Because $BI$ was originally defined to only identify the strongest BAL features, there are often obviously strongly (and intrinsically) absorbed systems with $BI=0$, which we see in many of our sources. Because of this, we also measure the “absorption index” ($AI$), which is similar to $BI$ but allows for lower velocity (and sometimes narrower, see below) absorption: $$AI = \int_{0}^{25,000} \left(1-\frac{f(v)}{0.9} \right) C' dv$$ For consistency with the measurements of G09, we use a condition of continuous absorption for 2000 km/s when assigning a value to $C'$. Unlike for $BI$, this is not necessarily built into the standard definition of the parameter, and the user can define any continuous absorption condition. However, in a significant number of cases, using this condition results in a measurement of $AI=0$, despite a non-zero measurement by G09. This could be for several reasons. One, G09 smooth their spectra before measurement, while we do not, but this is only an issue in a small fraction of objects. Two, our continuum placements may differ slightly, and so the width of the absorption below the continuum may fall below 2000 km/s. This is the most common difference, and occurs often when there is significant absorption contained within the emission line, causing only the narrower parts of the absorption to fall below the continuum. For sources which we measure $AI=0$ using these conventions, we relax the continuous absorption condition to 800 km/s, which allows us to find $AI > 0$ for all objects. These measurements highlight some of the difficulties in measuring BAL properties accurately, as well as the difficulties in defining them such that true BALs aren’t missed and false positives are avoided. Values of $AI$ are tabulated in column 9 of Table \[proptbl\]. In both $BI$ and $AI$ measurements, $v=0$ is defined to be at 1549.06Å and integration is only carried out to 25,000 km/s because this is the velocity at which the region begins. This and the fact that in some cases regions of possible absorption lie outside the spectral coverage (for $z<1.6$) means that some BAL parameters are only lower limits.
Finally, we measure the maximum and minimum velocities ($v_{max}$ and $v_{min}$, respectively) of the BAL outflow, also relative to $v=0$ at 1549.06Å. The values of $v_{max}$ are taken from the $AI$ integration, and so are where the absorption finally rises above 90% of the continuum. $v_{min}$ is measured more subjectively, because the minimum velocity may still be located on the emission line. Therefore, using the location where the flux density first drops below the continuum can give values of $v_{min}$ that are biased too high. Each of our spectra were inspected and the location of $v_{min}$ was estimated by eye. These velocities are given in columns 10 and 11 of Table \[proptbl\]. Negative values of $v_{min}$ indicate that the absorption begins to the red of 1549.06Å.
Estimating errors on outflow properties is difficult. While formal errors for $AI$ and $BI$ are relatively straight forward to calculate (indeed they are reported by the Hall et al. (2002) code) using the SDSS error spectra, they are not generally an accurate measure of the true errors. The real errors are dominated by other factors, particularly continuum placement. Formal errors on $AI$ are on average only about 2%, with the lowest error being 0.1% and the highest being 10%. However, if we take a few example spectra and fit several different polynomial continua (judging by eye what a “maximum” and “minimum” continuum might be), the variance in these measurements is always larger than the formal error. In some cases this error can be nearly 50%, though this a function of SNR and the continuous absorption criteria (narrower absorption is generally more sensitive to continuum placement). Errors on $AI$ and $BI$ are likely around 5-10% on average. Errors on $v_{max}$ due to continue placement are generally a bit less as in most cases the velocity where $AI$ integration ends does not change significantly as the continuum changes. Errors on $v_{min}$ are difficult to estimate, due to the subjective way in which they are measured. However, for both $v_{min}$ and $v_{max}$ redshift errors can be important. The average redshift error for the BAL sample here is 0.0017, or a velocity of about 500 km/s, and so this can be taken as an average error on velocities. However, redshift errors are random and thus shouldn’t significantly affect the correlation tests as the errors should average out.
Comparisons with other measurements
-----------------------------------
Being drawn from SDSS, many of the measurements used here have been independently made by others, providing a good opportunity for comparisons that may prove useful in analyzing various methods. First, for the BAL sample, measurements of the BAL properties are presented in the G09 catalog that this BAL sample is derived from. The spectra of all of the objects in both of our samples have been fit by Shen et al. (2011, hereafter S11), and fit parameters from the SDSS pipeline are available as well. The parameters of the SDSS fits are taken from the publicly available table of results in Richards et al. (2011). Although there is 100% overlap between these sources, there are cases where some measurements are made of a parameter by us and not by S11, or vice-versa. This can be for several reasons. For example, S11 does not measure the profile when it is on the edge of the spectrum, while we include measurements in these cases where our visual inspection indicates that the fit looks reasonable. As mentioned above, in come cases fit parameters (particularly of ) were thrown out in our procedures due to things like narrow absorption, BAL troughs, or simply via visual inspection if we did not feel the fit was accurate. Many of these objects have fit parameters presented by S11.
We refer the reader to S11 for details of their fitting procedures, but we highlight a few of the main differences between this work and theirs. While both of our methods use a power-law continuum and similar template, a key difference is that these components are fit to all spectral regions simultaneously in our fits, while S11 fit the regions around the emission lines individually. So while our continuum+iron is restricted to be consistent across the whole spectrum, the S11 method allows for it to be different around the different emission lines. Also, S11 use up to 3 Gaussians to fit each of the and broad emission (plus an additional narrow component for ), while we use two for each. In contrast, the SDSS pipeline fits a simple polynomial to the continuum, with no estimation, and single Gaussians to the emission lines.
First, we compare emission-line equivalent widths for and emission, shown in the top rows of Figures \[civcomp\] and \[mgiicomp\], respectively. The reader will notice in these figures a few objects included in some panels but not others, for the reasons mentioned above. The SDSS pipeline EW values are systematically lower than the measurements presented here and those in S11, worse so for . This is likely due to the fact that the pipeline fits a single Gaussian profile to the lines, when in general AGN broad lines require multiple Gaussians for accurate fits, and so the single profile misses some of the line flux and leads to a lower EW. The effect isn’t simply systematic either, as the disagreement generally worsens for higher EW. Analysis using these SDSS fits, as in Richards et al. (2011), should be treated with caution. The SDSS pipeline often does a very poor job fitting the generally noisier line. In several instances it fits noise spikes rather than the line itself, and very small EW values are returned. In at least one case, it even fits a narrow absorption system and returns a negative value of EW.
For the line, our EW measurements generally agree quite well with those in S11, though on average their values may be slightly larger than ours (by about 10%). As mentioned in their analysis, their values of EW may be slightly overestimated because they do not subtract emission in that region. The agreement for EW is not as good. There is significantly more scatter, and on average our values tend to be higher (by about 20%). Since emission is much more significant in this region, it is likely that the difference is due to the way in which is fit. Again, because we require that be fit simultaneously in all spectral regions, we may include less in this region on average than S11, and in turn include a more significant broad component to make up for it. The two largest outliers in the FWHM comparison are good examples of this, as discussed below. Differences between the compared values seem independent of whether the source is a BAL or unabsorbed quasar.
Better agreement between the SDSS measurements and ours (and S11 as well) are seen for the FWHMs, shown in the bottom rows of Figures \[civcomp\] and \[mgiicomp\]. Again, the agreement between the 3 methods is better for than for . On average, we find that our values for the FWHM are slightly lower than in S11 (by 4%), but the opposite is true for the FWHM (by 16%). However, with the exception of a few outliers, our values and those of S11 agree fairly well. Again, both BAL and non-BAL quasars are just as likely to have differing values.
The largest outlier in the FWHM comparison is due to our inclusion of a narrower component that brings down the FWHM. Via visual inspection it is hard to say which measurement is correct due to the noise level, but there does appear to be a narrower component to the line that may be missed by S11. The two largest outliers in the FWHM comparison are illustrative of the issues with the contribution mentioned above. Both sources are quite noisy in the region, and for both sources there appears to be a blue asymmetry to the line which could be due to emission or a slightly offset broader component. While it is difficult to tell these scenarios apart, the fact that appears well fit in other regions leads us to believe that the emission is really due to . Thus, we measure much larger FWHMs than S11. In the case of the BAL quasar in this region, which has some narrow absorption on the line complicating the issue, it appears to us very unlikely that the width of the line is less than 4000 km/s as suggested by S11.
We next compare the values of $M_{bh}$ and $L_{bol}$ calculated in this work and in S11, shown in Figure \[masslumcomp\]. It is important to note that the two values of $L_{bol}$ are computed using different corrections (S11 uses the correction of Richards et al. 2006), but nevertheless there is overall good agreement. The largest outliers here seem to be BAL sources, but it is unclear why this should be the case. The overall good agreement between our measures of FWHM and continuum luminosities is reflected in the agreement between our $M_{bh}$ calculations (the values presented here from S11 use the same scaling relationship used in this work). However, the tendency for our FWHM to be larger can be seen, with more of the points falling below the dashed line.
Finally, we compare the BAL properties with those measured in G09, shown in Figure \[outflowcomp\]. The left panel shows the comparison between $BI$ (pluses) and $AI$ (which G09 call $BI_{0}$; squares) measurements. Overall the agreement is fairly good, considering the difficulties measuring these parameters consistently. Our $AI$ values tend to be slightly larger, and BI values slightly smaller than those of G09. However, there are numerous cases in which we measure an $BI$ of 0 and G09 does not, or vice versa. This would be the case for $AI$ as well, if we only used the measurements using the 2000 km/s continuous absorption requirement. Recall that we specifically avoid this by using 800 km/s if 2000 km/s returns a value of 0. Again this decision was made to avoid the presence of false positives or false negatives in the $AI$ measurement, which can clearly be a fine line. This generally produces good agreement in our results and those of G09.
The middle panel of Figure \[outflowcomp\] shows a comparison of $v_{max}$, and we agree quite well in most cases, again despite the different integration constraint on $AI$ for some sources. The few big outliers again highlight the difficulties of making these measurements in some sources. Via visual inspection we see absorption we believe is real and make sure it is picked up in the integration for two sources (below the line) that G09 do not agree with. The opposite is true for the source at the top left.
The panel on the right of Figure \[outflowcomp\] shows a comparison of $v_{min}$. Again many sources show excellent agreement, but in this case the values from G09 are often higher than those measured here. This is due to a slightly different approach in making the measurement. In G09, $v_{min}$ is measured where the absorption first drops below 90% of the continuum flux density. This will miss the lower velocity absorption that is still high up on the emission line. When making our more subjective measurements, $v_{min}$ is marked at the point where it is clear that absorption is beginning, even if the flux density there is still above the continuum, which leads to lower values. Because there are significant differences between our BAL measurements and those of G09, we performed correlation tests (see below) using both sets of values.
ANALYSIS & RESULTS
==================
BAL versus non-BAL properties
-----------------------------
One key purpose of this work is to search for differences in the average properties of radio-loud BAL and non-BAL sources. These comparisons are quantified in Table \[balnbalcomptbl\], where we present the statistics of our measured/calculated parameters for the BAL and non-BAL samples. Listed in the table are the mean ($\mu$), standard deviation ($\sigma$), and number ($n$) of sources with a given measurement for the BAL sample (columns 2-4) and non-BAL sample (columns 5-7). We also compare the distributions of these parameters using both a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test and a Wilcoxon rank-sum (RS) test. The final 4 columns of Table \[balnbalcomptbl\] give the KS statistic ($D$) with the associated probability that the BAL and non-BAL distributions are drawn from the same parent population ($P_{KS}$), and the RS statistic ($Z$) with the associated probability that the samples have the same mean ($P_{RS}$). We define a significant difference between the two samples as having a value of $P_{KS}$ or $P_{RS}$ of $0.01$ or less, and these values are typeset in bold. All of the tests were also performed excluding LoBALs from the BAL sample, as well as excluding objects with a $SNR < 6$ in the SDSS i-band. The results were very similar, and so only the results including all available objects are presented.
Overall, the BAL and non-BAL samples are remarkably similar when using these statistical comparisons. The significant differences between BAL and non-BAL quasars are in $\alpha_{uv}$ (Figure \[propsfig\] b), strength (Figure \[propsfig\] c), EW, and possibly in FWHM (only the RS test meets our $P$ value cutoff). It is possible that this slight difference in is actually an indicator of stronger in BAL sources, as we do not perform any de-blending of the emission in this region.
The difference seen between BAL and non-BAL continuum slope is due to the larger amount of reddening in BAL, and particularly LoBAL, sources. This was also seen by Weymann et al. (1991). Those authors also identified the stronger emission in BAL sources, and suggested that this is also the cause of the apparently stronger emission. However, we still see the slightly stronger here after subtraction, which Weymann et al. (1991) did not do due to lack of a good template at the time.
The similarities between the BAL and non-BAL property distributions can also provide important information. Three of these are shown in the bottom panels of Figure \[propsfig\]; the distributions of $M_{bh}$, $L_{bol}$, and $F_{edd}$ are all visually and statistically similar. We also do not see stronger emission-line blueshifts in the BAL sample, which was suggested by Richards et al. (2011).
Correlations
------------
Important clues to the structure of BAL quasars could be found by searching for correlations between orientation indicators, outflow parameters, and other properties. To this end, we have performed an extensive search of such correlations, using the Spearman rank correlation statistic. The results are presented in Table \[allcorrtbl\]; columns 1 and 2 list the parameters being compared, columns 3-5 give the statistics using all (both BAL and non-BAL) sources, including the number ($n$) of sources included, the Spearman rank coefficient ($r_s$), and the associated significance of the coefficients deviation from 0 ($P_{r_s}$). Columns 6-8 give the results considering only the BAL sample, and columns 9-11 give the results using the non-BAL sources only. Our two measures of $\alpha_{rad}$ are extremely strongly correlated ($P_{r_s} = 10^{-19}$), and so we only present correlations using $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ because the results are very similar when using $\alpha_{fit}$. However, there are a few instances in which the results are quite different (one satisfies our significance cutoff and the other does not), and in these cases we present both results. Similarly, we investigated correlations with absorption parameters using both our measurements and those in G09, but in no cases did using the G09 values make correlations change from significant to insignificant (or vice-versa) relative to our cutoff, and so we only present the results using our measurements.
Very few significant correlations exist between the properties examined here:
1. A positive correlation between $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ and $\lambda L_{2500}$ (and therefore $L_{bol}$ as well) in the BAL sample, though it rises above our significance cutoff when $\alpha_{fit}$ is used. The correlation is marginally significant for the total and non-BAL samples, but does not satisfy our significance level. Fine et al. (2011) identified a similar effect in their quasar sample. This correlation is shown visually in Figure \[corrfig\] panel (d), and it does not appear very strong despite the statistics. If we look at average luminosities of the steep spectrum ($\alpha \le -0.7$ and flat spectrum ($\alpha \ge -0.3$) sources, flat spectrum objects are about 16% more luminous.
2. An anti-correlation between $\alpha_{rad}$ and $R^{*}$ in the non-BAL sample. The correlation is marginally significant when considering just $\alpha_{fit}$ in the BAL sample, but becomes insignificant for $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$.
3. A positive correlation between $v_{max}$ and $\lambda L_{2500}$ (or $L_{bol}$); more luminous sources have higher outflow velocities. Ganguly et al. (2007) identified a similar relationship, but as an upper envelope. Our sample only covers the high luminosity end of their sample; see section 5. This correlation is shown in panel (f) of Figure \[corrfig\], along with the Ganguly et al. (2007) envelope.
4. An anti-correlation between the Eddington fraction and $M_{bh}$. This is not surprising as SDSS is a flux-limited survey.
Of course, the lack of correlations can provide important clues as well, ruling out certain models. This will be discussed in section 5. We point out here a few instances in which our findings do not agree with other work. We do not see the correlation between $v_{max}$ and $F_{edd}$ found by Ganguly et al. (2007), though we cover a wide range of $F_{edd}$ and outflow velocities. However, when examining the relationship by eye it is roughly consistent with the envelope they discuss, as shown in panel (e) of Figure \[corrfig\]. We also do not see the strong correlation between FWHM and $\alpha_{rad}$ found by other groups such as Fine et al. (2011) and Jarvis & McLure (2006), though it is present at about a 1$\sigma$ level if $\alpha_{fit}$ is used. However, visual inspection of Figure 4a of Fine et al. (2011) and panel (a) of Figure \[corrfig\] here show that the relationships look very similar. It is possible that with more sources here the statistical significance would rise to similar levels. Weymann et al. (1991) identified a strong correlation between $BI$ and and strength, which we do not see, using either $BI$ or $AI$. This is shown in Figure \[corrfig\] panel (b). Richards et al. (2011) found that BAL sources with larger and blueshifts also had larger values of $BI$, which they suggests separates BAL sources and radio-loud quasars (which generally have small blushifts) into separate populations. We see no such trend here in these radio-loud BALs.
Composite spectra
-----------------
Even if statistical tests produce null results, composite spectra are another way of comparing subsamples of objects to search for important differences. They can also be used to support the fact that “significant” correlations are indeed real. We present several composite spectra of various subsets of the BAL and non-BAL samples, and all composites are created in the same manner.
Spectra contributing to the given composite are rescaled to have the same mean flux density in the wavelength region 2000-2050Å. This region was selected because it is one of the few continuum regions in all of the spectra. The average of all of the spectra are then taken (medians were also checked, but they are not presented because they are similar to the average), using a 3$\sigma$ clipping. The composites compared are:
1. BAL versus non-BAL, shown in Figure \[balnbalcomp\]. From these plots we can see that BAL quasars are generally more reddened, have weaker , , and likely . The emission does not appear significantly stronger in the BAL sources, contrary to the KS/RS tests on the EW distributions. We can also see that the seemingly stronger/wider emission is indeed due to stronger in the BAL sources, as the peak of the blend is at slightly bluer wavelengths. The stronger emission between and in the BAL composite is also visible. If the emission lines are normalized to the same heights, no new details are apparent (lines have indistinguishable widths, etc.).
2. HiBAL versus LoBAL, shown in Figure \[hilocomp\]. Detailed comparisons are difficult here, as there are only ten LoBALs in the sample, and at some wavelengths not all of them contribute. However a few things are apparent. LoBALs are indeed more red, but emission lines appear to be of similar strengths. The deep BAL troughs remain in the LoBAL composite, but largely cancel out in the one for HiBALs. This indicates a more consistent BAL profile in LoBALs, as opposed to the varying types of BALs seen in HiBALs, but again this could be due to low numbers. Our results confirm those of Brotherton et al. (2001).
3. Flat ($\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} \geq -0.3$) versus steep ($\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} \leq -0.7$) radio spectrum, shown in Figure \[balalphacomp\] (BALs) and Figure \[nbalalphacomp\] (non-BALs). We did a similar composite using $\alpha_{fit}$, but it is not shown here as the results were very similar. In the BAL comparison, though the number of flat spectrum sources is small, it appears that flat spectrum sources may actually be reddened slightly compared to steep spectrum sources. Note that this is not due to LoBAL contributions (because they are more reddened), as 5 LoBALs are included in the steep spectrum composite, while only 2 contribute to the flat spectrum. Therefore, leaving out LoBALs actually enhances this effect. The flat sources have weaker emission lines, in particular and . The flat spectrum sources also tend to appear more luminous, likely due to the accretion disk orientation (see section 5) and not intrinsic luminosity differences, which would rule out the weaker emission lines being due to the Baldwin effect. There is also some indication that the flat spectrum sources have both higher maximum outflow velocities and lower minimum velocities, but again we caution this is very possibly due to the number of sources. If the lines are normalized, the line appears slightly wider in the steep spectrum sources. In the non-BAL flat versus steep comparison, we see the two composites are much more similar. is a small amount stronger in the steep spectrum sources, and is slightly wider.
4. “Radio-loudest” ($\log R^{*} > 2.1$) versus “radio-quietest” ($\log R^{*} < 2.1$), shown in Figure \[balloudcomp\] (BALs) and Figure \[nballoudcomp\] (non-BALs). The division at $\log R^{*}=2.1$ was simply chosen because it divides the sources into roughly equal groups. In the BAL composites, we see that the radio-loudest sources are actually slightly more red than the radio-quieter ones, but their emission lines are essentially the same. It also appears that the radio-loudest sources have less detached, more consistent BAL troughs. The radio-quieter sources also have low velocity outflows, as you can see by the shape of the emission line, but BAL profiles must vary more in velocity in order to average out of the composite. In the non-BAL composites, once again the spectra are much more similar. The higher reddening in the radio-loudest sources is not seen, but there is a slight enhancement in emission-line strengths in these objects.
Please see the online version of the journal for the color versions of these composite spectra.
DISCUSSION
==========
The key results of this work are the lack of strong differences between radio-loud BAL and non-BAL properties, and the lack of correlations between $\alpha_{rad}$ (orientation) and outflow properties. It is often questioned whether or not we can treat radio-loud and radio-quiet BAL quasars in the same way, or if they form distinctly separate populations. While we need a detailed comparison of radio-loud and radio-quiet BAL quasars to do this properly, our results here are very similar to those for the comparisons between radio-quiet BALs and non-BALs. Overall, the properties are the same with the exception of more reddening in BAL sources, stronger emission, and likely stronger (manifested in the differences seen in ). It is also clear from the composite spectra (Figure \[balnbalcomp\]) that emission is weaker in BAL quasars, which is difficult to explain via the Baldwin effect because the samples are well matched in luminosity. However, it could be related to the tendency for BAL quasars to lie at one end of eigenvector 1. The fact that these results are similar to comparisons between radio-quiet objects indicates that the ultraviolet properties of radio-loud and radio-quiet BAL quasars are the same. This is supported by other work as well, such as the similarity in optical polarization properties in radio-loud and radio-quiet BAL quasars (DiPompeo et al. 2010).
The significant correlations we found are overall not very telling. The correlation between $\alpha_{rad}$ and $\lambda L_{2500}$ ($L_{bol}$) shows that more pole-on sources tend to have higher luminosities, which could just be due to the orientation of the accretion disk. As stated above, flat spectrum sources are on average about 15% more luminous. If we assume flat spectrum sources are seen on average around 10 degrees from the accretion disk axis, and steep spectrum sources are seen around 30 degrees (see for example DiPompeo et al. 2012), then this luminosity difference is consistent with an effect due to accretion disk viewing angle (see Nemmen & Brotherton 2010). This correlation is only significant for one measure of $\alpha_{rad}$ and in the BAL sample, though a similar finding was made by Fine et al. (2011). It is somewhat unexpected to see the anti-correlation between $\alpha_{rad}$ and $R^{*}$, where the more edge-on sources are more radio-loud. One would expect the opposite to occur, as beaming should cause the enhancement of radio emission to be much stronger than any enhancement of ultraviolet emission in the face-on sources and thus raise $R^{*}$. It is also unclear why this correlation is so much stronger in the non-BAL sample.
There appear to be more interesting results in the non-correlations than the correlations themselves, and these non-correlations can provide some constraints on models suggested in other works. For example, there is no strong correlation between $\alpha_{rad}$ and $\alpha_{uv}$ (a reddening indicator), as shown in panel (c) of Figure \[corrfig\]. This is again consistent for what was found by Fine et al. (2011). In the traditional dusty “torus” model, we might expect the steeper radio spectrum sources to show more reddening. Despite the lack of a correlation, it appears that in the flat/steep BAL composite comparisons in Figure \[balalphacomp\] flatter $\alpha_{rad}$ sources are slightly redder, and this is clearly not present in the flat/steep non-BAL composite of Figure \[nbalalphacomp\]. The lack of this effect in the non-BAL sample could support a picture in which a dusty torus is still present, but no viewing angles to unabsorbed quasars are near enough to it to see any significant reddening effect on the spectrum. This fits with the results of DiPompeo et al. (2012), where at the largest viewing angles one will only see BAL sources, and no unabsorbed sources.
However, it is interesting that in the BAL sample the composites suggest that flatter spectrum sources are on average more reddened. It could simply be that there are not enough flat spectrum BAL sources (only 13 with $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} > 0.3$), and this effect seen in the composites is not actually real. On the other hand, if the effect is real, it could have implications for the amount of dust along different lines of sight and possible covering fractions. These observations could support the model suggested by DiPompeo et al. (2012), where orientation and evolution both play a role; BAL quasars begin completely enshrouded and absorption can be seen along all lines of sight, but as they evolve polar regions are cleared of material first in the area around the developing radio jet. Thus when polar BALs are seen, they are seen in younger, fully enshrouded systems that are more reddened. While Gallagher et al. (2007) found that on average BAL quasars do not seem to have a significant IR excess, ruling out that all BAL quasars are completely enshrouded, it would be interesting to analyze this as a function of spectral index (viewing angle) to see if the flat spectrum BALs show an IR excess compared to steep spectrum BALs. Additionally, the results of Allen et al. (2011) indicate that the redshift range around 2-3 is when the BAL phenomenon peaks, and therefore this is the time when most BAL winds “turn on”. Thus, in the above picture, we would expect most polar BALs to be seen in this redshift range. Unfortunately, the number of flat spectrum BALs in this sample is too small to really verify this. However, the redshift range of the possibly polar BALs found by short timescale radio variability (Ghosh & Punsly 2007, Zhou et al. 2006) does appear to peak at around $z=2.5$.
Another interesting thing to notice in the flat/steep composites, is that the steep spectrum (more edge-on) sources seem to have stronger emission lines. This is seen more so in the BAL sample, but it is present in the non-BALs as well, most clearly for . This difference could again be due to the relative numbers contributing to the composites. Fine et al. (2011) saw this effect in the narrow emission lines of and . They interpreted this as having spherical NLR clouds emitting mostly from the cloud face closest to the accretion disk, with cooler, more optically thick upper halves (see their Figure 11). Our results here suggest that something similar may be happening in the BLR clouds as well.
All of these sources are high mass, with an average mass over $10^{9}\ M_{\odot}$. The fact that they all have such high masses supports the idea that black hole mass does play into the ability of a quasar to become a powerful radio source. However, there is no correlation between $M_{bh}$ and $R^{*}$ or $L_r$ in either sample, suggesting that once a source is massive enough to produce a radio jet, other factors become more important in determining its power. This could for example be black hole spin (e.g. Richards et al. 2011). Ganguly et al. (2008) concluded that BAL sources were not likely super-accretors, and we confirm that here for radio-loud sources. However, despite the statistical results the highest Eddington fraction sources are in the BAL sample.
The luminosities probed are also quite high, and our results suggest that radiation pressure is a significant driver of the winds in these sources, manifested in the correlation between $v_{max}$ and luminosity (panel (f) of Figure \[corrfig\]). The envelope in this relationship presented by Ganguly et al. (2007) really requires lower luminosities to see, however our results are clearly consistent with their findings. Also, the fact that no outflow properties seem to correlate with orientation indicates that the outflows in these sources have the same driving force. In the scenario presented by Richards et al. (2011), where radiation pressure dominated sources tend to have “equatorial” winds (moving away from the jet axis), and other sources may have winds dominated by some other mechanism (such as magneto-hydrodynamic forces), we might expect to identify some trends with viewing angle. For example, in this picture we expect to see $BI$ and $\alpha_{rad}$ to correlate, in the sense that the highest $BI $ sources should be seen at larger inclination angles. This is not the case. Additionally, we do not see the larger blueshifts in BAL emission lines seen by Reichard et al. (2003), though we do see the decrease in EW. This could be because our sources are all radio-loud. In the scenario presented by Richards et al. (2011), sources with large blueshifts are radiation pressure dominated, X-ray weak, and radio quiet. However, placing these radio-loud BAL quasars into that type of picture appears to be difficult.
SUMMARY
=======
We have performed fits of the SDSS DR7 spectra and an analysis of the ultraviolet properties (and the subsequently derived intrinsic properties) of the 74 radio-loud BAL and 74 radio-loud non-BAL quasars presented in the spectral index analysis of DiPompeo et al. (2011). Measurements of both samples include emission-line EW, FWHM, and blueshift of (non-BAL only), , , and , strength, and continuum shape. Additionally, we measure $BI$, $AI$, $v_{min}$, and $v_{max}$ of the BAL in the BAL quasar sample. From the fits, we calculate the bolometric luminosity, black-hole masses (when is in the spectral window), and Eddington fractions. We employed two statistical tests on the distributions of these properties to look for differences between radio-loud BAL and non-BAL quasars. We searched for correlations between numerous parameters, most importantly between radio spectral index (as a proxy for viewing angle) and absorption properties. We also made comparisons using composite spectra of various subsets of each sample.
We summarize the main results as follows:
1. Radio-loud BAL and non-BAL quasars have similar ultraviolet and intrinsic properties, and the (generally small) differences seen are the same as when comparing radio-quiet objects. Radio-loud BALs have redder spectra, weaker emission, and stronger emission compared to radio-loud non-BALs.
2. No significant correlations exist between radio spectral index and BAL trough properties. It is now fairly well established that BAL outflows can occur along any line of sight, and this suggests that all of them have similar properties and thus are driven by similar mechanisms.
3. Composite spectra indicate that BAL sources with flat radio spectra appear more reddened. This is counter to what we would expect in the traditional dusty torus models, and indicates that BAL quasars with more polar outflows have a higher dust content. Non-BAL quasars on the other hand have no relationship between spectral index and reddening, which indicates that they are not generally seen from any viewing angle that results in significant reddening.
4. There is a significant correlation between ultraviolet (and bolometric) luminosity and maximum outflow velocity. The relationship is also consistent with the upper envelope identified by Ganguly et al. (2007). There is no preference for flat or steep $\alpha_{rad}$ sources to fall in particular places along this relationship. This suggests that radiation pressure is the dominant force in driving BAL outflows at any viewing angle.
5. Radio-loud BAL quasars are generally high black hole mass and high luminosity, but have fairly typical Eddington fractions. However, the non-BAL sources selected as a matched sample have these properties as well, and so there is no significant difference between the two samples.
These and other recent results show that BAL quasars cannot be explained using large viewing angle or evolutionary explanations only. A more complex picture is needed, perhaps one that incorporates both of these ideas.
acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments that significantly improved this paper. We also thank Carlos De Breuck for his work in putting this sample together and performing the radio observations. We also thank Rajib Ganguly and Zhaohui Shang for providing files and code for the fitting procedures.
![Two examples of our spectral fits, for a non-BAL (top) and BAL (bottom). Recall that fits on the BAL sample do not include the line due to uncertainties from absorption, and so the fits are performed long ward of 1600 Å. Some systematic differences from the template used are seen in many objects, where the fit is slightly low from about 2400-2500 Å and slightly high just redward of the emission line. Flux is in units of $10^{-17}$ erg/s/cm$^2$/Å.[]{data-label="fitsfig"}](f1.eps){width="3.25in"}
![The distributions of properties of the sample; all plots follow the legend in the first panel. (a) The radio spectral index $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$, reproduced from DiPompeo et al. (2011b). (b) The ultraviolet spectral index $\alpha_{uv}$. (c) The scaling factor of the Vestergaard & Wilkes (2001) template. (d) The bolometric luminosity. (e) The black hole mass, calculated from the FWHM of using the method of Vestergaard & Osmer (2009). (f) The Eddington fraction.[]{data-label="propsfig"}](f2.eps){width="6.5in"}
![Comparison of the EW (top row) and FWHM (bottom row) measurements from this work, the SDSS pipeline, and the fits of Shen et al. (2011). Note that in some cases a measurement was made for one object by one of us, but not by others. Reasons for this vary, but could be due to intervening absorption, BAL features, or noisy data (for example, there are several sources where we did not feel a reasonable fit could be made to a particular line, but the measurement was included in the catalogs of others). Therefore, some sources appear in one panel but not others. We do not show the errors on the SDSS FWHM plots, because we do not calculate them after converting the SDSS Gaussian fit standard deviation into a FWHM. Dotted lines indicate where the values are equal.[]{data-label="civcomp"}](f3.eps){width="6in"}
![The same as Figure \[civcomp\], but for emission measurements.[]{data-label="mgiicomp"}](f4.eps){width="6in"}
![Comparison of our derived $L_{bol}$ and $M_{bh}$ with those from Shen et al. (2011). Despite our disagreement in some of the individual fit parameters, there is generally good agreement in these calculated properties.[]{data-label="masslumcomp"}](f5.eps){width="2.75in"}
![Comparison of our BAL measurements with those reported by Gibson et al. (2009). The scatter in $BI$ and $AI$ highlight the difficulties in making these measurements consistently. Excellent agreement is seen in $v_{max}$, except for a few sources in which we identify some high velocity absorption that G09 does not or vice-versa, again showing the difficulties of these measurements. The tendency for our values of $v_{min}$ to be lower than G09 is due to the way in which it was measured. G09 uses the start of $AI$ integration to determine $v_{min}$, while we measure it subjectively to include low velocity absorption on the absorption line and thus well above the continuum.[]{data-label="outflowcomp"}](f6.eps){width="6.5in"}
![Some of the important correlations (or non-correlations) discussed in the text. (a) The relationship between $\alpha_{rad}$ ($\alpha_{fit}$ in this case) and FWHM. While the correlation is only statistically significant at the 1$\sigma$ level, it may simply be due to too few sources as visually it looks quite similar to the similar plot of Fine et al. (2011). (b) The lack of a correlation between $BI$ and strength, which has been seen by several previous authors in radio-quiet samples. (c) The lack of a correlation between $\alpha_{uv}$ (a proxy for the amount of dust reddening) and $\alpha_{rad}$. (d) While marginally significant statistically, visually the correlation between $\alpha_{rad}$ and luminosity is not very striking. (e) $F_{edd}$ and $v_{max}$ do no correlate, but the relationship is roughly consistent with the upper envelope (dotted line) discussed by Ganguly et al. (2007). (f) The correlation between luminosity and $v_{max}$, which falls well within the envelope (dotted line) calculated by Ganguly et al. (2007).[]{data-label="corrfig"}](f7.eps){width="6.5in"}
![The top left panel shows the composite spectra of the total BAL and non-BAL samples (rescaled to the same flux density from 2000-2050 Å), the middle left panel shows the number of spectra from each class contributing to the composites at each wavelength, and the bottom left panel shows the residuals of the top spectra. The panels on the right show close-ups of the , /, and regions. In the close-up panel at top right the spectra have been normalized to the same flux density at 1600-1625 Å for easier comparison of the lines. Fluxes are in arbitrary units. See the online journal for the color versions of this and the following composite spectra.[]{data-label="balnbalcomp"}](f8.eps){width="6.5in"}
![The top left panel shows the composite spectra of the HiBAL and LoBAL subsamples; other panels are the same as Figure \[balnbalcomp\].[]{data-label="hilocomp"}](f9.eps){width="6.5in"}
![The top left panel shows the composite spectra of steep ($\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} < -0.7$) and flat ($\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} > -0.3$) spectrum BAL sources; other panels are the same as Figure \[balnbalcomp\].[]{data-label="balalphacomp"}](f10.eps){width="6.5in"}
![The top left panel shows the composite spectra of steep ($\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} < -0.7$) and flat ($\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9} > -0.3$) spectrum non-BAL sources; other panels are the same as Figure \[balnbalcomp\].[]{data-label="nbalalphacomp"}](f11.eps){width="6.5in"}
![The top left panel shows the composite spectra of the radio-loudest ($\log R^{*} > 2.1$) and radio-quietest ($\log R^{*} < 2.1$) BAL sources; other panels are the same as Figure \[balnbalcomp\].[]{data-label="balloudcomp"}](f12.eps){width="6.5in"}
![The top left panel shows the composite spectra of the radio-loudest ($\log R^{*} > 2.1$) and radio-quietest ($\log R^{*} < 2.1$) non-BAL sources; other panels are the same as Figure \[balnbalcomp\].[]{data-label="nballoudcomp"}](f13.eps){width="6.5in"}
-------------------------- ------ -------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------- -------- --------- ----------- -----------
Object $z$ $\log R^{*}$ $\log L_{r}$ $\log L_{bol}$ $\log M_{bh}$ $F_{edd}$ $BI$ $AI$ $v_{max}$ $v_{min}$
(erg/s/Hz) (erg/s) (M$_{\odot}$) (km/s) (km/s) (km/s) (km/s)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
SDSS J001408.22-085242.2 1.74 2.27 33.1 46.6 9.6 0.09 402 2910 5469 1355
SDSS J002440.99+004557.7 2.24 3.04 33.8 46.2 ... ... 0 216$^1$ 2960 1349
SDSS J003923.18-001452.6 2.23 2.51 33.4 46.4 8.3 1.04 0 104 3225 1138
SDSS J004444.06+001303.5 2.29 3.06 33.8 46.4 ... ... 25 146 7620 4726
SDSS J014847.61-081936.3 1.68 2.58 33.5 46.6 9.2 0.21 1396 2736 9836 1197
SDSS J024534.07+010813.7 1.54 3.25 34.1 46.6 9.6 0.07 0 $>$127 $>$2397 -7
SDSS J000050.60-102155.9 2.64 1.65 33.5 47.2 ... ... ... ... ... ...
SDSS J000221.11+002149.3 3.07 1.75 33.4 47.1 ... ... ... ... ... ...
SDSS J001507.00-000800.9 1.70 1.54 32.9 47.0 8.8 1.08 ... ... ... ...
SDSS J073659.31+293938.4 2.45 2.02 33.1 46.4 ... ... ... ... ... ...
-------------------------- ------ -------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------- -------- --------- ----------- -----------
: Sample properties.[]{data-label="proptbl"}
\
$^1$$AI$ measured using a criteria of continuous absorption for 800 km/s, instead of 2000 km/s.
Only a portion of the table is shown here as an example; the full table will be published with the online version of MNRAS. The full names of the objects in the sample and their SDSS redshifts are given in the first two columns. Columns (3)-(7) give some calculated properties; see Sections 3.1-3.3 for detailed discussion of these values. The final four columns give measurements of the BAL trough; see Section 3.4 for details. In some cases the regions of possible absorption are redshifted out of the spectrum (for $z < 1.6$), and so lower limits are given.The BAL and non-BAL samples are separated by the horizontal line.\
----------- ------------------ --------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------
Object $f_{1000}$$^{1}$ $\alpha_{uv}$ $^{2}$ EW FWHM BS$^3$ EW FWHM EW FWHM BS$^3$ EW FWHM BS$^3$
(Å) (km/s) (km/s) (Å) (km/s) (Å) (km/s) (km/s) (Å) (km/s) (km/s)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
0014-0852 7.0 0.10 0.32 ... ... ... 1.2 $\pm$ 0.3 2523 $\pm$ 34 13.2 $\pm$ 0.7 4101 $\pm$ 103 752.9 42.4 $\pm$ 4.7 8419 $\pm$ 485 -91.7
0024+0045 3.1 1.25 0.00 ... ... ... 0.0 ... 32.1 $\pm$ 5.9 2686 $\pm$ 508 418.3 ... ... ...
0039-0014 4.2 0.99 0.11 ... ... ... 0.0 ... 27.1 $\pm$ 3.1 3030 $\pm$ 281 515.3 37.3 $\pm$ 11.8 2055 $\pm$ 507 27.5
0044+0013 2.7 0.69 0.04 ... ... ... 5.0 $\pm$ 4.4 5859 $\pm$ 281 17.6 $\pm$ 2.1 6873 $\pm$ 691 564.2 ... ... ...
0000-1021 26.8 1.65 0.00 58.4 $\pm$ 1.5 3054 $\pm$ 78 306.8 4.5 $\pm$ 0.7 9934 $\pm$ 103 14.9 $\pm$ 0.6 4102 $\pm$ 79 329.3 ... ... ...
0002+0021 23.1 2.15 0.00 9.9 $\pm$ 0.3 3941 $\pm$ 154 1233.6 12.8 $\pm$ 3.2 10134 $\pm$ 155 19.0 $\pm$ 1.0 5012 $\pm$ 146 -81.0 ... ... ...
0015-0008 55.6 1.44 0.66 69.8 $\pm$ 1.4 4577 $\pm$ 72 489.6 2.4 $\pm$ 0.2 3556 $\pm$ 24 17.9 $\pm$ 0.5 5462 $\pm$ 65 184.3 31.0 $\pm$ 1.9 2743 $\pm$ 69 181.6
0736+2939 4.7 1.37 0.00 48.7 $\pm$ 3.5 2748 $\pm$ 770 252.7 0.0 ... 23.8 $\pm$ 4.7 2070 $\pm$ 435 265.3 ... ... ...
----------- ------------------ --------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------
: Line measurements.[]{data-label="lineproptbl"}
\
$^{1}$In units of $10^{-17}$ ergs/s/cm$^2$ Å.\
$^{2}$These values are scalings of the flux in the I Zw 1 template.\
$^{3}$BS is an abbreviation of BS, in order for the table to fit on the page.
Only a portion of the table is shown here as an example; the full table will be published with the online version of MNRAS. Errors on $f1000$, $\alpha_{uv}$, and the scaling are omitted because they are typically quite small, on the order of one to a few percent. Line parameters are given as “0” when the final fit is indistinguishable from a line not being present. In some cases lines could not be measured, due to various factors like redshift, noisy or missing data, intervening absorption, or BAL features. See section 3.2 for full details. The top half of the table is the BAL sample, and the lower half below the horizontal line is the non-BAL sample.\
----------------------------- -- ------- ---------- ----- -- ------- ---------- ----- -- ------ ----------------- ------- -----------------
Parameter $\mu$ $\sigma$ $n$ $\mu$ $\sigma$ $n$ $D$ $P_{ks}$ $Z$ $P_{rs}$
$\alpha_{uv}$ 1.04 0.74 72 1.53 0.40 74 0.47 **${10^{-8}}$** 5.23 **${10^{-8}}$**
0.33 0.30 72 0.18 0.20 74 0.35 **${10^{-4}}$** -3.46 **${10^{-4}}$**
EW ... ... ... 45.1 28.6 74 ... ... ... ...
FWHM ... ... ... 4322 1488 74 ... ... ... ...
blueshift ... ... ... 395 420 74 ... ... ... ...
EW 4.36 5.89 69 2.78 4.60 72 0.28 **0.005** 2.59 **0.005**
FWHM 4912 2809 55 6417 3899 45 0.22 0.143 1.95 0.025
EW 21.2 10.8 71 17.4 7.19 72 0.26 0.014 2.34 **0.009**
FWHM 5780 1894 70 4851 1688 72 0.26 0.015 -3.00 **0.001**
blueshift 579 665 70 166 695 72 0.21 0.078 -2.01 0.022
EW 41.2 28.1 38 47.2 30.9 33 0.29 0.087 -1.20 0.115
FWHM 4807 2509 28 4978 2101 33 0.25 0.183 -0.70 0.241
blueshift 24.6 266 38 10.8 363 33 0.13 0.921 0.00 0.500
$\log R^{*}$ 2.15 0.49 72 2.09 0.44 74 0.10 0.820 -0.66 0.254
$\log L_r$ (erg/s/Hz) 33.4 0.39 72 33.5 0.43 74 0.10 0.799 0.80 0.211
$\log L_{bol}$ (erg/s) 46.92 0.37 72 46.80 0.37 74 0.16 0.262 -1.69 0.045
$\log M_{bh}$ (M$_{\odot}$) 9.12 0.44 38 9.15 0.36 33 0.19 0.471 0.29 0.388
$F_{edd}$ 0.73 0.75 38 0.40 0.31 33 0.27 0.128 -1.41 0.078
----------------------------- -- ------- ---------- ----- -- ------- ---------- ----- -- ------ ----------------- ------- -----------------
: BAL and non-BAL property statistics and comparisons.[]{data-label="balnbalcomptbl"}
\
[ All EW measures are in units of Å, and FWHM measures are in km/s. The mean ($\mu$), standard deviation ($\sigma$), and number ($n$) of BAL or non-BAL sources with a given measurement are presented. The final four columns show results of statistical tests comparing the BAL and non-BAL distributions, using both K-S and R-S tests. Results do not change significantly when making a cut of SNR $\geq$ 6, nor when excluding LoBALs from the BAL sample.\
]{}
----------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------- --------------- ------------------------- -- --------- ---------------- ------------------- -- --------- --------------- -----------------------------
Param 1 Param 2 $n$ $r_{s}$ $P_{r_s}$ $n$ $r_{s}$ $P_{r_s}$ $n$ $r_{s}$ $P_{r_s}$
$\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ $\alpha_{fit}$ 144 0.66 **${10^{-19}}$** 72 0.65 **${10^{-10}}$** 72 0.64 **${10^{-9}}$**
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ FWHM ... ... ... ... ... ... 72 0.06 0.632
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ blueshift ... ... ... ... ... ... 72 0.19 0.119
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ FWHM 138 -0.07 0.433 68 0.07 0.553 70 -0.011 0.923
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ blueshift 138 -0.11 0.190 68 -0.12 0.331 70 -0.03 0.786
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ FWHM 68 -0.04 0.749 36 -0.22 0.199 32 -0.02 0.924
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ blueshift 68 -0.16 0.193 36 -0.04 0.799 32 -0.29 0.110
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ $\alpha_{uv}$ 142 0.01 0.916 70 -0.22 0.061 72 -0.03 0.821
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ ($\alpha_{fit}$) $\lambda L_{2500}$ 142 (145) 0.17 (0.16) 0.040 (0.057) 70 (71) 0.33 (0.26) **0.005** (0.028) 72 (74) 0.16 (0.21) 0.185 (0.072)
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ ($\alpha_{fit}$) $R^{*}$ 144 (147) -0.15 (-0.35) 0.070 (**${10^{-5}}$**) 72 (73) -0.01 (-0.22) 0.948 (0.060) 72 (74) -0.31 (-0.48) **0.009** (**${10^{-5}}$**)
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ $BI$/$AI$ ... ... ... 37/63 -0.32/-0.03 0.054/0.823 ... ... ...
\[2pt\] $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ $v_{max}$/$v_{min}$ ... ... ... 63/70 0.06/0.15 0.646/0.210 ... ... ...
\[2pt\] $BI$ ($AI$) blueshift ... ... ... 38 (63) 0.08 (0.10) 0.616 (0.436) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) blueshift ... ... ... 63 (70) 0.01 (-0.02) 0.936 (0.870) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) blueshift ... ... ... 17 (31) -0.27 (-0.06) 0.286 (0.730) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) blueshift ... ... ... 31 (38) 0.11 (0.10) 0.541 (0.542) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) $R^{*}$ ... ... ... 39 (65) 0.05 (0.05) 0.776 (0.700) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) $R^{*}$ ... ... ... 65 (72) -0.23 (-0.29) 0.065 (0.011) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) ... ... ... 39 (65) 0.06 (-0.05) 0.724 (0.691) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) ... ... ... 65 (72) 0.18 (0.02) 0.148 (0.870) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) $\lambda L_{2500}$ ... ... ... 39 (65) -0.06 (0.03) 0.737 (0.798) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) $\lambda L_{2500}$ ... ... ... 65 (72) 0.32 (0.15) **0.008** (0.213) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) $\alpha_{uv}$ ... ... ... 39 (65) 0.09 (0.03) 0.584 (0.827) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) $\alpha_{uv}$ ... ... ... 65 (72) -0.144 (-0.01) 0.252 (0.945) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) $F_{edd}$ ... ... ... 17 (31) 0.13 (-0.01) 0.612 (0.975) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) $F_{edd}$ ... ... ... 31 (38) -0.06 (0.00) 0.709 (0.990) ... ... ...
$BI$ ($AI$) $M_{bh}$ ... ... ... 17 (31) -0.12 (0.05) 0.652 (0.794) ... ... ...
$v_{max}$ ($v_{min}$) $M_{bh}$ ... ... ... 31 (38) 0.21 (0.05) 0.260 (0.747) ... ... ...
$\alpha_{uv}$ $R^{*}$ 146 -0.09 0.291 72 -0.16 0.171 74 -0.02 0.858
$F_{edd}$ $M_{bh}$ 71 -0.66 **${10^{-10}}$** 38 -0.72 **${10^{-7}}$** 33 -0.48 $\textbf{0.006}$
$M_{bh}$ $R^{*}$ 71 -0.19 0.110 38 -0.11 0.515 33 -0.28 0.113
$M_{bh}$ $L_{r}$ 71 -0.05 0.684 38 -0.11 0.508 33 0.02 0.913
blueshift blueshift ... ... ... ... ... ... 72 0.26 0.028
blueshift blueshift 70 -0.10 0.414 37 -0.01 0.944 33 -0.21 0.242
----------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------- --------------- ------------------------- -- --------- ---------------- ------------------- -- --------- --------------- -----------------------------
: Correlation tests.[]{data-label="allcorrtbl"}
\
[ Correlations involving $\alpha_{rad}$ were checked with both $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.8}$ and $\alpha_{fit}$; only values using $\alpha_{8.4}^{4.9}$ are shown unless the results were significantly different. All correlations were examined using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient ($r_s$), and separately using all the objects in the sample, just the BAL quasars, and just the non-BAL quasars. These results do not change significantly when imposing a SNR cut or when excluding LoBALs from the BAL analysis.\
]{}
Allen, J.T., Hewett, P.C., Maddox, N., Richards, G.T., & Belokurov, V. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 860
Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473
Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559
Becker, R.H., Gregg, M.D., Hook, I.M., McMahon, R.G., White, R.L., & Helfand, D.J. 1997, ApJ, 479, L93
Becker, R. H., White, R. L., Gregg, M.D., Brotherton, M.S., Laurent-Muehleisen, S.A. & Arav, N. 2000, ApJ, 538, 72
Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109
Boroson, T. A. 2002, ApJ, 565, 78
Brotherton, M.S., van Breugel, W., Smith, R.J., Boyle, B.J., Shanks, T., Croom S.M., Miller, L., & Becker, R.H. 1998, ApJL, 505, L7
Brotherton, M.S., Tran, H.D., Becker, R.H., Gregg, M.D., Laurent-Muehleisen, S.A., White, R.L. 2001, ApJ, 546, 775
Bruni, G., Mack K,-H., Salerno, E., Montenegro-Montes, F.M., Carballo, R., Benn, C.R., Gonzalez-Serrano, J.I., Holt, J., & Jimenez-Jujan, F. 2012, A&A, in press
Cano-Diaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., Netzer, H., Shemmer, O., & Cresci, G. 2012, A&A, 537, L8
Condon, J., Cotton, W.D., Greissen, E.W., Yin, Q.F., Perley, R.A., Taylor, G.B. & Broderick, J.J. 1998, ApJ, 115, 1693
DiPompeo, M.A., Brotherton, M.S., Becker, R.H., Tran, H.D., Gregg, M.D., White, R.L., & Laurent-Muehleisen, S.A. 2010, ApJS, 189, 83
DiPompeo, M.A., Brotherton, M.S., De Breuck, C. 2011a, ApJS, 193, 9
DiPompeo, M.A., Brotherton, M.S., De Breuck, C., Laurent-Muehleisen, S.A. 2011b, ApJ, 473, 71
DiPompeo, M.A., Brotherton, M.S., De Breuck, C. 2012, ApJ, in press
Elvis, M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 63
Fanti, C., Fanti, R., Dallascasa, D., Schilizzi, R.T., Spencer, R.E., & Stanghellini, C. 1995, A&A, 302, 317
Fine, S., Jarvis, M.J., & Mauch, T. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 213
Gallagher, S.C., Hines, D.C., Blaylock, M., Priddey, R.S., Brandt, W.N., Egami, E.E. 2007, ApJ, 665, 157
Ganguly, R., Brotherton, M.S., Cales, S., Scoggins, B., Shang, Z., Vestergaard, M. 2007, ApJ, 665, 990
Ganguly, R. & Brotherton, M.S. 2008, ApJ, 672, 102
Ghosh, K.K. & Punsly, B. 2007, ApJ, 661, L139
Gibson, R.R., Jiang, L., Brandt, W.N., Hall, P.B., Shen, Y., Wu, J., Anderson, S.F., Schneider, D.P., Vanden Berk, D., Gallagher, S.C., Fan, X., & York, D.G. 2009, ApJ, 692, 758
Gregg, M.D., Becker, R.H. & de Vries, W. 2006, ApJ, 641, 210
Gregg, M.D., Lacy, M., White, R.L., Glikman, E., Helfand, D., Becker, R.H., Brotherton, M.S. 2002, ApJ, 564, 133
Hewett, P.C., & Wild, V. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2302
Hall, P.B., Anderson, S.F., Strauss, M.A. et al. 2002, ApJS, 141, 267
Hopkins, P.F. & Elvis, M. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 7
King, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, L27
Knigge, C., Scaringi, S., Goad, M.R. & Cottis, C.E. 2008, MNRAS 386, 1426
Kriss, G. 1994, in ASP Conf. Ser. 61, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems III, ed. D. R. Crabtree, R. J. Hanisch, & J. Barnes (San Francisco: ASP), 437
Montenegro-Montes, F.M., Mack, K.-H., Vigotti, M., Benn, C.R., Carballo, R., Gonzalez-Serrano, J.I., Holt, J. & Jimenez-Lujan, F. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1853
Nemmen, R.S. & Brotherton, M.S. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1598
Ogle, P.M., Cohen, M.H., Miller, J.S., Tran, H.D., Goodrich, R.W., & Martel, A.R. 1999, ApJS, 125, 1
O’Dea, C.P. 1998, PASP, 110, 493
Peterson, B.M. 2003, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Reichard, T.A., Richards, G.T., Schneider, D.P., Hall, P.B., Tolea, A., Krolik, J.H., Tsevtanov, Z., Vanden Berk, D.E., York, D.G., Knapp, G.R., Gunn, J.E., Brinkman, J. 2003, AJ, 125, 1711
Richards, G.T., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470
Richards, G.T., Kruczek, N.E., Gallagher, S.C., Hall, P.B., Hewett, P.C., Leighly, K.M., Deo, R.P., Kratzer, R.M., & Shen, Y. 2011, AJ, 141, 167
Runnoe, J.C., Brotherton, M.S., Shang, Z. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 478
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
Shen, Y., Richards, G.T., Strauss, M.A., Hall, P.B., Schneider, D.P., Snedden, S., Bizyaev, D., Brewington, H., Malanushenko, V., Malanushenko, E., Oravetz, D., Pan, K., & Simmons, A. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45
Silk, J. & Rees, M.J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1
Spergel, D.N., Bean, R., Dore, O., et al. 2007, ApJ, 170, 377
Stocke, J.T., Morris, S.L. & Weymann, R.J. 1992, ApJ, 396, 487
Vestergaard, M. & Osmer, P.S. 2009, ApJ, 699, 800
Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1
Weymann, R.J., Morris, S.L., Foltz, C.B., & Hewett, P.C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 23
Zhou, H., Wang, T., Wang, H., Wang, J., Yuan, W. & Lu, Y. 2006, ApJ, 639, 716
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We introduce a simple and effective method for retrieval of videos showing a specific event, even when the videos of that event were captured from significantly different viewpoints. Appearance-based methods fail in such cases, as appearances change with large changes of viewpoints.
Our method is based on a pixel-based feature, “motion barcode", which records the existence/non-existence of motion as a function of time. While appearance, motion magnitude, and motion direction can vary greatly between disparate viewpoints, the existence of motion is viewpoint invariant. Based on the motion barcode, a similarity measure is developed for videos of the same event taken from very different viewpoints. This measure is robust to occlusions common under different viewpoints, and can be computed efficiently.
Event retrieval is demonstrated using challenging videos from stationary and hand held cameras.
address: |
School of Computer Science and Engineering\
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Event Retrieval Using Motion Barcodes
---
Video Event Retrieval, Motion Feature
Introduction
============
Given a query video, the goal is to retrieve all other videos showing the same event at the same time. We consider cases where current appearance-based methods may fail. The first case includes videos of an event taken from significantly different viewpoints. The retrieval process can fail due to appearance changes in same event between views. The second case includes videos of different events which take place in the same location at different times. The retrieval process can mistakenly match different events due to the similar background. Appearances-based descriptors such as SIFT [@lowe2004distinctive], SURF [@bay2006surf] and GIST [@oliva2001gist] do not work well in such cases.
Many events are captured from multiple viewpoints. A sports event, for example, is captured by people from all around the arena. One of the key challenges is the fact that the appearance of objects in the scene depends on the viewpoint. Even the motion direction is different in each viewpoint. Fig. \[Fig:SIFT\] shows two views of the same instance of the same event. In the left view the actor in front is moving forward with his face visible, whereas in the right view the same actor is moving in the opposite direction and only his back is seen. In addition, in the left view the movements of all other actors can be clearly observed, where in the right view some movements are occluded.
State-of-the-art methods [@revaud2013event; @cao2012scene; @douze2013stable] focus on video retrieval in cases where videos of events are taken from moderate viewpoint changes. They are based on representing each frame by appearance-based descriptors which are then processed into effective video representations. In [@revaud2013event; @douze2013stable], the video representation is the multi-VLAD descriptors [@jegou2010aggregating] where SIFTs are used as frame descriptors. In [@cao2012scene], GISTs are the frame descriptors. The usage of appearance-based descriptors for event retrieval is due to their proven discrimination power. Motion-based descriptors which are widely used in activity recognition are not discriminative enough for such tasks.
The main contribution of this paper is the introduction of a simple and highly effective feature, the motion barcode, for event retrieval in cases where traditional appearance-based descriptors fails. The motion barcode overcomes the difference in appearance and in motion by using only the existence of motion over time. A motion barcode is computed for each pixel without incorporating spatial information, and does not consider motion direction or magnitude. These properties make it highly invariant for different viewpoints.
Using motion information in each pixel was proposed by Liu et al. [@steadyflow]. They used the motion vector of each pixel, denoted as “pixel profile”, to stabilize the video sequence. However, the motion vector depends on the viewing direction and therefore can not be used in our context.
We begin by describing the motion barcodes, and continue with the similarity measure between the motion barcodes in two videos. We conclude with experiments, showing that while traditional descriptors are not sufficient our methods are successful in the retrieval task.
The Motion Barcodes {#Sec:barcode}
===================
[**Pixel-based Motion Barcode**]{} Corresponding pixels in different views should have the same stationary/non-stationary state at the *same time* and the longer we inspect these pixels, the more similar they will appear.
Given a sequence of $N$ video frames, the $N$ bit motion barcode $B$ of a pixel $x,y$, $$B_{x,y}(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1 &\quad \text{there is motion in pixel $(x,y)$ at time $t$}\\
0 & \quad \text{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.$$
We used background subtraction [@vibe:2011] to determine motion in a pixel. An example of two motion barcodes of corresponding pixels in different views can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:bv\]. The variations between motion barcodes are due to the fact that each reflects the motion along of a $3D$ ray. Thus, each of the above motion barcodes include movements that are not be observed by the other.\
[**Similarity between Motion Barcodes**]{}. The similarity between two motion barcodes is their correlation. As an example, the motion barcodes in Fig. \[Fig:bv\] are highly correlated even though there are additional movements in each view. Fig. \[Fig:kmeans\] shows two views of the same event with a 90 difference in viewing directions. The pixels were clustered according to their motion barcodes. The motion barcodes in each region at the left view has the highest correlation score with the motion barcodes in the corresponding region in the right view.\
[**Pooling**]{}. In a typical sequence there are more than 300K non-zero motion barcodes, many of them representing similar motions. Fig. \[Fig:rays\] shows the matching pixels, as $3D$ rays, based on the existence of such motion. Since many points in an object move together, matching is possible even between image points that are not projections of same 3D point. We pool the motion barcodes by segmenting the video into superpixels and select a single barcode for each superpixel. Superpixels are computed from a “motion image" $M$, where each pixel in $M$ is the number of “1"s in its motion barcode, $ M(x,y)= \sum_{t}B_{x,y}(t)$. Segmentation to superpixels is performed on the motion image $M$ using the SLIC algorithm [@achanta2012slic] as can be seen Fig. \[Fig:sp\]. For each superpixel we chose a representative barcode as the rounded average of all its barcodes. This barcode minimizes the sum of hamming distances to all other motion barcodes in the superpixel.
Pooling the motion barcodes into superpixels yields a fixed size representation and makes this representation robust and effective. A similar approach was introduced in [@taralova2014motion] for a fixed size video representation, by pooling features in video into supervoxels.\
[**Similarity between videos**]{}. The similarity score between the two videos can be evaluated based on the optimal assignment using the bipartite matching algorithm [@kuhn1955hungarian]. Let $B^i_{1\ldots K_i}$ be the motion barcodes of Clip $i$. in the bipartite matching the weight between $B^1_i$ and $B^2_j$ is their correlation. In practice, we use the following heuristic, with very similar results, running $100 \,\times$ faster.
Let $C^i$ be the number barcodes $B^i_j$ having at least one match at the other video clip with correlation higher than a given threshold. We normally use a threshold of $0.4$. A discussion about the effect of this threshold appears in Sec. \[Sec:Results\]. The similarity between the two video clips is $\frac{C^1}{K_1}+\frac{C^2}{K_2}$. The similarity is the fraction of vertices in each video having at least one above-threshold match in the other video clip. The higher the similarity score, the more similar the videos are. The threshold values will be discussed in Sec. \[Sec:Results\].
The similarity measure we used is similar to the bag-of-words model with binary weights. The key difference is that in our case we do not have a common codebook shared between all the sequences.
Experiments {#Sec:Results}
===========
[**Dataset**]{}. Standard event retrieval datasets, such as EVVE [@evve], are based on events in which appearance-based descriptors are useful. In order to reflect the challenges we consider, we used the EPFL Multi-camera *pedestrians* dataset [@Berclaz11; @Fleuret08a]. It includes 30 sequences of 6 different scenes under significant multi-view settings, some of them take place in the same location but in different times. The scenes are both indoor and outdoor and include many occlusions. An example can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:Dataset\]\
Same Event Different Event
---------------------- ------------ -----------------
Same Viewpoints 170 110
Different Viewpoints 1.9 1.8
: Matching frames using appearance-based descriptors. The results are the mean number of SIFT descriptors matched across different video sequences. On average, comparing a sequence to a time shifted version of itself matched 170 descriptors. For significantly different viewing directions of the same event there were on average 1.9 matching descriptors. \[Fig:dDirections\]
[**Appearance-based Descriptors**]{}. In order to evaluate the performance we compared the mean AP to appearance-based state-of-the art methods. Following [@revaud2013event; @douze2013stable], we used SIFT+VLAD as our frame descriptors. As a baseline, we also used SIFT+BoW. The codebook was created as in [@revaud2013event] and the distances between the clips evaluated accordingly. Table \[Fig:dDirections\] shows the average number of SIFTs matched between the sequences. For the same event, there were on average only 1.9 matching descriptors in more than 90% of the significantly different viewing directions. Moreover, there are many false matches between *different* events due to the fact that they share the same background. It can be seen that when the angle between the cameras is too wide or when the event is taking place in the same location (e.g. stadium) but at a different time, such descriptors completely fail.\
[**Evaluation method**]{}. The dataset was divided into 200 different clips. We added 200 distractor clips, where the distractors are with similar activities (e.g. walking). Every clip from the dataset was used as a query and the rest of the clips within the set were used as the target database. For each clip, there were 2 or 3 true matches. The mean average precision (mean AP) was evaluated over all clips in all sets.
To use the motion barcodes in the retrieval process we removed non-informative barcodes from each clip, the motion barcodes that did not have enough motion. We required that the motion (1’s) in each motion barcode be more than 10% of its length. We also required a minimal number of motion barcodes, empirically set to 100. The effect of this requirement will be discussed later.\
[**Results**]{}. Fig. \[Fig:meanAP\].a presents the effectiveness of the motion barcodes, under such extreme cases. It shows the performance of each of the methods in the retrieval process. The motion barcode outperformed both BoW and VLAD, with mean AP of 0.7 vs. 0.051 and 0.058 respectively. Fig. \[Fig:meanAP\].b shows the accuracy as a function of the number of barcodes with sufficient motion. For sequences with sufficient motion the accuracy is high and for sequences with not enough motion the accuracy is lower. It is therefore expected that for events with sufficient motion the mean AP will be very high. We can also empirically predict beforehand the ability to successfully retrieve an event by the number of motion barcodes with sufficient motion it has.
Fig. \[Fig:meanAP1\].a shows the effect of the correlation threshold used for matching barcodes on the mean AP. We can see that there is a trade-off between the specificity we require and the robustness to the viewing directions. The best result is reached in a correlation threshold of $0.4$ with peak mean AP is $0.7$. It can also be seen that the similarity is robust to the correlation threshold since small fluctuations almost have no effect on the mean AP. Fig. \[Fig:meanAP1\].b shows that the longer the motion barcodes are, the more accurate the similarity. The peak mean AP for motion barcodes was found when using motion barcodes of length 1000. This was found by evaluating the mean AP for different number of superpixels.\
[**Stabilized Sequences**]{}. In order to verify our results on hand held cameras we captured an event from 3 stationary cameras and one hand held mobile phone, a total of 4 views. The mobile phone sequence is with significant shakes, and was stabilized using homographies [@Matsushita05full-framevideo]. Fig. \[Fig:distortion1\] shows frames taken at same time from 3 stationary views and a mobile phone. Fig. \[Fig:distortion1\].e-f show the motion detection masks on two stabilized frames of the mobile phone. It can be seen that the motion detection masks are not perfect. All sequences from this setup were tested with the existing dataset and we compared the results with and without the stabilized sequence. The results of the stabilized sequence is similar to the stationary sequences with peak mean AP of 0.68.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We introduced motion barcodes, a robust motion feature that can be used to determine if two videos show the same event even when the videos were taken from very different viewing directions. In such cases appearance based methods may fail, as well as traditional motion-based features. We propose a similarity measure between motion barcodes, and show its effectiveness for event retrieval tasks in challenging settings.
**Acknowledgment:** This research was supported by Google, by Intel ICRI-CI, and by Israel Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
We propose a set of rules for constructing composite leptons and quarks as triply occupied quasiparticles, in the quaternionic quantum mechanics of a pair of Harari-Shupe preons $T$ and $V$. The composites fall into two classes, those with totally antisymmetric internal wave functions, and those with internal wave functions of mixed symmetry. The mixed symmetry states consist of precisely the three spin 1/2 quark lepton families used in the standard model (48 particle states, [*not*]{} counting the doubling arising from antiparticles), plus one doublet of spin 3/2 quarks (24 particle states). The antisymmetric states consist of a set of spin 3/2 leptonic states with charges as in a standard model family (16 particle states), and a spin 1/2 leptonic fractionally charged doublet (4 particle states). We sketch ideas for deriving our rules from a fundamental quaternionic preonic field theory. Although the repetitive family structure of the standard model leptons and quarks is strongly suggestive of further substructure, it has proved difficult to formulate economical preon model candidates. A useful step in this direction was taken in 1979 by Harari \[1\] and Shupe \[2\], who proposed a set of rules for generating the states in a single lepton-quark family (including the color tripling of the quarks) as triples constructed from two fundamental preons $T$ and $V$, with charges 1/3 and 0 respectively. In order to generate the color states this way, the Harari-Shupe rules require that $TTV$, $TVT$, and $VTT$ be counted as distinct states, which is not possible within standard quantum mechanics, but which I suggested \[3\] might be possible within quaternionic quantum mechanics, where the multiplication of Hilbert space scalars is noncommutative. I later noted \[4\] that if one includes spin states in the enumeration, there is the possibility of generating family structure as well as color structure dynamically; however, in the naive formulation of Ref. \[4\] (which proceeds by permutation of character strings, as in Refs. \[1,2\]) one gets only two spin 1/2 families together with a spin 3/2 family, and there seemed to be no plausible mechanism to generate the additional spin 1/2 states needed for a third family.
Despite the lack of progress in further developing the Harari-Shupe proposal, in the intervening years there has been considerable progress in the analysis of the structure of quaternionic quantum mechanics (see, e.g. \[5,6\]), which is summarized and considerably expanded on in my book \[7\]. In this Letter, I use the methods developed in Ref. \[7\] for the second quantization of many-body systems in quaternionic quantum mechanics, and in particular the construction given there of quasiparticles with quaternionic wave functions, to take a new look at the issue of preon models. We shall see that when the structure of quaternionic quasiparticle wave functions is taken into account by a plausible set of rules, the proposal of Refs. \[1-4\] to generate color [*and*]{} family structure from two fundamental preons can in fact be realized. We begin by stating the rules and showing how they are used to enumerate three quasiparticle composite states; we then turn to a discussion of how the rules might be derived from a fundamental relativistic preonic theory.
Let $p_n(\vec r \,)$ and $p^{\dagger}_n (\vec r \,)$ be ordinary fermionic annihilation and creation operators for the preonic states, $$\{ p_n \}=\{ t_{\uparrow},t_{\downarrow},v_{\uparrow}, \break
v_{\downarrow} \}, \eqno(1a)$$ $$\eqalign{
\{ p_m(\vec r \,),p_n(\vec r \,' ) \} =&0, \cr
\{ p^{\dagger}_m(\vec r \,),p^{\dagger}_n(\vec r\,' ) \} =&0, \cr
\{ p_m(\vec r \,), p^{\dagger}_n(\vec r\,') \} =&\delta_{mn} \break
\delta^3(\vec r - \vec r\,') , \cr
}
\eqno(1b)$$ where $t$ and $v$ carry charges 1/3 and 0 respectively and the arrows indicate the spin. It is shown in Ref. \[7\] that these creation and annihilation operators can be treated as real quantities with respect to an appropriately defined quaternion algebra (a left-acting or operator quaternion algebra) $1,E_1,E_2,E_3$, which obeys $$E_A E_B = -\delta_{AB} + \sum_C \epsilon_{ABC} E_C, \eqno(2a)$$ and which can be reexpressed in an obvious vector notation (with real number vectors $\vec a, \vec b $ ) as $$\vec E \cdot \vec a \> \vec E \cdot \vec b = -\vec a \cdot \break
\vec b + \vec a \times \vec b \cdot \vec E. \eqno(2b)$$ According to Ref. \[7\], and as discussed below, quasiparticle annihilation operators are formed as superpositions of ordinary annihilation operators, with quaternion-valued wave functions as coefficients. As our first rule, we assume [*[**Rule 1.**]{} The wave function appearing in the quasiparticle operators is assumed to be quaternion imaginary, and to have nonvanishing and linearly independent components along the three quaternion units $\vec
E$. The preon binding forces, and thus the ground state wave function, are assumed also to be flavor (i.e., $t,v$) and spin (i.e., $\uparrow,\downarrow$) independent.*]{} Hence the annihilation operator $P_n(\vec R \,)$ for a quasiparticle located at $\vec R$ has the form $$P_n(\vec R \,)=\int d^3r \> \vec a(\vec r \, ) \cdot \vec E \> \break
p_n(\vec r+ \vec R \,), \eqno(3a)$$ which can be written in abbreviated form as $$P_n=\sum_1 \vec a(1) \cdot \vec E \> p_n(1). \eqno(3b)$$ In Table 1 we explicitly write out the quasiparticle operators for the two spin states of the two preonic flavor states, in both the full notation of Eq. (3a) and the abbreviated notation of Eq. (3b). We shall assume that the wave function $\vec a(\vec r \,)$ has support only for $|\vec r \,|$ of order the preonic length scale, which we assume to be much smaller than length scales characterizing standard model physics, and that the wave function is unit normalized, $$\int d^3r \> |\vec a(\vec r\, )|^2 =1. \eqno (3c)$$
The quasiparticle operator defined by Eqs. (3a,b) has a number of interesting properties. First of all, a simple calculation shows that any quasiparticle state can at most be triply occupied, since the fourth power of a quasiparticle operator vanishes \[7\] (this property, first noted in a different context by Govorkov \[8\], holds even when the internal wave function $\vec a$ has a real part): $$P_n(\vec R \,)^4=0. \eqno(4a)$$ Also, the quasiparticles satisfy parastatistics-like commutation relations \[8\] (here the assumption of a quaternion imaginary internal wave function is needed): $$\eqalign{
[P_{\ell},[P_m,P_n]]=&0, \> {\rm any} \> \ell,m,n , \cr
[P^{\dagger}_{\ell},[P_m,P^{\dagger}_n]]=&-2 \delta_{\ell m} \break
\sum_{1,2} \vec a(1) \cdot \vec E \> \vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(2) \break
p^{\dagger}_n(2) .\cr
}
\eqno(4b)$$ \[If one were to replace Eq. (3c) by the stronger condition $$\int d^3r \> a_A(\vec r \,)a_B(\vec r \,)=\delta_{AB}/3, \eqno(4c)$$ then the second line of Eq. (4b) would become the parastatistics commutator $$[P^{\dagger}_{\ell},[P_m,P^{\dagger}_n]]=(2/3) \delta_{\ell m} \break
P^{\dagger}_n . \eqno(4d)$$ However, we do not assume Eqs. (4c,d) in what follows.\] Eqs.(4a,b) suggest that states of three quasiparticles will play a special role, and we identify them as composite leptons and quarks, which are formed and classified according to the following further rules: [*[**Rule 2.**]{} Composite fermion states are identified with the [**quaternion real components**]{} of the independent products of three quasiparticle operators drawn from Table 1. In other words, a product $C=P_{\ell}P_mP_n$ which is already quaternion real is identified as a composite fermion operator, while if $C$ has the quaternion imaginary form $C=\vec C \cdot \vec E$, then the real components $C_1, C_2, C_3$ are each identified as an independent composite fermion operator.*]{} [*[**Rule 3.**]{} When the number of composite states is tripled as a result of the inequivalence of different orderings of $t$ and $v$, the composites are identified as colored quark states, corresponding to the fact that the underlying preonic forces can cause transitions between $t$ and $v$. When the number of composite states is tripled as a result of the inequivalence of different orderings of the spin labels $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$, the composites are identified as states in different families, corresponding to the fact that the underlying preonic forces are assumed spin independent, and so do not cause transitions between $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$.*]{} The enumeration of the independent products of three quasiparticle operators proceeds much as the enumeration of states in the quark model \[9,10\], and is expedited by the use of a number of simple identities which follow from the defining equations given above. First of all, from Eq. (2b) we immediately get $$P_{\ell} P_m=\sum_{1,2} [-\vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(2) \break
+ \vec a(1) \times \vec a(2) \cdot \vec E ] \> \break
p_{\ell}(1) p_m(2) , \eqno(5a)$$ allowing us to easily evaluate the successive products of quasiparticle operators. The classification of products according to their reality properties under quaternion conjugation (indicated by a bar $\bar{} \>$) is facilitated by noting that for any $\ell, m, n$ we have $$\overline {P_{\ell} P_m P_n}= P_n P_m P_{\ell}, \eqno(5b)$$ which follows from the facts that (i) the quaternion conjugate of a product of factors is the product of the conjugates of the factors in reverse order, (ii) the conjugate of an imaginary quaternion is minus itself, and (iii) reverse ordering the product of three fermionic annihilation operators just reverses the sign of the product. Finally, setting $n=\ell$ in the first line of Eq. (4b) gives the repeatedly used identity, again valid for any $\ell, m$, $$P_{\ell} P_{\ell} P_m + P_m P_{\ell} P_{\ell} = \break
2 P_{\ell} P_m P_{\ell}. \eqno(5c)$$ The most complicated enumeration is for the charge 2/3, spin and helicity 1/2 states, which can have the three charge structures $TTV+VTT$, $TVT$, and $TTV-VTT$, combined with the two spin structures $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow + \downarrow \uparrow \uparrow
-2 \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow$ and $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow
- \downarrow \uparrow \uparrow$, giving six possibilities in all. One readily finds, using Eq. (5b), that $TTV+VTT$ and $TVT$ combined with $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow-\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow$ are imaginary, as is $TTV-VTT$ combined with $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow
+\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow - 2 \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow$, and these correspond to the 3 families of charge 2/3 quarks shown in Table 3. The remaining three combinations are real, but only one is linearly independent after using Eqs. (4b) and (5c), and corresponds to the spin 1/2 lepton in Table 2. For the charge 1, spin and helicity 1/2 states, there is only one charge structure $TTT$, which when combined with the spin structure $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow
- \downarrow \uparrow \uparrow$ gives one imaginary composite, corresponding to the 3 families of charge 1 leptons in Table 3; the contribution of the spin structure $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow
+ \downarrow \uparrow \uparrow
-2 \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow$ vanishes in this case by Eq. (5c). The computations in the spin 3/2 cases, which involve totally symmetric spin structures, are similar.
The results of the calculation are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 lists all states with a totally antisymmetric internal wave function proportional to $\vec a(1) \times \vec a(2) \cdot \vec
a(3)$. Table 3 lists all states with a mixed symmetry internal wave function proportional to $\vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(2) a_A(3)$ or to the two structures obtained from this one by permuting the labels 1,2,3 for fixed $A$, with $A$ an index which also takes the values 1,2,3, each value of $A$ being counted (by Rule 2) as a distinct state. Although there is no dynamics for mass generation in the model, experience with the quark model suggests that states with similar internal wave functions should have roughly similar masses, at least when viewed on a preonic energy scale, and that the states with mixed symmetry internal wave functions should be lighter than those which are totally antisymmetric. Thus, it is encouraging that the spin 1/2 content of the mixed symmetry states corresponds, when interpreted by Rule 3, with precisely the content of the fermions used in the standard model. One striking feature of the spin 1/2 wave functions in Table 3 is that all three leptons, and the first two sets of quarks, have spin structure $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow-\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow$, while the third set of quarks has spin wave function $\uparrow \uparrow
\downarrow + \downarrow \uparrow \uparrow - 2 \uparrow \downarrow
\uparrow$. Hence a strong mass operator dependence on spin state would result in a large mass splitting between the third set of quarks and the remaining quarks and leptons, roughly corresponding to what is experimentally observed for the quarks of the third family (particularly if the measure of the zeroth order quark mass of a family is taken as a geometric or arithmetic mean of the masses of the two charge states in that family.)
If the spin 3/2 mixed symmetry quarks are nearby, they may be observable at LEP and the Tevatron, or at the LHC. In all likelihood, they should be unstable against magnetic dipole electromagnetic decay into spin 1/2 quarks, and hence should not be seen directly (through new types of mesons), but rather should only appear indirectly through enhanced production of standard model quarks (and mesons) in certain channels. If preliminary hints of an excess branching ratio into $b$ quarks at LEP \[11\] survive the accumulation of better statistics, then production of the spin 3/2 quarks of Table 3 could be considered as a possible explanation. However, since the spin 3/2 quarks cannot cancel chiral anomalies among themselves, they must have vector rather than chiral electroweak currents. This permits them to have mass terms even in the absence of electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking, and so they could in principle have masses much larger than those of the standard model spin 1/2 fermions, which have chiral electroweak currents and must get their masses through the electroweak Higgs mechanism. Whether the states of Table 2 will be visible in the near future is hard to assess without a detailed dynamics; they could in principle lie at the preonic mass scale, which in turn may well be as high as the GUT scale, in which case they may never be directly observable in accelerator experiments.
We note that when any two of the composite annihilation operators of Tables 2 and 3 are anticommuted, one gets zero as expected for canonical fermions. However, when a composite annihilation operator is anticommuted with the adjoint of another, one gets both a c-number term and operator terms. The operator terms contribute significantly to vacuum expectations of products of composite operators only when there is an appreciable probability for composite particles to approach within the preonic distance scale, in which case their substructure becomes visible; at energies far below the preonic scale the operator terms in the anticommutators can be neglected. For general composites $C_{\ell}, C_m$ from Tables 2 and 3, the c-number parts of the anticommutators have the form $$\{ C_{\ell}(\vec R \>),C^{\dagger}_m(\vec R' \>) \}= \break
\delta^3(\vec R - \vec R' \>) c_{\ell m} , \eqno(6)$$ with $c_{\ell m}$ a real, symmetric matrix which is not in general in diagonal form. To construct the independent degrees of freedom, one must form linear combinations of the composites within each spin and charge sector of the Tables using the real, orthogonal matrix which diagonalizes the matrix $c_{\ell m}$ for that sector, and then do an appropriate renormalization to get a unit anticommutator. The considerations of this paragraph all have analogs in the ordinary quark model.
Let us now turn to a brief discussion of how one could try to justify the rules given above from a more fundamental preonic theory. In a recent paper \[12\] I proposed a generalized quantum dynamics which can apply to quaternionic as well as standard complex quantum field theories, and which leads to equations of motion that are invariant under operator valued gauge transformations. I noted there (see also Chapts. 12 and 13 of Ref. \[7\]) that the minimal fermionic model with maximal (two-sided) operator gauge invariance necessarily has [*two*]{} fermion fields, basically because in order to get the right hermiticity properties without breaking one of the gauge groups, one must use the two dimensional real matrix representation of the imaginary unit (given in standard Pauli matrix form as -$i \sigma_2$) in constructing the fermionic Lagrangian. Thus the minimal fermionic model contains the two fields $t$ and $v$ which are needed to make lepton quark composites. In addition, the model of Ref. \[12\] contains only vector couplings to its gauge gluons, and has an (anti)symmetrical structure in the two fundamental fermions. The vector-like structure means that the forces binding the preons are spin-independent, and the fermionic symmetry can plausible lead to binding forces which are flavor-symmetric, as assumed in Rule 1. Finally, the model of Ref. \[12\] has a global chiral invariance (although it cannot be decoupled into noninteracting chiral components of the fields), and so it is possible for the lowest lying composites formed from the preons to have zero mass on the preonic mass scale, as is needed in a physically realistic preon model. For these reasons, it is natural to conjecture \[7\] that the minimal fermionic model of Ref. \[12\] gives the underlying relativistic preon dynamics.
Although there are many open questions in the generalized dynamics discussed in Ref. \[12\], let us suppose that there is a regime in which this dynamics is represented by a unitary operator dynamics in Hilbert space. We can than invoke a general result proved in Ref. \[7\] (see Ref. \[13\] for an earlier version), which asserts that for a general quaternionic operator Hamiltonian dynamics, except in the strictly zero energy sector the $S$-matrix in quaternionic Hilbert space is complex. This means that the asymptotic state dynamics will be represented by an [*effective*]{} complex quantum field theory acting on the asymptotic particle states. To justify Rule 2, one would then have to show that the asymptotic particles correspond to three quasiparticle composites, with an effective anti-self-adjoint time development operator of the form $$\tilde H= tr_E[\partial C^{\dagger}/{\partial t} \>C - \break
C^{\dagger} \> \partial C/ {\partial t}], \eqno(7)$$ with $tr_E$ denoting a trace over the operator quaternion algebra spanned by $\vec E$. Given the role of traces in the dynamics formulated in Ref. \[12\], this form for the asymptotic dynamics is plausible.
Let us next consider the binding of preons into composites. Since the model of Ref. \[12\] has a QCD-like gauge structure \[based on a quaternionic extension of an $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ gauge theory\], it is not unreasonable to suppose that the formation of composite bound states can be treated much as in QCD. In QCD, although the light mesons are actually highly relativistic bound states, one finds that the classification of the low-lying hadronic states can be successfully carried out in the non- relativistic quark model \[9\], in which quark binding is treated in the shell model approximation. In the shell model, which is based on the Hartree or self-consistent field approximation, one assumes that each particle moves independently in a potential centered on the center of mass of the overall system. Taken over to our quaternionic preon model, the shell model anti-self-adjoint Hamiltonian $\tilde H_3$ for the binding of three preons, with spin and flavor independent forces and with the center of mass chosen as the origin, takes the form $$\eqalign{
\tilde H_3=&\sum_{n=1}^3 \tilde H(\vec r_n), \cr
\tilde H(\vec r \,)=&\{ (-I/2M)[\vec \nabla_{\vec r} - I \break
\vec A(\vec r \,)]^2 + \tilde U(\vec r \,) \}, \cr
}
\eqno(8a)$$ with M the preon effective mass and with $\vec A$ and $\tilde U$ respectively a real vector potential and a quaternion imaginary scalar potential which are both functions of the preon coordinate $\vec r$. Since Eq. (8a) is the sum of identical one body Hamiltonians for the three particles, it can be rewritten in Fock space as \[7\] $$\tilde H_F=\int d^3r \> p^{\dagger}(\vec r \,) \tilde H(\vec r \,) \break
p(\vec r \,), \eqno(8b)$$ with $\tilde H(\vec r \,)$ the one body Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (8a). Now let $a_{\kappa}(\vec r \,)$ be a complete orthonormal set of one particle energy eigenstates of the one body Hamiltonian, obeying $$\tilde H(\vec r \,) a_{\kappa}(\vec r \,) =a_{\kappa}(\vec r \,) \break
I E_{\kappa}. \eqno(8c)$$ Then defining the [*quasiparticle operator*]{} $p_{\kappa}$ and its adjoint by $$p_{\kappa}=\int d^3r \>\overline{a_{\kappa}} (\vec r \,) p(\vec r \,) \break
,\>\>\>\break
p^{\dagger}_{\kappa}=\int d^3r \> p^{\dagger}(\vec r \,) \break
a_{\kappa} (\vec r \,), \eqno(9a)$$ some simple algebra \[7\] (which parallels the corresponding derivation in standard complex quantum mechanics ) shows that $\tilde H_F$ can be rewritten as $$\tilde H_F=\sum_{\kappa} p^{\dagger}_{\kappa} I E_{\kappa} \break
p_{\kappa}. \eqno(9b)$$ As shown in Ref. \[7\], the energy eigenstates in the one particle sector are exactly created by the quasiparticle operators $p^{\dagger}_{\kappa}\>$, but since the latter do not obey canonical commutators because of the noncommutativity of quaternionic wave functions, they do not behave as creation operators for independent quasiparticles in sectors with more than one particle.
Nevertheless, let us assume that it is reasonable to approximate the creation operator for the ground state in the three particle sector as a product of three ground state quasiparticle creation operators. We then get the product recipe for creating composites given in Rule 2. In general the ground state wave function $a_{0}(\vec r \,)$ is not quaternion imaginary, but we now observe that if we rewrite it in symplectic component form, $$a_{0}(\vec r \,)=a_{0}(\vec r \,)_{\alpha} + J a_{0}(\vec r \,)\break
_{\beta}, \eqno(10a)$$ with the $\alpha,\beta$ components in the complex subalgebra spanned by 1 and $I$, we can always find a complex phase $\zeta(\vec r \,)$ which makes $\zeta(\vec r \,) a_{0}(\vec r \,)$ quaternion imaginary. (Simply take $\zeta$ as $I$ times the complex conjugate of the phase of the $\alpha$ symplectic component.) But the effect of this multiplication is to just induce a gauge transformation on the vector potential $\vec A(\vec r \,)$, and a corresponding quaternion automorphism transformation of the scalar potential $\tilde U$. Hence we can always pick a gauge for the potentials in the shell model Hamiltonian which makes the [*ground state*]{} wave function (but not simultaneously the wave functions of higher excited states) quaternion imaginary. Working in this gauge we get the first part of Rule 1, with the identification $$a_{0}(\vec r \,) =- \vec a(\vec r \,) \cdot \vec E \> \eqno(10b)$$ for the wave function $\vec a(\vec r \,)$ introduced above. Although it may seem objectionable to have to assume a specific gauge to formulate the model, this feature was also present in the original form of the BCS theory of superconductivity, and this analogy suggests that as in the case of superconductivity, gauge invariance should be restored by the proper inclusion of collective effects.
Finally, we note that since the three quasiparticle approximation to the three body ground state wave function is not exact, and since the shell model itself represents an approximation, there are residual forces which act on the composites. These residual forces can, in principle, give rise to the gauge fields of the standard model which act on the quarks and leptons. We have argued in Ref. \[7\] that because the left algebra structure of quaternionic Hilbert space can give rise to multi-quaternion algebras, it is possible to build up larger effective gauge groups than the underlying $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ preonic gauge group. However, since the underlying gauge group is vector-like, it seems reasonable to suppose that any larger gauge groups kinematically generated from it will still not couple spin $\uparrow$ to $\downarrow$ components, which is the basis for the identification of spin-associated tripling with family structure in Rule 3. In this picture the chiral structure of the weak interactions is not fundamental, but must arise from spontaneous symmetry breaking at a scale lying at or below the preonic energy scale.
Although the above sketch of how one might attempt to justify Rules 1-3 in a more fundamental theory is only schematic, and leaves much to be done, I believe that it is consistent with both our current experimental knowledge and with the known properties of complex and quaternionic quantum mechanics.
I developed the ideas reported here in the course of giving a series of lectures covering material in Ref. \[7\] to a group of Institute for Advanced Study members, Y.M. Cho, C. Moreira, R. Narayanan, and Y.-J. Ng, and Princeton University graduate students, A. Millard and J. Weckel. Their criticism, corrections of my errors, and healthy skepticism of features of earlier versions were essential in my arriving at the formulation presented here, and I owe them my profound thanks. I wish to thank W. Bardeen and E. Witten for conversations about electroweak phenomenology and the couplings of spin 3/2 particles. I also wish to acknowledge the support of the Department of Energy, under Grant\# DE-FG02-90ER40542. \[1\] H. Harari, Phys. Lett. [**86b**]{}, 83 (1979). \[2\] M.A. Shupe, Phys. Lett. [**86b**]{}, 87 (1979). \[3\] S.L. Adler, Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{}, 2903 (1980). \[4\] S.L. Adler, [*Family replication in the Harari-Shupe composite model*]{}, IASSNS-HEP-87/33, unpublished (1987). \[5\] L.P. Horwitz and L.C. Biedenharn, Ann. Phys. [**157**]{}, 432 (1984). \[6\] S.L. Adler, Phys. Rev. [**D37**]{}, 3654 (1988). \[7\] S.L. Adler, [*Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields*]{}, Oxford University Press, in press. \[8\] A. Govorkov, Teoret. i Mat. Fiz. [**68**]{}, 381 (1986); English translation in Theor. Math. Phys. [**68**]{}, 893 (1987); A.B. Govorkov, Teoret. i Mat. Fiz. [**69**]{}, 69 (1986); English translation in Theor. Math. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1007 (1987). \[9\] D. Faiman and A. Hendry, Phys. Rev. [**173**]{}, 1720 (1968). \[10\] R.P. Feynman, M. Kislinger, and F. Ravndal, Phys. Rev. [**D11**]{}, 2706 (1971), Sec. 1 of the Appendix. \[11\] G. Altarelli, unpublished talk given at the conference [*Around the Dyson Sphere*]{}, Princeton, NJ, April 8-9, 1994. \[12\] S.L. Adler, Nucl. Phys. [**B145**]{}, 195 (1994), Sec. 4. \[13\] S.L. Adler, [*Scattering Theory in Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics*]{}, in A. Das., ed., [*From Symmetries to Strings: Forty Years of Rochester Conferences.*]{} World Scientific, Singapore, 1990. The four basic quaternionic quasiparticle annihilation operators used to construct the annihilation operators for three quasiparticle composite states centered at $\vec R$. The annihilation operators $t_{\uparrow
,\downarrow},\,v_{\uparrow ,\downarrow}$ are conventional fermion annihilation operators, and are real numbers with respect to the quaternion algebra $E_AE_B=-\delta_{AB}+\sum_C~\varepsilon_{ABC}E_C,~A,B,C=1,2,3$. The spin and flavor independent coefficient $\vec a(\vec r \,)\cdot\vec
E=\sum_A~a_A(\vec r \,)E_A$ is a quaternion imaginary internal ground state wave function. The notation of the abbreviated forms is used in Tables 2 and 3. $$\eqalign{T_\uparrow(\vec R)
&=\int~d^3r\,\vec a(\vec r\,)\cdot\vec E\>t_\uparrow(\vec r+\vec R)\cr
T_\downarrow(\vec R)
&=\int~d^3r\,\vec a(\vec r\,)\cdot\vec E\>t_\downarrow(\vec r+\vec R)\cr
V_\uparrow(\vec R)
&=\int~d^3r\,\vec a(\vec r\,)\cdot\vec E\>v_\uparrow(\vec r+\vec R)\cr
V_\downarrow(\vec R)
&=\int~d^3r\,\vec a(\vec r\,)\cdot\vec E\>v_\downarrow(\vec r+\vec R)\cr}$$ $$\eqalign{T_{\uparrow ,\downarrow}
&=\sum_1~\vec a(1)\cdot\vec E\>t_{\uparrow ,\downarrow}(1)\cr
V_{\uparrow ,\downarrow}
&=\sum_1~\vec a(1)\cdot\vec E\>v_{\uparrow ,\downarrow}(1)\cr}$$ Three quasiparticle composites with a totally antisymmetric internal wave function structure, classified by spin, charge, and interaction type. For each charge 1 and charge 2/3 state in the table, there is a corresponding charge 0 and charge 1/3 state obtained by the interchange $T \leftrightarrow V, \> t \leftrightarrow v$. Similarly, negative helicity states are obtained from positive helicity ones by the interchange $\uparrow \leftrightarrow
\downarrow$.
[(1)]{} Spin 3/2, charge 1, lepton
[helicity 3/2]{} $$T_\uparrow T_\uparrow T_\uparrow = -\sum_{1,2,3}~\vec a(1)\times\vec
a(2)\cdot \vec a(3)\>t_\uparrow(1)t_\uparrow(2)t_\uparrow(3)$$
[helicity 1/2]{} $$T_\uparrow T_\downarrow T_\uparrow = -\sum_{1,2,3}~\vec
a(1)\times \vec a(2)\cdot \vec
a(3)\>t_\uparrow(1)t_\downarrow(2)t_\uparrow(3)$$
[(2)]{} Spin 3/2, charge 2/3, lepton
[helicity 3/2]{} $$T_\uparrow V_\uparrow T_\uparrow =-\sum_{1,2,3}~\vec a(1)\times
\vec a(2)\cdot \vec a(3)\> t_\uparrow(1)v_\uparrow(2)t_\uparrow (3)$$
[helicity 1/2]{} $$\eqalign{%%
&\qquad\qquad\qquad T_\uparrow V_\uparrow T_\downarrow
+ T_\uparrow V_\downarrow T_\uparrow + T_\downarrow V_\uparrow
T_\uparrow\cr
&=-\sum_{1,2,3}~\vec a(1)\times \vec a(2)\cdot \vec a(3)\>[t_\uparrow
(1)v_\uparrow (2)t_\downarrow (3)+
t_\uparrow(1)v_\downarrow(2)t_\uparrow(3)+
t_\downarrow(1)v_\uparrow(2)t_\uparrow(3)]\cr}$$
[(3)]{} Spin 1/2, charge 2/3, lepton
[helicity 1/2]{} $$T_\uparrow V_\uparrow T_\downarrow +T_\downarrow V_\uparrow T_\uparrow
-2T_\uparrow V_\downarrow T_\uparrow = -2\sum_{1,2,3}~\vec a(1)\times
\vec a(2)\cdot \vec a(3)\>[t_\uparrow(1)
v_\uparrow(2)t_\downarrow(3)-t_\uparrow(1)v_\downarrow(2)t_\uparrow(3)]$$
Three quasiparticle composites with a mixed symmetry internal wave function, classified by spin, charge, and interaction type. The index $A$ takes the values $1,2,3$, resulting in three copies of each state. This tripling is interpreted as corresponding to three colors when it arises from $t,v$ reorderings, and as corresponding to three families when it arises from spin $\uparrow,\downarrow$ reorderings. For each charge 1 and charge 2/3 state in the table, there is a corresponding charge 0 and charge 1/3 state obtained by the interchange $T\leftrightarrow V, \> t \leftrightarrow v$. Similarly, negative helicity states are obtained from positive helicity ones by the interchange $\uparrow \leftrightarrow
\downarrow$
[(1)]{} Spin 3/2, charge 2/3, quark
[helicity 3/2]{} $$T_\uparrow T_\uparrow V_\uparrow - V_\uparrow T_\uparrow T_\uparrow =
2\sum_{1,2,3,A}~[\vec a(1)\cdot \vec a(3) a_A(2)-\vec a(2)\cdot\vec
a(3)a_A(1)]\,t_\uparrow(1)t_\uparrow(2)v_\uparrow(3) \, E_A$$
[helicity 1/2]{} $$\eqalign{%%
&\qquad T_\downarrow T_\uparrow V_\uparrow + T_\uparrow T_\downarrow
V_\uparrow + T_\uparrow T_\uparrow V_\downarrow - (V_\uparrow
T_\downarrow T_\uparrow+V_\uparrow T_\uparrow T_\downarrow +
V_\downarrow T_\uparrow T_\uparrow)\cr
&=2\sum_{1,2,3,A}~[\vec a(1)\cdot \vec a(3)a_A(2)-\vec a(2)\cdot\vec
a(3)a_A(1)][t_\downarrow(1)t_\uparrow(2)v_\uparrow(3)+t_\uparrow(1)
t_\downarrow(2)v_\uparrow(3)+t_\uparrow(1)t_\uparrow(2) \break
v_\downarrow(3)] \, E_A \cr}$$
[(2)]{} Spin 1/2, charge 1, lepton
[helicity 1/2]{} $$\eqalign{%%
&TTT \times (\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \break
-\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow) = T_\uparrow T_\uparrow \break
T_\downarrow -T_\downarrow T_\uparrow T_\uparrow \cr
=& 2\sum_{1,2,3,A}~[\vec a(1)\cdot \vec a(3)a_A(2)-\vec a(2)\cdot \vec a(3)
a_A(1)]\,t_\uparrow(1) t_\uparrow(2) t_\downarrow(3) \, E_A \cr
}$$
[(3)]{} Spin 1/2, charge 2/3, quark
[helicity 1/2]{} $$\eqalign{%%
&(TTV+VTT) \times (\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow - \break
\downarrow \uparrow \uparrow) \cr
=& T_\uparrow T_\uparrow
V_\downarrow+ V_\uparrow T_\uparrow T_\downarrow \break
- T_\downarrow T_\uparrow V_\uparrow - V_\downarrow \break
T_\uparrow T_\uparrow\cr
=&2\sum_{1,2,3,A}~\{-\vec a(1)\cdot \vec a(2)a_A(3) \, \break
t_\uparrow(1) t_\downarrow(2) v_\uparrow(3) \cr
&\qquad +[\vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(3) a_A(2)-\vec a(2) \cdot \break
\vec a(3) a_A(1)] [t_\uparrow(1) t_\uparrow(2) v_\downarrow(3) \break
-t_\uparrow(1) t_\downarrow(2) v_\uparrow(3)] \} \, E_A \cr
}$$
[Spin 1/2, charge 2/3, quark]{}
[helicity 1/2]{} $$\eqalign{%%
&TVT \times (\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow -\downarrow \uparrow \break
\uparrow) \cr
=&T_\uparrow V_\uparrow T_\downarrow-T_\downarrow V_\uparrow \break
T_\uparrow \cr
=&2\sum_{1,2,3,A}~[\vec a(2)\cdot \vec a(3)a_A(1) \break
+\vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(3) a_A(2) - \vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(2) \break
a_A(3)] \, t_\uparrow(1)t_\downarrow(2)v_\uparrow(3) \, E_A \cr
}$$
[Spin 1/2, charge 2/3, quark]{}
[helicity 1/2]{} $$\eqalign{%%
&(TTV-VTT) \times (\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow + \downarrow \break
\uparrow \uparrow -2 \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow) \cr
=& T_\uparrow T_\uparrow V_\downarrow - V_\uparrow T_\uparrow \break
T_\downarrow + T_\downarrow T_\uparrow V_\uparrow - V_\downarrow \break
T_\uparrow T_\uparrow -2 T_\uparrow T_\downarrow V_\uparrow \break
+2 V_\uparrow T_\downarrow T_\uparrow \cr
=&2\sum_{1,2,3,A}~\{ 3 \vec a(1)\cdot\vec a(2)a_A(3) \, \break
t_\uparrow(1) t_\downarrow(2) v_\uparrow(3) \cr \break
&\qquad +[\vec a(1) \cdot \vec a(3) a_A(2)-\vec a(2) \cdot \break
\vec a(3) a_A(1)] [t_\uparrow(1) t_\uparrow(2) v_\downarrow(3) \break
-t_\uparrow(1) t_\downarrow(2) v_\uparrow(3)] \} \, E_A \cr
}$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the present work we use the Liénard-Wiechert potential to show that very violent fluctuations are experienced by an electromagnetic charged extended particle when it is perturbed from its rest state. The feedback interaction of Coulombian and radiative fields among the different charged parts of the particle makes uniform motion unstable. As a consequence, we show that radiative fields and radiation reaction produce both dissipative and antidamping effects, leading to self-oscillations. Finally, we derive a series expansion of the self-potential, which in addition to rest and kinetic energy, gives rise to a new contribution, which shares features with the quantum potential. We suggest that this new contribution might serve as a bridge between classical electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.'
author:
- '[Á]{}lvaro G. L[ó]{}pez'
title: On an electrodynamic origin of quantum fluctuations
---
Introduction
============
It was shown in the mid-eighties that a dynamical theory of quantum mechanics can be provided based on a process of conservative diffusion [@nel66; @nel85]. The theory of stochastic mechanics is a monumental mathematical achievement that has been carefully and slowly carried out along two decades with the best of the rigors and mathematical intuition [@nel85]. However, as far as the authors are concerned, the grandeur of this theoretical effort is that it proposes a kinematic description of the dynamics of quantum particles, based on the theory of stochastic processes [@van92]. Just as Bohmian mechanics [@boh52; @boh522], it tries to offer a geometrical picture of the trajectory of a quantum particle, which would be so very welcomed by many physicists. In the end, establishing a link between dynamical forces and kinematics is at the core of Newton’s revolutionary work [@new99].
Perhaps, the absence of geometrical intuition in this traditional sense, during the development of the quantum mechanical formalism, has hindered the understanding of the underlying physical mechanism that leads to quantum fluctuations. In turn, it has condemned the physicist to a systematic titanic effort of mathematical engineering, designing ever-increasing complicated theoretical frameworks. Despite of providing a very refined explanation of many experimental data, which is the main purpose of any physical theory, needless to say, these frameworks entail a certain degree of obscurantism and a lack of understanding. Concerning comprehension only, quantum mechanics constitutes a paradigm of these kind of paradoxical theories, which imply that the more time that it is dedicated to the their study, the less clear that the physical picture of nature becomes. As it has been pointed out by Bohm, this might be a consequence of renouncing to models in which all physical objects are unambiguously related to mathematical concepts [@boh52].
On the contrary, hydrodynamical experimental models that serve as analogies to quantum mechanical systems have been developed recently, which allow to clearly visualize how the dynamics of a possible quantum particle might be [@cou05; @pro06]. These experimental contemporary models share many features with the mechanics of quantum particles [@for10; @bus13] and, fortunately, they are based on firmly established and understandable principles of nonlinear dynamical oscillatory systems and chaos theory [@bus18; @ali96]. As it is well accepted, these conceptual frameworks have shaken the grounds of the physical consciousness of many scientists by showing the tremendous complexity of the dynamical motion of rather simple classical mechanical systems, and not so simple as well [@ali96]. Doubtlessly, the development of computation has proven to be a fundamental tool in this regard, serving as a microscope to the modern physicist, which allows him to unveil the complex patterns and fractal structures that explain the hidden regularities of chaotic motion [@agu09]. Thus, even if we can not experimentally trace a particle’s path because we perturb its dynamics by the mere act of looking at it, we can always use our powerful computers to simulate their dynamics.
In the final pages of Nelson’s work, it is seductively suggested that a theory of quantum mechanics based on classical fields should not be disregarded, as was originally the purpose of Albert Einstein [@nel85]. This aim of providing quantum mechanics with a kinematic description, together with the desire of showing the unjustified belief of electrodynamic fields as a merely dissipative force on sources of charge, and not as an exciting self-force as well, are the two core reasons that have spurred the authors to pursue the present goal. As we shall show in what follows by using a toy model and rather simple mathematics, a finite-sized charged accelerated body always carries a vibrating field with it, what converts this particle into a stable limit cycle oscillator by virtue of self-interactions. This implies that the rest state of this charged particle is unstable, and that stillness (or uniform motion) is not the default state of matter, but it is accelerated oscillatory dynamics. We close this work by deriving an analytical expression of the self-potential. For this purpose we only need to assume that inertia is of purely electromagnetic origin. As it will be demonstrated, the first order terms of this self-potential contain the relativistic energy (the rest and the kinetic energy) of the electrodynamic body, while higher order terms can be related to what we believe it is the quantum potential. In this manner, we hope to provide a better understanding of quantum motion or, at least, to pave the way towards such an understanding.
The self-force
==============
We begin with the Liénard-Wiechert potential [@lie98; @wie01] for a body formed by two charged point particles attached to a neutral dumbbell that move transversally along the x-axis. In general, any motion with transversal field component suffices to derive the main conclusions of this work. However, to avoid dealing with the rotation of the dumbbell, we restrict to a one-dimensional translational motion. This allows to keep mathematics as simple as possible, since the Liénard-Wiechert potential is retarded in time, and this non-conservative character of electrodynamics makes the computations very entangled. This elementary model was wisely designed in previous works to derive from first principles the Lorentz-Abraham force [@lo892; @ab905] and also to study a possible electromagnetic origin of inertia [@gri83; @gri89]. It is a toy model of an electron, represented as an extended electrodynamic body with approximate size $d$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]. Among the aforementioned virtues, we also find that some properties resulting from considering more complex geometries (spherical, for example) of a particle, can be derived by superposition [@gri89]. We shall use this elementary model all along our exposition, which is more than sufficient to illustrate the fundamental mechanism that leads to electrodynamic fluctuations.
![**A model for an electrodynamic body**. An extended electron, modeled as a dumbbell joining two point charged particles (black dots) at a fixed distance $d$. The particle is shown at the retarded time $t_{r}$ and at a some later time $t$. During this time interval, the corpuscle accelerates in the x-axis, advancing some distance $l$ in such direction. As we can see, the particle in the upper part emits a field perturbation at the retarded time (red photon), and this perturbation reaches the second particle at the opposite part of the dumbbell at a later time (and vice versa). In this manner, an extended corpuscle can feel itself in the past. The speed and the acceleration of the particle are represented in blue and green, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1.eps){width="0.9\linewidth" height="0.5\linewidth"}
As we can see in Fig. \[fig:1\], the first particle affects the other at a later time, since the perturbations of the field have to travel from one particle to the other. In other words, an extended body can affect itself. This sort of interaction is traditionally known as a self-interaction in the literature [@gri83] and, as can be seen ahead, for any charged particle, it produces an excitatory force, together with a recoil force and an elastic restoring force as well. The complete Liénard-Wiechert potential permits to write the electric field created by the first particle at the point of the second as $$\bm{E}_{1}=\frac{q}{8\pi \epsilon_{0}}\frac{r}{(\bm{r}\cdot\bm{u})^3}\left(\bm{u}(1-\beta^{2})+\frac{1}{c^2}\bm{r}\times\bm{u}\times\bm{a}\right),
\label{eq:1}$$ where we have now defined the vector $\bm{u}=\bm{\hat{r}}-\bm{\beta}$, with the relative position between particles $\bm{r}(t_{r})$, their velocity $\bm{\beta}(t_{r})=\bm{v}(t_{r})/c$ and their acceleration $\bm{a}(t_{r})$ depending on the retarded time $t_{r}=t-r/c$. The retarded time appears due to the limited speed at which electromagnetic field perturbations travel in spacetime, according to Maxwell’s equations [@max65]. This restriction imposes the constraint $$r=c(t-t_{r}),
\label{eq:2}$$ which assigns a particular time in the past from which the signals coming from one particle of the dumbbell affect the remaining particle. As we shall see, the fact that dynamical systems under electrodynamic interactions are time-delayed (*i.e.* the non-Markovian character of electrodynamics), is at the basis of the whole mechanism. Now we follow the picture in Fig. \[fig:1\] and write the position, the velocity and the acceleration vectors as $\bm{r}=l\bm{\hat{x}}+d\bm{\hat{y}}$,$\bm{\beta}=v/c\bm{\hat{x}}$ and $\bm{a}=a \bm{\hat{x}}$, respectively, where the distance $l=x(t)-x(t_{r})$ between the present position of the particle and the position at the retarded time has been introduced. Using these relations, the vector $\bm{u}$ can be computed immediately as $$\bm{u}=\frac{(l-r\beta)\bm{\hat{x}}+d\bm{\hat{y}}}{r},
\label{eq:3}$$ which, in turn, allows to write the inner product $\bm{r}\cdot\bm{u}=r-l\beta$, by virtue of the Pythagoras’ theorem $r^{2}=(x(t)-x(t_{r}))^2+d^2$. Concerning the radiative fields, we can express the triple cross-product as $\bm{r}\times\bm{u}\times\bm{a}=-d^2 a \bm{\hat{x}}$. We now compute the net self-force on the particle’s centre of mass as $$\bm{F}_{\rm{self}}=\frac{q}{2} (\bm{E}_{1}+\bm{E}_{2})=q E_{1x} \bm{\hat{x}},
\label{eq:4}$$ where $\bm{E}_{2}$ is the force of the second particle on the first. Note that we have assumed that all the forces on the y-axis cancel, because we have simplified the model by using a rigid dumbbell to keep the distance of the charges fixed. This includes repulsive electric forces and also magnetic attractive forces as well. Therefore, in the present section we do not cover the much more complicated problem of the particle’s stability, which is discussed in the last section of the present work. Such a problem is of the greatest importance and lead to the introduction of Poincaré’s stresses in the past [@po905] and, among other reasons (*e.g.* atomic collapse), to the rejection of classical electrodynamics as a fundamental theory [@abr04]. If prefered, from a theoretical point of view, the reader can consider that the two point particles of our model are kept at a fixed distance by means of some balancing external electromagnetic field oriented along the y-axis.
Now, we replace the value of the charge with the charge of the electron $q = -e$ to finally arrive at the mathematical expression describing the self-force of the particle, which is written as $$\bm{F}_{\rm{self}}=\frac{e^2}{8\pi \epsilon_{0}} \frac{1}{(r-l \beta)^3} \left( (l-r \beta)(1-\beta^{2})-\frac{d^2}{c^2}a \right) \bm{\hat{x}}.
\label{eq:5}$$
The equation of motion
======================
We are now committed to write down Newton’s second law in the non-relativistic limit $\bm{F}_{\rm{self}} = m \bm{a}$ and redefine the mass of the particle since, as we show right ahead, the electrostatic internal interactions add a term to the inertial content of the particle. The main purpose of the following lines is to expand in series the self-force to show its different contributions to the equation of motion. The two most resounding terms are the Lorentz-Abraham force and the force of inertia. However, we draw attention to other relevant nonlinear terms, which are of fundamental importance. These expansions will enable a discussion about the electromagnetic origin of mass and, based on such line of reasoning, we shall derive the appropriate and precise equation of motion.
As it has been shown in previous works [@gri83; @gri89], it is possible to express $l$ as a function of $r$ by means of the series expansion $$l=x \left(t_{r}+\frac{r}{c} \right)-x \left(t_{r} \right)=\beta r+\frac{a}{2 c^2}r^2+\frac{\dot{a}}{6 c^3}r^3+\frac{\ddot{a}}{24 c^4}r^4+...
\label{eq:6}$$ This trick of approximating magnitudes presenting delay differences by means of a Taylor series has been used sometimes in the study of delayed systems along history [@ai830]. We recall that this simplification is not a minor issue, since by truncating this expansion we are replacing a system with memory by a Markovian one. Nevertheless, the reader must be aware that delayed systems are infinite-dimensional. In fact, as we show below, any truncation of the previous equation is mistaken since, even though the time-delay $r/c$ is small, the terms in the acceleration, the jerk and so on, are not of order zero in such factor.
As shown in the Appendix, together with equation (\[eq:2\]), the previous expansion allows to express the corpuscle’s size in terms of the time-delay by means of the series $$d=r-\frac{a}{2 c^2}\beta r^2-\left(\frac{a^2}{8 c^4}+\beta \frac{\dot{a}}{6 c^3} \right)r^3+...
\label{eq:7}$$ This Taylor series can be inverted to compute the expansion of $r$ in terms of $d$, which can be written to first order in $\beta$ as $$r=d+\frac{a}{2 c^2}\beta d^2+\left(\frac{a^2}{8 c^4}+\beta \frac{\dot{a}}{6 c^3} \right)d^3+...
\label{eq:8}$$ Finally, by inserting equation (\[eq:8\]) in the previous equation (\[eq:6\]) and then both equations in equation (\[eq:5\]), with the aid of Newton’s second law, we compute, to first order in $\beta$, the identity $$\left(m+\frac{e^2}{16 \pi \epsilon_{0}}\frac{1}{c^2 d} \right)\bm{a}=\frac{e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_{0}} \left(\frac{1}{4 c^5}a^2 \bm{v}+\frac{d}{8 c^6}a^2\bm{a}+\frac{1}{6 c^3}\dot{\bm{a}}+\frac{d}{24 c^4}\ddot{\bm{a}}+...\right),
\label{eq:9}$$ after a great deal of algebra. These computations are enormously simplified by means of modern software for symbolic computation [@mat19].
We notice that the Lorentz-Abraham force has appeared in the third term of the right-hand side of this last equation, together with a few other linear and nonlinear terms. Interestingly, we recall that the term of inertia dominates all other terms for small speeds and accelerations. We can truncate this equation up to the jerk term $\dot{a}$, disregarding its nonlinearity and also derivatives of higher order. We can also define the renormalized mass of the electron as $$m_{e}=m+\frac{e^2}{16 \pi \epsilon_{0}}\frac{1}{c^2 d},
\label{eq:10}$$ and recall the relation between the electron’s charge and Planck’s constant by means of the fine structure constant $$\hbar \alpha c=\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_{0}},
\label{eq:11}$$ according to Sommerfeld’s equation [@som19]. Then, we get the approximated solution $$\ddot{\bm{\beta}}-\frac{12 m_{e} c^2}{\hbar \alpha}\dot{\bm{\beta}} \left(1-\frac{\hbar \alpha d}{16 m_{e} c^3}\dot{\bm{\beta}}^2 \right)+\frac{3a^2}{2c^2} \bm{\beta}+...=0,
\label{eq:12}$$ which reminds of the equation of a nonlinear oscillator.
Thus, we see that the term of inertia, which is the linear term in the acceleration and which dominates when the particle is perturbed from rest, acts as an antidamping. This term is due to radiation fields and is responsible for the amplification of fluctuations. This fact does not contradict Newton’s third law, since it is the addition of matter and radiation momentum that must be conserved as a whole. In other words, the particle can propel itself for a finite time by taking energy from its “own" field. However, the nonlinear cubic term in $\dot{\beta}$ in Eq. (\[eq:12\]), which has opposite sign, limits the growth of the fluctuations. When the acceleration surpasses a certain critical value, the radiation reaction and the radiative fields do not act in phase any more, and the fluctuations are damped away. Therefore, the pathological attributes that have been predicated of this marvelous recoil force [@gri89] are unjustified, and arise as a consequence of disregarding nonlinearities, which are responsible for the system’s stabilization and, as we shall demonstrate, its self-oscillatory dynamics.
Importantly, at this point we notice that, if we assume that the inertia of the electron has an exclusive electromagnetic origin and recall that the dumbbell is neutral ($m = 0$), all the mass must come from the charged points. Then, using the Eqs. and we can write the mass as $$m_{e}=\frac{\hbar \alpha}{4 d c},
\label{eq:13}$$ which was obtained in previous works [@gri83] and gives an approximate radius of the particle $r_{e} = d / 2 = 3.52 \times 10^{-16} \rm{m}$. Except for a factor of eight due to the dumbbell’s geometry, this value corresponds to the classical radius of the electron. In this manner, we do not need to introduce spurious elements (artificial mechanical inertia) in the theory of electromagnetism, and simply use the D’Alembert’s principle instead of Newton’s second law [@da743]. If desired, and to extol Newton’s intuition, the second law of classical mechanics would be a conclusion of electromagnetism, which is the most fundamental of classical theories. What it is amazing is that Newton was capable of figuring it out without any knowledge on electrodynamics. However, this wonderment partly fades out if we bear in mind the unavoidable corollary. For if mass is of electromagnetic origin, the gravitational field must be a residual electromagnetic field. If we are willing to accept these two inextricable facts, inertia would just be an internal resistance produced by the field perturbations to the motion of the charged body, when an external field is applied. We tackle more deeply this issue in the colophon of this work.
In summary, we believe that it is more appropriate to simply consider Newton’s second law as a static problem $\bm{F}_{\rm{ext}}+ \bm{F}_{\rm{self}} = 0$. In our case, we simply have $\bm{F}_{\rm{self}} = 0$. This way of posing the problem can be regarded as computing the geodesic equation of motion of the particle, as it occurs, for example, in the theory of general relativity. The resulting equation of motion reads $$\left(1-\frac{v^2(t_{r})}{c^2} \right) \left(x(t)-x(t_{r})-\frac{r}{c} v(t_{r}) \right)-\frac{d^2}{c^2}a(t_{r})=0,
\label{eq:14}$$ where we recall that for $v=c$ the first term vanishes, not allowing the particle to overcome the speed of light.
We now derive two relations that shall prove of great assistance in forthcoming sections to compute exact results. For this purpose, we use again the Pythagoras’ theorem $r^{2}=(x(t)-x(t_{r}))^2+d^2$ and the equality appearing in equation (\[eq:14\]). By combining these two equations it is straightforward to derive a second order polynomial in $r$, which is solved yielding $$r=\gamma d \sqrt{1+\gamma^6\dot{\beta}^2 \left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^2}+\gamma^{4} c \beta \dot{\beta}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^2,
\label{eq:15}$$ where the Lorentz factor $\gamma = (1 - \beta^{2})^{-1/2}$ has been introduced and the kinematic variables are evaluated at the retarded time. Note that, contrary to the previous Eq. , this expression is exact and has the virtue of suggesting that any consistent power series expansion of $r$ should be carried out in terms of the factor $d/c$. We also notice that, by virtue of this equation, the delay becomes dependent on the speed and the acceleration of the particle. As the corpuscle speeds up, the self-signals come from earlier times in the past. In other words, the light cone of the corpuscle is dynamically evolving, and this evolution selects different signals coming from the past.
Finally, the insertion of this relation into the equation $r^2=l^2+d^2$ leads to the obtainment of $l$ as a function of $\beta$ and $\dot{\beta}$ in a closed form. Again, this avoids the use of an infinite number of derivatives. The final result can be written as $$l=\sqrt{\gamma^2c^2\beta^2\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^2+\gamma^{8}c^{2}\dot{\beta}^{2}(1+\beta^{2})\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^4+2 c^2 \gamma^{5} \beta \dot{\beta}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^3 \sqrt{1+\gamma^6\dot{\beta}^2\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^2}}.
\label{eq:16}$$
These two equations (\[eq:15\]) and (\[eq:16\]) will allow us to derive analytical results in a fully relativistic manner, specially concerning the self-potential.
The instability of rest
=======================
Even though we shall prove a more general statement in Sec. 5, we believe that the fact that oscillatory dynamics is the default state of matter, instead of a stationary state, is of paramount importance. In turn, this study provides a double check of the results presented in such section. Therefore, we independently study the stability of the rest state of the particle in the following lines. Our goal is to show that the rest state is unstable and to identify the magnitude that leads to the amplification of fluctuations. For this purpose, we begin with the expansion appearing in equations (\[eq:6\]) and (\[eq:8\]), and replace them in equation (\[eq:14\]), neglecting all the nonlinear terms. Such terms can be disregarded since the rest state is represented by $v$ and all its higher derivatives are equal to zero. Thus, when slightly perturbing the rest state of the charged particle, we only need to retain linear contributions. The resulting infinite-dimensional differential equation is $$-\frac{1}{2 c^2 d}\bm{a}+\frac{1}{6 c^3}\dot{\bm{a}}+\frac{d}{24 c^4}\ddot{\bm{a}}+\frac{d^2}{120 c^5}\dddot{\bm{a}}+...=0.
\label{eq:17}$$
This equation can be more clearly written as a Laurent series in the factor $d/c$, as previously suggested. We obtain the result $$-\frac{1}{2}\frac{c}{d}\bm{a}+\frac{1}{6}\dot{\bm{a}}+\frac{1}{24}\frac{d}{c}\ddot{\bm{a}}+\frac{1}{120}\frac{d^2}{c^2}\dddot{\bm{a}}+...=0,
\label{eq:18}$$ which can be generally expressed as $$-\frac{1}{2}\bm{a}+\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{1}{(n+2)!}\frac{\textrm{d}^{n}\bm{a}}{\textrm{d}t^n} \left( \frac{d}{c} \right)^n=0.
\label{eq:19}$$
The characteristic polynomial of this equation is obtained by considering as solution $a(t) = a_{0} e^{\lambda t}$. We compute the relation $$-\frac{1}{2}+\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{1}{(n+2)!} \left( \frac{\lambda d}{c} \right)^{n}=0,
\label{eq:20}$$ which can be more elegantly written by using the Maclaurin series of the exponential function. If we redefine it by means of the variable $\mu = \lambda d/c$, we get $$-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\mu^2}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{\mu^{n+2}}{(n+2)!}=-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\mu^2}\left( e^{\mu}-\frac{\mu^2}{2}-\mu-1\right)=0.
\label{eq:21}$$
The solutions to this equation can be obtained numerically. Apart from zero, the only purely real solution can be nicely approximated as $$\lambda=\frac{9}{5}\frac{c}{d},
\label{eq:22}$$ which is a positive value. In summary, the rest state is not stable in the Lyapunov sense [@lya92], and this implies that a particle can not be found at rest. In fact, as can be shown in Fig. \[fig:2\], the complex function $f(z)=z^2+z+1-e^{z}$ has an infinite set of zeros in the complex plane. All of them have a positive real part, while all except two of them are complex conjugate numbers with non-zero imaginary part. It can be analytically shown that, for zeros with negative real part to exist, they have to be confined in a small region close to the origin. Consequently, numerical simulation is enough to confirm both the instability of rest and the existence of self-oscillations in the system.
As more generally stated below, everything is jiggling because electromagnetic fluctuations are amplified. Consequently, motion would be the essence of being and not rest, as could be inferred from the principle of inertia in Newtonian mechanics. More precisely, and as we are about to show, it is uniform motion that it is unstable. This notion is precisely a strong suggestion in order to assume that inertia has an electromagnetic origin. But we shall give a more compelling one below. Be that as it may, the instability of stillness can be considered, by far, the most fundamental finding of the present analysis.
![**The roots of the polynomial $f(z)=z^2+z+1-e^z$**. (a) A domain coloring representation of the function. The color represents the phase of the complex function. The shiny level curves represent the values for which $|f(z)|$ is an integer, while the dark stripes are the curves Re$f(z)$ and Im$f(z)$ equal to a constant integer. The roots and poles can be localized where all colors meet. In the present case we clearly identify the roots $z=0$ and $z=9/5$. (b) Here a magnification of the function is shown, with the distribution of zeros (black dots). The coloring scheme has been simplified. As can be seen, all of them are distributed on the positive real part of the complex plane.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig2.eps){width="1.0\linewidth" height="0.5\linewidth"}
Self-oscillations
=================
We now proceed to show the existence of limit cycle oscillations of the particle. Since the rest state is unstable and the speed of light can not be surpassed according to equation (\[eq:14\]), the only possibilities left are uniform motion or some sort of oscillatory dynamics, weather regular or chaotic. In the first place, we rewrite the equation (\[eq:14\]) to a more amenable and familiar form. We have $$\frac{d^2}{c^2}a(t_{r})+\frac{r}{c} \left(1-\frac{v^2(t_{r})}{c^2} \right) v(t_{r})+\left(1-\frac{v^2(t_{r})}{c^2} \right) \left(x(t_r)-x(t)\right)=0.
\label{eq:23}$$
The main handicap of this equation is that it is expressed in terms of the retarded time $t_r = t - r / c$, which it is the customary expression of the Liénard-Wiechert potentials. To obtain the same equation in terms of the present time $t$, we simply perform a time translation to the advanced time $t_a = t + r /c$. This allows to write $$a(t)+\frac{r}{d} \frac{c}{d} \left(1- \frac{v^2(t)}{c^2} \right) v(t)+\left(\frac{c}{d}\right)^2 \left(1-\frac{v^2(t)}{c^2} \right) \left(x(t)-x \left( t+\frac{r}{c} \right) \right)=0.
\label{eq:24}$$
But now the problem is that this equation depends on the advanced time. In other words, equation (\[eq:24\]) allows to derive the position and velocity at some time from the knowledge of such position and velocity in the past, by using the position in the future. This equation reminds of the equation of a self-oscillator [@jen13]. Apart from the term of inertia and the linear oscillating term representing Hooke’s law [@hoo78], we have two nonlinear contributions. On the one hand, the second contribution on the left hand side acts here as a damping term and it is responsible for the system’s dissipation. This term is identical to other terms appearing in traditional self-oscillating systems, as for example the oscillator introduced by Lord Rayleigh’s to describe the motion of a clarinet reed [@ray45] and, to some extent, also to the Van der Pol’s oscillator [@van20]. On the other hand, the antidamping comes from the advanced potential. At first sight, in the limit of small velocities, the frequency of oscillation is $\omega_{0} = c/d$, what allows to approximate the period as $$T=4 \pi \frac{r_{e}}{c},
\label{eq:26}$$ where $r_{e}=d/2$ is the radius of the electron. This equation gives a value of the period of approximately $T = 1.18 \times 10^{-22} \rm{s}$ for the classical radius of the electron. Therefore, the particle would oscillate very violently, giving rise to an apparently stochastic kind of motion. This motion and the value of the frequency should not be unfamiliar to quantum mechanical theorists, since they can be related to the trembling motion appearing in Dirac’s equation [@sch30], commonly known as *zitterbewegung*.
As we have shown in Sec. 2, the time-delay $r$ depends on the kinematic variables. We insist that, in this sense, despite of the simplicity of the model at analysis, we are facing a terribly complicated dynamical system, since the delay itself depends on the speed and the acceleration of the particle. This kind of systems are formally referred in the literature as state-dependent delayed dynamical systems [@sie17] and, from an analytical point of view, they are mostly intractable. Importantly, we note that for a system of particles, the dependence of the delay of a certain particle on the kinematic variables of the others at several times in the past and at the present as well, turn electrodynamics into a nonlocal theory [@jac02]. This functional dependence sheds some light into the significance of entanglement.
All this complexity notwithstanding, since we just aim at illustrating the existence of self-oscillatory dynamics, we shall have no problems concerning the integration of this system. According to equation (\[eq:22\]), when the system is amplifying fluctuations from its rest state, we see that the rate at which the amplitude of fluctuations grows is comparable to the period of the oscillations. Therefore, averaging techniques, as for example the Krylov-Bogoliubov method [@kry35], cannot be safely applied in the present situation. More simply, we consider the differential equation (\[eq:24\]) and write it in the “phase" space as $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{x} =y, \nonumber \\
&\dot{y} =-\frac{c}{d}\frac{r}{d}\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2} \right)y-\left(\frac{c}{d}\right)^2\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2} \right)\left(x-x_{\tau} \right), \label{eq:27} \end{aligned}$$ where $x_{\tau}$ represents the position at the advanced time $t+\tau=t+r/c$. As we have shown in the previous section, the fixed point $\dot{x} = \dot{y} = 0$ is unstable. Apart from the rest state, asymptotically, there can be only two possibilities. Since the speed of light is unattainable for massive particles, either the particle settles at a constant uniform motion at a lower speed, or its speed fluctuates around some specific value. We do not enter into the issue weather these asymptotic oscillations are periodic, quasiperiodic or chaotic. We shall just prove that uniform motion is not stable and, consequently, self-oscillatory dynamics is the only possibility, whatever its periodicity might be. Assume that uniform motion is possible at some speed $y$, which is a constant number $\beta c$. Then, we have that $x(t) = y t$ and also that $x(t + r / c) = yt + yr /c$, which implies $x - x_{\tau} = -yr /c$. Substitution in equation (\[eq:26\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{x} =y,\nonumber \\
&\dot{y} =-\frac{c}{d}\frac{r}{d}\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2} \right)y+\frac{c}{d}\frac{r}{d}\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2} \right)y=0. \label{eq:28} \end{aligned}$$
Thus, certainly, any uniform motion is also an invariant solution (a fixed trajectory, so to speak) of our state-dependent delayed dynamical system. However, it is immediate to show that this solution is unstable as well. We prove this assertion by computing the variational equation related to inertial observers $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta\dot{x} =\delta y,\nonumber \\
&\delta \dot{y} = -\frac{c}{d}\frac{\delta r}{d}\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2}\right)y-\frac{c}{d}\frac{r}{d}\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2}\right)\delta y+\frac{c}{d}\frac{r}{d}\frac{2 y^2}{c^2}\delta y-\nonumber \\
&~~~~~~-\frac{c}{d}\frac{r}{d}\frac{2 y^2}{c^2} \delta y-\left(\frac{c}{d}\right)^2\left(1-\frac{y^2}{c^2} \right)\left(\delta x-\delta x_{\tau} \right).
\label{eq:29} \end{aligned}$$ At this point, we have to compute $\delta r$ at $\dot{y} = 0$ and $y = \beta c$, with $\beta$ a constant value. Using the formula (\[eq:15\]), but evaluated at the present time, this calculation can be carried out without difficulties yielding $$\delta r(t)=\gamma^4 \beta \left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^2 \delta \dot{y}(t)+d \delta \gamma(t),
\label{eq:30}$$ where again we notice that the variables are evaluated at the present time. Gathering terms and using the fact that $r = \gamma d$ for $\dot{y} = 0$, we finally arrive at the variational problem $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta\dot{x} =\delta y,\nonumber \\
&\delta \dot{y} \gamma^2 = -\frac{c}{d}\gamma \delta y-\left(\frac{c}{d}\right)^2 \left(1-\beta^2 \right) \left(\delta x-\delta x_{\tau} \right).\label{eq:31} \end{aligned}$$
If we consider solutions of the form $ \delta x = A e^{\lambda t}$, the characteristic polynomial of the system (\[eq:31\]) is found. It reads $$\lambda^2 \gamma^2+\frac{c}{d} \gamma \lambda+\left(\frac{c}{d}\right)^2(1-\beta^2)(1-e^{\lambda \gamma d/c})=0.
\label{eq:32}$$ Two limiting situations appear. In the non-relativistic limit $\beta \rightarrow 0$ we can write $$\lambda^2 +\frac{c}{d} \lambda+\left(\frac{c}{d}\right)^2(1-e^{\lambda d/c})=0.
\label{eq:33}$$ which, considering $ \mu = \lambda d/c$, can be written as $$\mu^2 +\mu+1-e^{\mu}=0.
\label{eq:34}$$ This is in conformity with previous results (see equation (\[eq:21\])). Finally, in the relativistic limit, we get $$\mu^2 +\mu+(1-e^{\mu})(1-\beta^2)=0,
\label{eq:35}$$ where we have now defined $\mu =\lambda \gamma d/c$. Except for one eigenvalue, the real part of the solutions to this equation are always positive and therefore unstable for any value of $\beta$, as confirmed by numerical simulations (see Fig. \[fig:3\]). Again, an infinite set of frequencies are obtained, which can be written as $$\omega_{n}=\eta_{n} \frac{c}{\gamma d},
\label{eq:36}$$ where the factor $\gamma$ accounts for the time dilation related to Lorentz boosts. The parameters $\eta_{n}$, according to Fig. \[fig:3\], can be reasonably approximated by means of a linear dependence on $n$, which is an integer greater or equal than one. From the same image we can see that these parameters are independent of the speed of the system.
In this manner, we have proved the existence of self-oscillating motion in this dynamical system for all values of $\beta$. We recall *en passant* that the damping term and the delay introduce an arrow of time in the system [@mac03]. In other words, the limit cycle can be run in one time direction, but not in the reverse. This lack of reversibility is inherent to delayed systems, which depend on their previous history functions [@daz17] and, therefore, are fundamentally non-conservative systems. Nevertheless, we note that the violation of energy conservation should only last a small time until the invariant limit set is obtained, and that it applies as long as long as we just look at the particle and not to the fields. This fact evokes nicely the time-energy uncertainty relations, as can be noticed in the next section. Even though self-oscillations were pointed out a long time ago for a charged particle [@boh48], the instability of “classical" geodesic motion had been unnoticed before, perhaps due to the fact that artificial inertia was assumed and probably because of the neglect of a cross-term between the solenoidal and the irrotational parts of the field. This would be simply natural, given the complexity of retarded fields, and justifies the use of the apparently simple present model.
![**The roots of the polynomial $f(z)=z^2+z+(1-e^z)(1-\beta^2)$**. The complex roots of the $f(z)$ have been numerically computed using Newton’s method for different values of the speed, ranging from the rest state $(\beta=0)$ to the ultrarelativistic limit. As we can see, the values of the imaginary part do not seem to depend on $\beta$ and can be written as multiples of a fundamental frequency. Since $z=\gamma d/c$, we get the spectrum of frequencies for the self-oscillation $\omega_{n} \propto n c/\gamma d$, at least right after the state of uniform motion is slightly perturbed.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](fig3.eps){width="0.6\linewidth" height="0.5\linewidth"}
The self-potential
==================
In the present section we obtain the relativistic expression of the potential energy of the charged body, starting again from the Liénard-Wiechert potential of the electromagnetic field. We denote this self-energy as $U$ since, it can be regarded as the non-dissipative energy required to assemble the system and set it at a certain dynamical state. As it will be clear at the end of the section, it harbors both the rest and the kinetic energy of the particle and also a kinematic formulation of what we suggest might be the quantum potential, which is frequently written as $Q$ in the literature [@noh06].
The electrodynamic energy of the dumbbell can be computed as the energy required to settle it in a particular dynamical state. Since the magnetic fields do not perform work, we would have to compute the integral $$U=\frac{e}{2} \int^{\bm{r}}_{\bm{r}_{0}} \bm{E}\cdot \textrm{d}\bm{r}=-\frac{e}{2} \int^{\bm{r}}_{\bm{r}_{0}} \nabla \varphi \cdot \textrm{d} \bm{r}-\frac{e}{2} \int^{\bm{r}}_{\bm{r}_{0}} \frac{\partial \bm A}{\partial t}\cdot \textrm{d}\bm{r},
\label{eq:37}$$ along some specific history describing a possible journey of the dumbbell. However, it can be shown that the second term is just the dissipative contribution. Therefore, we concentrate on the irrotational part of the field. The electrodynamic potential energy of the dumbbell is just given by the Liénard-Wiechert potential as $$U=\frac{e^2}{16 \pi \epsilon_{0}}\frac{1}{\bm{r} \cdot \bm{u}},
\label{eq:38}$$ where the additional one fourth factor comes from the fact that each charge brings a value $q =- e/2$. This can be written by means of the equation ($\ref{eq:3}$) as $$U=\frac{\hbar \alpha c}{4(r-l \beta)}.
\label{eq:39}$$ If we now substitute the equations (\[eq:15\]) and (\[eq:16\]), and develop them in powers of $d/c$, we obtain the Maclaurin series of the self-potential $$U=\gamma \frac{\hbar \alpha c}{4d}-\gamma^7 \frac{a^2}{2 c^2}\frac{\hbar \alpha}{4}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)+\gamma^{13} \frac{3 a^4}{8 c^4}\frac{\hbar \alpha}{4}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^3-\gamma^{19} \frac{5 a^6}{16 c^6}\frac{\hbar \alpha}{4}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^5+...
\label{eq:40}$$ We recall that these computations are very lengthy and again strongly recommend the use of software for symbolic computation. We arrive in this manner at the crucial point of this exposition. If we once again simply assume the idea that inertia has an electromagnetic origin, we can write the size of the particle as $$d=\frac{\hbar \alpha}{4 m_{e} c}.
\label{eq:41}$$ Substitution in the previous equation yields the series $$U=\gamma m_{e}c^2-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_{e}} \frac{\alpha^2}{8 c^2} \gamma \left( \gamma^6\frac{a^2}{2 c^2}-\gamma^{12} \frac{3 a^4}{8 c^4}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^2+\gamma^{18} \frac{5 a^6}{16 c^6}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^4-... \right),
\label{eq:42}$$ which can be written more formally as $$U=\gamma m_{e}c^2+\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_{e}} \frac{\alpha^2}{32 r_{e}^2} \gamma \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{q_{n}(-1)^n\gamma^{6n} \frac{a^{2n}}{c^{2n}}}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^{2n},
\label{eq:43}$$ where the coefficients $q_{n}=\{1/2,3/8,5/16,35/128,63/256...\}$ of the expansion belong to a series, which can be computed from the quadrature $$q_{n}=\int^{1}_{0} \cos^{2n}(2\pi x) \textrm{d} x=\frac{(2n-1)!!}{2^n n!}.
\label{eq:44}$$
We clearly identify two terms in equation (\[eq:43\]). The first one is just the relativistic energy [@ein05], which contains both the rest and the kinetic energy of the particle. But note that, in addition to the kinetic and the rest energy of the particle, the potential $$Q=\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_{e}} \frac{\alpha^2}{32 r_{e}^2} \gamma \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{q_{n}(-1)^n\gamma^{6n} \frac{a^{2n}}{c^{2n}}}\left(\frac{d}{c}\right)^{2n},
\label{eq:45}$$ has unveiled as a new contribution. By inserting the integral appearing in equation (\[eq:44\]) into equation (\[eq:45\]), we can derive, after summation of the series and one additional integration, the potential $$Q=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_{e}} \frac{\alpha^2}{32 r_{e}^2} \gamma \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\gamma^6 \dot{\beta}^2 \left( \frac{d}{c}\right)^2}} \right),
\label{eq:46}$$ which vanishes for uniform motion. Again, we note how the Lorentz factor precludes traveling at speeds higher or equal than the speed of light.
This potential evokes nicely the quantum potential appearing in Bohmian mechanics [@boh52; @boh522], with the same term $\hbar^2/2m_{e}$ preceding it. Importantly, we notice the dependence of fluctuations on the fine structure constant. Moreover, we have found a dependence of this potential on the acceleration of the particle that, we should not forget, is evaluated at the retarded time. On the other hand, since $$Q=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_{e}}\frac{\nabla^2 R}{R},
\label{eq:47}$$ in quantum mechanics, we can settle a bridge between the square modulus of the wave function and the kinematics of the particle in the non-relativistic limit. In this way, we would restore the old relationship between forces and geometrical magnitudes. Once the dynamics is constrained to the asymptotic limit cycle, a relation between the acceleration of the particle and its position can be established and replaced in $Q$. Then, the resulting partial differential equation is similar to Helmholtz’s equation $$\nabla^2 R+\frac{2 m_{e}}{\hbar^2}Q{R}=0,
\label{eq:48}$$ while we can independently write down the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a particle immersed in an external potential $V(x,t)$. In the non-relativistic limit, it is given by $$\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{2 m_{e}}(\nabla S)^2+V+Q=0.
\label{eq:49}$$
In principle, once the two previous equations (\[eq:48\]) and (\[eq:49\]) have been solved using the knowledge of the trajectory of the particle, the wave function can be built as $$\psi(x,t)=R(x,t)\exp\left({\frac{i}{\hbar} S(x,t)}\right),
\label{eq:50}$$ even though this solution may not be easily attained in most cases, specially when an external potential is present. Interestingly, we can see from these relations that the wave function is a real objective field, as claimed in the seminal works of David Bohm [@boh52; @boh522], and not just a probabilistic entity. Both its modulus and phase are related to internal and external electrodynamic forces, respectively.
To gain some insight into the self-potential of the “free" particle, we illustrate these ideas by means of an example. For this purpose, we can invoke the oscillatory dynamics after the transient amplification to show the repulsive nature of electrodynamic fluctuations. A conservative version of the potential $Q_{c}(x)$ can be derived, which should only be regarded as an illustrative approximation. If we disregard the delay and consider the approximation $a = -\omega^2_{0} x$, in the non-relativistic limit, and keeping just the two first term of the series, we obtain the potential $$Q_{c}(x)=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_{e}}\frac{\alpha^2}{32 r_{e}^2} \left( \frac{1}{d^2}x^2-\frac{3}{4 d^4}x^4\right).
\label{eq:51}$$
This potential is very well known in the world of nonlinear dynamical systems, since it appears in the Duffing oscillator [@duf18]. It illustrates in a very clear manner the instability of stillness, because $Q_{c}(x)$ presents a maximum at $x=0$. In particular, this potential is responsible for the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Poincaré group. We recall that symmetry breaking is a typical feature of nonlinear dynamical systems [@pri71; @nic71].
Interestingly, this potential can be written in a simplified form as $$Q_{c}(x)=-\frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega \left( \frac{1}{d^2}x^2-\frac{3}{4 d^4}x^4 \right),
\label{eq:52}$$ where the frequency ${\omega}=\alpha d/2c$ is precisely the frequency of *zitterbewegung* of the dumbbell, which differs from that of a spherical particle by a factor of two.
What we find of the greatest interest about this expression is that it nicely evokes Planck’s relation. Moreover, we recall that $m_{e}$ is proportional to $\hbar$, as long as we are in a position to assume that mass is of electromagnetic origin. Therefore, all sorts of energy and momentum can be ultimately written as proportional to Planck’s constant. For example, the rest energy of the electron is written as $\hbar \omega/2$. It is then reasonable to argue that photons, which are light pulses emitted from accelerated electron transitions between different energy states, have energy $E=\hbar \omega$. Furthermore, by considering the relativistic relation $E = p c$, it is immediate to obtain from this equality that $p=\hbar k$, which brings in the De Broglie’s relation between momentum and wavelength.
![**The quantum potential $Q_{c}(x)$**. This conservative approximation of the repulsive potential (blue line) has an unstable fixed point at the origin $x^{*}=0$, flanked by two minima, representing stable fixed points at $x^{*}=\pm\sqrt{2/3}$. The repulsive character of this potential guarantees the perpetual oscillatory motion of electrodynamic bodies. An approximation of the self-force is shown in red.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](fig4.eps){width="1.0\linewidth" height="0.5\linewidth"}
As we can see, perhaps the main problem when studying the electrodynamics of extended bodies is that it leads to very complicated state-dependent delayed differential equations. Things would get terribly complicated if continuous bodies are considered, instead of the simple toy discrete model used here. This physical phenomenon arises as a consequence of the principle of causality, which imposes a limited speed at which information can travel in physics, introducing an infinite number of degrees of freedom in the nonlinear Lagrange equations. In fact, we wonder how the principle of least action can be reformulated to cover the complex time-delayed systems appearing in electrodynamics. In light of these facts, and from a practical point of view, the Schrödinger equation [@sch26] would be surely a much more appropriate and manageable mathematical framework than the use of the complicated functional differential equations resulting from the Liénard-Wiechert potentials to treat quantum problems. Certainly, it would not be surprising that partial differential equations, which have an infinite number of degrees of freedom, are of so much usefulness replacing delayed systems, which harbor an infinite number of degrees of freedom as well.
Discussion
==========
As we have shown, the dynamics of an extended charged moving body has resemblances with the dynamics of the silicon droplets experimentally found in the recent years. However, in our picture, the waves travelling with the particle “belong" to the particle itself, and do not require of any medium of propagation (any aether), since they are of electromagnetic origin. In our model, the fluctuations arise as self-interactions of the particle with its own field and have as analogy the fluctuating platform appearing in their experiments [@cou05]. Nevertheless, this analogy must be drawn with great care, since the physical phenomenon leading to fluctuations in our moving charged body is not resonance, but self-oscillation [@jen13]. In particular, we predict a simple relation of proportionality between quantum fluctuations and the coupling electromagnetic constant $\alpha$. Concerning self-oscillations, we also recall that a nonlocal probabilistic theory equivalent to a conservative diffusion process has been developed not so long ago, which is mathematically equivalent to non-relativistic quantum mechanics [@nel85]. This is in agreement with the present work since, as we have shown, our corpuscle exhibits very violent oscillations, as it is also suggested in other works [@boh52; @boh522].
The most astonishing consequence of the present work is the demonstration of the possibility of an instability of natural or uniform motion, which defies common intuition and beliefs on radiation as a purely damping field on electromagnetic extended moving sources. We believe that this misunderstanding is present in the beginning of many important introductory texts on quantum theory to justify the imperious necessity of a quantum mechanical theory that has no basis on the classical world [@dir81]. On the contrary, the present work suggests that self-interactions provide the required repulsive force (the quantum force) to avoid the collapse of electrodynamical systems. In particular, we predict that self-interactions and recoil forces are enough to stabilize the hydrogen atom and prevent its collapse [@raj04]. This is because radiation has, not only stabilizing dissipative effects as a whole on the system, but antidamping effects as well through self-excitation and radiation reaction on its several components. In the same way that it can excite an electron inside an atom to higher energy levels, it can self-excite an extended object by self-absorption.
We also note that the wave-particle duality is immediately solved in our framework. The waves are just perturbations of the fields, and any charged accelerated particle can present such perturbations as a consequence of its self-oscillatory dynamics. Furthermore, there does not exist a fundamental particle that does not participate from some fundamental interaction and, consequently, there should be a pilot-wave [@deb27] attached to any charged particle in accelerated motion. Importantly, we highlight the rich dynamical feedback interaction between these two apparently differentiated entities. In light of this paragraph, it seems obvious that nothing can travel faster than field perturbations since, any aggregate of charge, whatever its nature is, will show resistance to acceleration due to its electromagnetic energy. This intuition brings back the concept of *vis insita*, as originally appearing in Newton’s work [@new99]. A concept that is also related to the original notion of inertia and Galileo’s *resistenza interna* [@gal32], and which can be traced back to the original works of the dominic friar Domingo de Soto [@dom55; @mir09].
We now bring to discussion the most delicate point of the present work. The fact that the inertia of a body might be of electromagnetic origin (electroweak and strong, if desired) is and old argument in physical theories. As we have shown, it has been a sufficient and necessary condition to derive Newton’s second law, kinetic energy, Einstein’s mass-energy relation and what seems to be the quantum potential, just from Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Perhaps, the greatest lesson of Einstein’s relation is not that energy is mass, but that mass is a useful and simple way to gather the constants appearing in electrostatic energy. Consequently, we shall not invoke Occam’s razor to defend the idea of gravitational mass as a redundant concept in fundamental physics. Instead, we adopt a more prudent position and focus the attention on the fact that our findings imply to reconsider Newton’s second law as a law of statics, just as suggested by D’Alembert. In light of these facts, we believe that it is very natural that an electrodynamic mechanism gives mass to fundamental particles in the standard model, which is luckily known nowadays thanks to the work of Higgs [@hig64].
Following the same line of reasoning, this idea would perfectly connect with the theory of general relativity, since the principle of equivalence simply states that, in a non-inertial reference frame comoving with a body, any object experiences forces of inertia. In fact, these forces are equivalent to a gravitational field. Therefore, an electromagnetic theory of the gravitational field would also be in accordance with the principle of equivalence. Moreover, the identity of inertial and gravitational mass would be the consequence of a very simple fact, $i.e.$, their common electromagnetic origin. However, we must be careful at this point, since electromagnetic forces create strong ripples in space-time. Thus, a free falling extended charged particle in a gravitational field should experience very strong tidal self-forces. As we have shown, these forces can lead to self-oscillations.
Delving deeper into the principle of covariance, we recall that the electromagnetic stress-tensor can be plugged into the energy-stress tensor and interpreted as a curvature of spacetime. We recall that the Einstein-Maxwell equations are terribly nonlinear high-dimensional partial differential equations, which can have as solutions solitary waves [@ale80; @fab12; @mis57]. Certainly, the model presented in this work is far too simplistic and unrealistic, because it assumes a rigid solid as a particle, which is contrary to electromagnetic theory, and whose structure is unstable. We expect particles to rotate and also to be deformable, and wonder if these two properties should be enough to stabilize the electron.
In this framework, gravitational waves would simply emerge from light waves. As a matter of fact, if the force of gravitation had an electromagnetic origin, the gravitational field, as a residual field, would have to be much weaker, which it is well-known to be the case. The fact that it falls with an inverse-square law should not be *a priori* regarded as a problem. In fact, an average inverse quadratic law can be derived from radiative fields of a system of oscillating particles, which originally fall with the inverse of the distance. However, as far as the author has investigated, deriving a precise relation between $G$ and $e$ from the Liénard-Wiechert potential of a system of particles would remain an open problem of paramount relevance.
To conclude, we would also like to evince our most radical skepticism concerning the present analysis. Firstly, the simplicity of the model should prevent us from drawing too general conclusions. It can be shown that purely longitudinal motion of the dumbbell is dissipative. Although this motion by itself is unstable to transverse perturbations, the authors ignore if there is a dependence of instability on the geometry of an electrodynamic moving body. Or, perhaps, the rotational motion of the particle is essential to have unstable dynamics independently of its geometry. Secondly, a full correspondence between electrodynamics and the relativistic formalism of quantum mechanics has not been here provided. Nevertheless, and to close this lengthy discussion, we hope that this new perspective, based on modern theories of nonlinear dynamics, might serve to enlighten the complex dynamics of elementary classical particles and, if not, at least to drive physics closer to the establishment of a dynamical picture of fundamental particles, if such an endeavor is allowed and possible.
Acknowledgments
===============
The author wishes to thank Miguel A. F. Sanjuán, Jesús M. Seoane and Alexandre R. Nieto for valuable comments on the elaboration of the present manuscript and discussion on some of its ideas. He also wishes to thank Alejandro Jenkins and Juan Sabuco for introducing him to the key role of self-oscillation in open physical systems, and for fruitful discussions on this concept as well. This work has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Project No. FIS2016-76883-P.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
The following lines are devoted to obtain a power series relating the size of the particle $d$ and the magnitude of the delay $r/c$. This relation allows us to approximate the distance $l$ between the dumbbell’s position at time $t$ and at the delayed time $t_{r}$, as a function of the mass center velocity, its derivatives and the particle’s size [@gri83; @gri89]. We begin with the relation $$d=r \sqrt{1-\left( \frac{l}{r} \right)^2}=r \left(1-\frac{z^2}{2}-\frac{z^4}{8}-...\right),
\label{eq:a1}$$ where the variable $z=l/r$ has been introduced. On the other hand, the equation (\[eq:6\]) can be rewritten as $$z=\frac{l}{r}=\beta+\frac{a}{2 c^2}r+\frac{\dot{a}}{6 c^3}r^2+\frac{\ddot{a}}{12 c^4}r^3+\frac{\dddot{a}}{120 c^5}r^4...
\label{eq:a2}$$ The square of $z$ can then be computed. If we disregard the terms of the third order and higher orders as well, we obtain $$z^2=\beta^2+\frac{a}{c^2}\beta r+\frac{a^2}{4 c^4}r^2+\frac{\dot{a}}{3 c^3}\beta r^2+O(r^3).
\label{eq:a3}$$
Concerning the fourth power of $z$ we can write $$z^4=\beta^4+\frac{2a}{c^2}\beta^3 r+\frac{3 a^2}{c^4}\beta^2 r^2+\frac{2 \dot{a}}{3c^3}\beta^3 r^2+O(r^3).
\label{eq:a4}$$ to the same approximation as before.
Substitution of equations (\[eq:a3\]) and (\[eq:a4\]) into equation (\[eq:a1\]), after gathering terms, yields $$d=\left(1-\frac{\beta^2}{2} -\frac{\beta^4}{8} \right)r-\frac{a}{2c^2}\beta \left(1+\frac{\beta^2}{2}\right)r^2-\left(\frac{a^2}{8 c^4}\left(1+\frac{3\beta^2}{2}\right)+\frac{\dot{a} \beta}{6 c^3} \left(1+\frac{\beta^2}{2} \right) \right)r^3+O(r^4).
\label{eq:a5}$$
If we consider the non-relativistic limit, by just keeping terms of the first order in $\beta$, we arrive at the approximated relation $$d=r-\frac{a}{2c^2}\beta r^2-\left(\frac{a^2}{8 c^4}+\frac{\dot{a}}{6 c^3} \beta \right)r^3.
\label{eq:a6}$$
[9]{}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Nelson, E. (1966). Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics. Phys. Rev. 150, 1079-1085.
Nelson, E. (1985). Quantum fluctuations. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Van Kampen, N. G. (1992). Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, Elsevier.
Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden" variables. I. Phys. Rev. 85, 166-179.
Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden" variables. II. Phys. Rev. 85, 180-193.
Newton, I. (1987). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical principles of natural philosophy). London, 1687.
Couder, Y., Protiere, S., Fort, E., Boudaoud, A. (2005). Dynamical phenomena: walking and orbiting droplets. Nature 437, 208.
Protière, S., Boudaoud, A., Couder, Y. (2006). Particle-wave association on a fluid interface. J. Fluid Mech. 544, 85-108.
Fort, E., Eddi, A., Boudaoud, A., Moukhtar, J., Couder, Y. (2010). Path-memory induced quantization of classical orbits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 17515-17520.
Moláček J., Bush, J. W. M. (2013). The fluid trampoline: droplets bouncing on a soap film. J. Fluid. Mech. 727, 582-611.
Turton S. E., Couchman, M. M. P., Bush, J. W. M. (2018). A review of theoretical modeling of walking droplets: toward a generalized pilot-wave framework. Chaos 28, 096111.
Alligood, K. T., Sauer, T. D., Yorke, J. A. (1996). Chaos. Springer, New-York.
Aguirre, J., Viana, R. L., and Sanjuán, M. A. F. (2009). Fractal structures in nonlinear dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 333-386.
Liénard, A. (1898). Champ électrique et magnétique produit par une charge concentrée en un point et animée d’un mouvement quelconque. L’éclairage electrique 16.
Wiechert, E. (1901). Elektrodynamische elementargesetze. Ann. Phys. 309, 667-689.
Lorentz, H. A. (1892). La théorie élecromagnetique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvemants. Arch. Néel. Sci. Exactes Nat. 25, 363-552.
Abraham, M. (1905). Theorie der Elektrizität: Eleltromagentische Theorie der Strahlung. Leipzig, Teubner.
Griffiths, D. J., Russell, E. O. (1983). Mass renormalization in classical electrodynamics. Am. Jour. Phys. 51, 1120-1126.
Griffiths, D. J. (1989). Introduction to Electrodynamics. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Maxwell, J. C. (1865). A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 155, 459-512.
Poincaré, H. (1905). Sur la dynamique de l’électrone. Comptes Rendues 140, 1504-1508.
Abraham, M. (1904). Die grundhypothesen der elektronentheorie. Physikalische Zeirschrift 5, 576-579.
Airy, G. B. (1830). On certain conditions under which perpetual motion is possible. Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 3, 369-372.
Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 12.0, Champaign, IL (2019).
Sommerfeld, A. (1919). Atombau und Spektrallinien. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
D’Alembert, J. L. R. (1743). Traité de dynamique. (2nd ed.), Gabay (1990 reprint).
Lyapunov, A. M. (1892). The general problem of the stability of motion. Int. J. of Control 55, 531-534.
Jenkins, A. (2013). Self-oscillation. Phys. Rep. 525, 167-222.
Hooke, R. (1678). De Potentia Restitutiva, or of Spring Explaining the Power of Springing Bodies. London, UK: John Martyn, 23.
Rayleigh, J. W. S. B. (1945). The Theory of Sound, vol. I, second ed. Dover, New York.
Van der Pol, B. (1920). A theory of the amplitude of free and forced triode vibrations. Radio Review 1, 701-710.
Schrödinger, E. (1930). Über die kräftefreie bewegung in der relativistischen quantenmechanik. Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. Kl. 24, 418-428.
Sieber, J. (2017). Local bifurcations in differential equations with state-dependent delay. Chaos 27, 114326.
Jackson, J. D. (2002). From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge transformations. Am. J. Phys. 70, 917-928.
Krylov, N. M., Bogolyubov, N. N. (1935). Methodes approchees de la mecanique non-lineaire dans leurs application a l’Aeetude de la perturbation des mouvements periodiques de divers phenomenes de resonance s’y rapportant. Kiev: Acadèmie des Sciences d’Ukraine.
Mackey, M. C. (2003) Time’s arrow: the origins of thermodynamic behaviour, Courier Corporation.
Daza, A., Wagemakers, A., Sanjuán, M.A.F. (2017). Wada property in systems with delay Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 43, 220-226.
Bohm, D., Weinstein, M. (1948). The self-oscillations of a charged particle. Phys. Rev. 74, 1789.
Bohm, D., Hiley, B. J. (2006). The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Routledge.
Einstein, A. (1905). Zur elektrodynamik bewegter körper. Ann. Phys. 322, 891-921.
Duffing, G. (1918) Erzwungene Schwingungen bei veränderlicher eigenfrequenz und ihre technische Bedeutung. No. 41-42. F. Vieweg & Sohn.
Prigogine, I. (1971). Time, structure and fluctuations. Science 201, 777-785.
Nicolis, G., Nicolis, G. (1995). Introduction to Nonlinear Science. Cambridge University Press.
Schrödinger, E. (1926). Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem. Ann. Phys. 385, 437-490.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1981). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford university press.
Raju, C. K. (2004). The electrodynamic 2-body problem and the origin of quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. 34, 937-963.
de Broglie, L. (1927). La mécanique ondulatoire et la structure atomique de la matiére et du rayonnement. Journal de Physique et le Radium 8, 225-241.
Galilei, G. (1967). Dialogue concerning the two world systems. Drake, (trans.), Berkeley CA: University of California Press. (Original work published in 1632).
de Soto, D. (1555). Super octo libros physicorum questiones, second ed. (Salamanca: Andrea a Portonariis), lib. 7, q. IV.
Mira-Pérez, J. (2009). Domingo de Soto, early dynamics theorist. Phys. Today 62, 9.
Higgs, P. W. (1964). Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields. Phys. Lett. 12, 132-201.
Alekseev, G. A. (1980). N-soliton solutions of Einstein-Maxwell equations. JETP Letters, 32, 277-279.
Faber, M. (2012). Particles as stable topological solitons. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 361, p. 012022. IOP Publishing.
Misner, C., Wheeler, J. A. (1957) Classical physics as geometry. Ann. Phys. 2, 525-603
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a purely combinatorial quadratic time algorithm that for any $n$-vertex $P_{k}$-free tournament $T$, where $P_{k}$ is a directed path of length $k$, finds in $T$ a transitive subset of order $n^{\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$. As a byproduct of our method, we obtain subcubic $O(n^{1-\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}})$-approximation algorithm for the optimal acyclic coloring problem on $P_{k}$-free tournaments. Our results are tight up to the $\log(k)$-factor in the following sense: there exist infinite families of $P_{k}$-free tournaments with largest transitive subsets of order at most $n^{\frac{c\log(k)}{k}}$. As a corollary, we give tight asymptotic results regarding the so-called *Erdős-Hajnal coefficients* of directed paths. These are some of the first asymptotic results on these coefficients for infinite families of prime graphs.'
author:
- |
Krzysztof Choromanski Google Research\
New York, NY, USA
title: '$P_{k}$-freeness implies small dichromatic number'
---
[$P_{k}$-free tournaments, acyclic colorings, transitive subsets, the Erdős-Hajnal Conjecture]{}
Introduction
============
Graph coloring problem is of fundamental importance in computer science. In the undirected setting the task is to color all the vertices of the graph to use as few colors as possible and in such a way that every color class induces an independent set. The *chromatic number $\chi(G)$ of the undirected graph $G$* is the minimum number of colors that can be used under these constraints. In the directed setting ([@lara]) the coloring needs to be done in such a way that every color class induces an acyclic digraph. Such a coloring is called an *acyclic coloring*. In particular, when a graph to color is a tournament then each color class is a transitive subset (transitive subsets correspond in the tournament setting to the independent sets in the undirected one). The number of colors in the optimal acyclic coloring of a digraph $D$ is called the *dichromatic number $\chi_{a}(D)$ of the digraph $D$*. Digraph colorings arise in several applications and are thoroughly used in kernel theory and tournament theory thus they attracted attention of many researchers.
The coloring problem is NP-hard but even the stronger statement is true: for every $\epsilon>0$ finding a $n^{1-\epsilon}$-approximation of the optimal coloring is NP-hard. Due to its hardness, many research efforts focused on finding good-quality colorings for several special classes of graphs. For instance, a scenario when a graph $G$ under consideration is $k$-colorable for some $k>0$ was analyzed. The best known coloring algorithms for that case give $n^{1-\frac{c}{k}}$-approximation, where $n=|G|$. The best constants $c$ are obtained with the use of semidefinite programming ([@blum; @karger; @arora]). Another important special class of graphs to consider in the coloring context are graphs defined by forbidden patterns. These appear in many places in graph theory. For instance, every graph with the topological ordering of vertices can be equivalently described as not having directed cycles and every transitive tournament - as not having directed triangles. A finite graph is planar if and only if it does not contain $K_{5}$ (the complete graph on five vertices) or $K_{3,3}$ (complete bipartite graph on six vertices with two equal-length color classes) as a minor. One of the deepest results in graph theory, the Robertson-Seymour theorem ([@robertson]), states that every family of graphs (not necessarily planar graphs) that is closed under minors can be defined by a finite set of forbidden minors. These classes include: forests, pseudoforests, linear forests (disjoint unions of path graphs), planar and outerplanar graphs, apex graphs, toroidal graphs, graphs that can be embedded on the two-dimensional manifold, graphs with bounded treewidth, pathwidth or branchwidth and many more. We should notice that not having a certain graph as a minor is a much more restrictive assumption than not having a certain graph $H$ as an induced subgraph. Other examples include classes of graphs that can be colored with significantly fewer than $\Omega(\frac{n}{\log(n)})$ colors. For instance, $k$-colorable graphs mentioned before do not have as induced subgraphs these graphs $H$ that have largest independent sets of size smaller than $\frac{|H|}{k}$. Thus all those classes can be described as not having some forbidden structures (either induced subgraphs in the undirected scenario or subdigraphs in the directed setting).
One of these classes of graphs is of particular interest. Those are $P_{k}$-free graphs, where $P_{k}$ is an undirected path of $k$ vertices. Not much is known for structural properties of $P_{k}$-free graphs for $k \geq 5$. In particular, it is an open question whether finding the largest independent set is NP-hard if the class is defined by a forbidden path $P_{k}$ and $k>5$. Coloring $P_{k}$-free graphs for $k \geq 5$ is known to be NP-hard. Similarly, no nontrivial approximation algorithms for coloring $P_{k}$-free graphs are known for $k>5$. Thus the question whether there exists a $n^{1-\frac{c}{k}}$-approximation algorithm (as it is the case for $k$-colorable graphs) is open. The completely analogous problem can be considered in the directed setting. In other words, one can ask for an optimal acyclic coloring of $P_{k}$-free tournaments, where this time $P_{k}$ stands for the directed path tournament, i.e. a tournament with the ordering of vertices $(v_{1},...,v_{k})$ under which the backward edges are exactly of the form $(v_{i+1},v_{i})$. Like in the undirected case, the structural theorem of $P_{k}$-free directed graphs is not known. In particular, the question whether the acyclic coloring problem is NP-hard for this class of graphs is open. It is striking though that the $O(n^{1-\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}})$-approximation algorithm exists and this is one of our main results in this paper. In fact we show a stronger result. We give an algorithm that constructs in the $P_{k}$-free tournament a transitive set of order $n^{\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$. We show that our results are tight up to the $\log(k)$-factor in the following sense: there exist infinite families of $P_{k}$-free tournaments with largest transitive subsets of order at most $n^{\frac{c\log(k)}{k}}$. As a corollary, we give tight asymptotic results regarding the so-called *Erdős-Hajnal coefficients* for directed paths. The coefficients come from the celebrated Erdős-Hajnal conjecture - one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in modern Ramsey graph theory. Our algorithm for finding big transitive subsets is quadratic in the size of the input thus optimal (since the input as a tournament is of size $\Theta(n^{2})$) and easy to implement. It leads straightforwardly to the subcubic coloring algorithm.
Related work
============
Let us discuss briefly some known results regarding $P_{k}$-free graphs. Graph coloring problem is known to be solvable in the polynomial time for $P_{k}$-free graphs, where $k \leq 4$ ([@chvatal]). We already mentioned that it was proven to be NP-hard for $k \geq 5$ ([@tuza]). A related problem whether a given $P_{t}$-free graph is $k$-colorable (and finding the coloring if the $k$-coloring exists) was considered in several papers. In [@sgall] it was proven that the $3$-colorability question for $P_{5}$-free graphs can be answered in the polynomial time. In fact $3$-coloring question can be answered in the polynomial time for a more general class of $P_{6}$-free graphs ([@randerath]). A polynomial algorithm answering a question whether a $P_{5}$-free graph can be $k$-colored (and constructing the coloring if this is the case) for arbitrary $k>0$ was given in [@kaminski]. Very recently a polynomial algorithm for constructing maximum independent set in $P_{5}$-free graphs was proposed ([@villanger]). No nontrivial approximation algorithms for the coloring problem of $P_{k}$-free graphs for general $k$ were proposed.
In the directed setting it was recently proven ([@choromanski]) that for every $k>0$ all $P_{k}$-free tournaments have polynomial-size transitive subsets, i.e transitive subsets of size $\Omega(n^{\epsilon})$ for some $\epsilon>0$. Coefficients $\epsilon$ were however obtained with the use of the regularity lemma, an inherent ingredient of the entire approach, thus applied methods did not lead to any practically interesting algorithmic results. For paths and in fact all prime tournaments those coefficients were proven to be of order at most $\frac{\log(k)}{k}$ ([@choromanski2]) in the worst-case scenarios. That led to the substantial gap between best known upper and lower bounds (the latter being only inversely proportional to the tower function from the regularity lemma). We practically get rid of that gap in this paper.
Other results regarding (pseudo)transitive subtournaments of polynomial sizes in $H$-free directed graphs can be found in: [@strong], [@allt], [@chorojeb], [@seymour], [@pseudo], [@pairs], [@upper], [@diss] and [@rank].
Main results
============
Before stating formally our results, we will introduce a few important definitions used throughout this article.
All graphs in this paper are finite and simple. Let $G$ be a graph. The vertex set of $G$ is denoted by $V(G)$, and the edge set by $E(G)$. We write $|G|$ to mean $|V(G)|$. We refer to $|G|$ as the [*order*]{} of $G$. A [*clique*]{} in an undirected graph $G$ is a subset of $V(G)$ all of whose elements are pairwise adjacent, and an [*independent set*]{} in $G$ is a subset of $V(G)$ all of whose elements are pairwise non-adjacent. We say that a graph $G$ is $H$-free if it does not have $H$ as an induced subgraph. A [*tournament*]{} is a directed graph $T$, where for every two vertices $u,v$ exactly one of $(u,v)$, $(v,u)$ is an edge of $T$ (that is, a directed edge). If $(u,v) \in E(T)$, we say that $u$ is [*adjacent to*]{} $v$, and that $v$ is [*adjacent from*]{} $u$. Equivalently, $v$ is an *outneighbor* of $u$ and $u$ is an *inneighbor* of $v$. For a given $X \subseteq V(T)$ we denote by $T|X$ a subtournament of $T$ induced by a vertex set $X$. For a graph $G$ and a subset $V \in V(G)$ we denote by $G \setminus V$ a graph obtained from $G$ by deleting $V$ and all edges of $G$ that are: adjacent to a vertex $v \in V$ in the undirected setting and: adjacent to or from a vertex $v \in V$ in the directed setting. A tournament is [*transitive*]{} if it contains no directed cycle (equivalently, no directed cycle of length three). A set is *transitive* if it induces a transitive subtournament. A *homogeneous set* in a graph $G$ is a subset $V \subseteq V(G)$ such that if a vertex $v \in V(G) \setminus V$ is adjacent to a vertex of $V$ then it is adjacent to all the vertices of $V$. A graph $G$ is *prime* if all its homogeneous sets other than $V(G)$ are singletons. For two disjoint subsets of the vertices $X,Y \subseteq V(G)$ of a graph $G$ we say that $\textit{$X$ is complete to $Y$}$ if every vertex of $X$ is adjacent to every vertex of $Y$. (Last three definitions are valid in both undirected and directed setting).
A *directed path $P_{k}$* (or simply *a path $P_{k}$* if it is clear from the context that a graph under consideration is a tournament) is a tournament with vertex set $V(P_{k}) = \{v_{1},...,v_{k}\}$ and an ordering of vertices $(v_{1},...,v_{k})$ under which the backward edges are exactly of the form: $(v_{i+1},v_{i})$ for $i=1,...,k-1$. We call this ordering a *path ordering*. If $(v_{1},...,v_{k})$ is a path ordering of $P_{k}$, then we call an ordering $(v_{1},v_{3},v_{2},v_{5},v_{4},...,)$ a *matching ordering* since under this ordering a graph of backward edges is a matching. Let $\mathcal{B}_{P_{k}}=(E_{1},...E_{\lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor})$ be a sequence of backward edges of this ordering, where the backward edges are ordered in $\mathcal{B}_{P_{k}}$ according to the location of their left ends in the matching ordering of $P_{k}$. For the $ith$ backward edge $E_{i}$ we denote by $left(i)$ the location in the matching ordering of $P_{k}$ of the left end of $E_{i}$ and by $right(i)$ the location in the matching ordering of $P_{k}$ of the right end of $E_{i}$ ($left(i),right(i) \in \{1,...,k\}$). Notice that if $k \neq 4$ then a directed path $P_{k}$ is prime.
We are ready to state our results. Our main result is as follows.
\[alg-theorem1\] There exists a universal constant $c>0$ such that for any $k>0$ there is an algorithm finding a transitive set of order $n^{\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$ in the $P_{k}$-free $n$-vertex tournament in $O(n^{2})$ time.
As a simple corollary we obtain:
\[alg-theorem2\] There exists a universal constant $c>0$ such that for any $k>0$ there is an algorithm constructing acyclic coloring of the $P_{k}$-free $n$-vertex tournament using only $n^{1-\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$ colors. Furthermore, the algorithm has running time $O(n^{3-\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}})$.
This result immediately implies the following:
\[thm-dichromatic\] There exists a universal constant $c>0$ such that the dichromatic number of the $P_{k}$-free $n$-vertex tournament satisfies: $$\chi_{a}(P_{k}) \leq n^{1-\frac{c}{k \log(k)^{2}}}.$$
It also serves as the $O(n^{1-\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}})$-approximation algorithm for the optimal acyclic coloring of the $P_{k}$-free $n$-vertex graph.
Let us switch now to the conjecture of Erdős and Hajnal. The conjecture ([@erdos0]) says that:
\[erdos-hajnal-conjecture-undirected\] For every undirected graph $H$ there exists a constant $\epsilon(H)>0$ such that the following holds: every $H$-free graph $G$ contains a clique or a stable set of size at least $|G|^{\epsilon(H)}$.
In its directed equivalent version ([@alon]) undirected graphs are replaced by tournaments and cliques/stable sets by transitive subtournaments:
\[erdos-hajnal-conjecture-directed\] For every tournament $H$ there exists a constant $\epsilon(H)>0$ such that the following holds: every $H$-free tournament $T$ contains a transitive subtournament of order at least $|T|^{\epsilon(H)}$.
The coefficient $\epsilon(H)$ from the statement of the conjecture is called *the Erdős-Hajnal coefficient*. The conjecture was proven so far only for some very special forbidden patterns. Those of them that are prime are particularly important since if the conjecture is true for all prime graphs then it is true in general ([@alon]). There are no prime undirected graphs of order at least six for which the conjecture is known to be true and for a long time that was the case also in the directed setting. Very recently an infinite family of prime tournaments satisfying the conjecture was constructed ([@choromanski]). Among them were directed paths $P_{k}$. The proof of the conjecture for them provided only purely theoretical guarantees since all lower bounds for $\epsilon(H)$ were obtained by the regularity lemma. Our algorithm gives lower bounds on the Erdős-Hajnal coefficient that are very close to the best upper bounds since we have the following ([@choromanski2]):
\[uppertheorem\] There exists a constant $c>0$ such that every prime tournament $H$ satisfies: $$\epsilon(H) \leq \frac{c\log(|H|)}{|H|}.$$
Combining this result with the lower bounds produced by our algorithm, we obtain the following result regarding the asymptotic behaviour of the Erdős-Hajnal coefficients of directed paths $P_{k}$:
\[simple-theorem\] The Erdős-Hajnal coefficient of the directed path $P_{k}$ satisfies: $$\epsilon(P_{k}) = \frac{1}{k^{1+o(1)}}.$$
So far such precise asymptotics were known only for one infinite family of prime tournaments, so-called *stars* (see: [@choromanski] for a definition of a star). Our results make the family of directed paths the second class of prime tournaments for which these asymptotics are known.
In the next section we present algorithms mentioned in Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] and Theorem \[alg-theorem2\]. In the following section we prove that both algorithms have properties described in these theorems. In the last section we summarize our results and briefly discuss possible extensions of the presented techniques.
The Algorithm
=============
All considered logarithms are of base two from now on. Without loss of generality we will assume that $k=2^{w}$ for some $w>0$. First we will present an algorithm *FindTrans* that finds in the $P_{k}$-free $n$-vertex tournament a transitive subset of size $n^{\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$ for some universal constant $c>0$ (an exact value of this constant may be calculated, but we will not focus on it in the paper). The acyclic coloring algorithm *AcyclicColoring* is a simple application of the former. It runs *FindTrans* to find the first color class, removes it from the tournament, runs *FindTrans* on the remaining tournament to find the second color class, etc.
Algorithm *FindTrans*
---------------------
Before giving a description of the algorithm *FindTrans*, we need to introduce a few more definition. For a tournament $T$ and two disjoint nonempty subsets $X,Y \subseteq V(T)$ we denote $d(X,Y) = \frac{e(X,Y)}{|X||Y|}$, where $e(X,Y)$ is the number of directed edges of $T$ going from $X$ to $Y$. The expression $d(X,Y)$ basically encodes directed density of edges from $X$ to $Y$.
**Input:** $k>1$ and $\alpha$-sequence $\theta=(A_{1},...,A_{k})$ of length $k$ **Output:** $\alpha$-sequence $\theta_{s}$
We say that a sequence $(A_{1},...,A_{l})$ of pairwise disjoint subsets of $V(T)$ is a *$(c,\lambda)$-$\alpha$-sequence of length $l$* if the following holds:
- $|A_{i}| \geq c|T|$ for $i=1,...,l$ and
- $d(A_{i},A_{j}) \geq 1 - \lambda$ for $1 \leq i < j \leq l$.
If the parameters $c$, $\lambda$ of the *$(c,\lambda)$-$\alpha$-sequence* are not important, we simply refer to it as an $\alpha$-sequence.
We say that a $(c,\lambda)$-$\alpha$-sequence $(A_{1},...,A_{l})$ of length $l$ is *smooth* if the following strenghtening of the second condition from the definition above holds:
- $d(\{x\},A_{j}) \geq 1 - \lambda$ for $x \in A_{i}$, $1 \leq i < j \leq l$ and,
- $d(A_{i},\{y\}) \geq 1 - \lambda$ for $y \in A_{j}$, $1 \leq i < j \leq l$.
Given an $\alpha$-sequence $\theta = (A_{1},...,A_{l})$, a vertex $v \in A_{i}$ and $j \neq i$ we denote by $N^{\theta}_{v}(j)$:
- a set of all outneighbors of $v$ from $A_{j}$ if $j>i$ and,
- a set of all inneighbors of $v$ from $A_{j}$ if $j<i$.
For an $\alpha$-sequence $\theta=(A_{1},...,A_{l})$ we denote: $V(\theta)=A_{1} \cup ... \cup A_{l}$. Let $\theta_{1}=(A_{1},...,A_{l})$ and $\theta_{2}=(B_{1},...,B_{r})$ be two disjoint $\alpha$-sequences. We denote by $\theta_{1} \otimes \theta_{2}$ the $\alpha$-sequence $(A_{1},...,A_{l},B_{1},...,B_{r})$. For a set $A$ and $m \leq |A|$ we denote by $tr(A, m)$ the truncated version of $A$ obtained by taking arbitrarily its $m$ elements. For an $\alpha$-sequence $\theta = (A_{1},...,A_{l})$ we denote: $tr(\theta, m)=(tr(A_{1},m),...,tr(A_{l},m))$. If the order of the given $P_{k}$-free tournament is too small, the algorithm *FindTrans* (Algorithm \[findtrans\]) returns a trivial answer (and it is easy to see that this gives good asymptotics on the coefficient $\epsilon$).
**Input:** $k>0$ and $P_{k}$-free tournament $T$ **Output:** transitive subset in $V(T)$ of order $|T|^{\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$
Otherwise, the algorithm uses two subprocedures: *CreateSequence* that constructs in the $P_{k}$-free tournament $T$ an $\alpha$-sequence of length $k$ and *MakeSmooth* that uses that sequence to construct a smooth $\alpha$-sequence of the same length. The $\textit{CreateSequence}$ procedure does not rely on the structural properties of the $P_{k}$-free tournaments, but just uses the fact that a tournament it operates on is $H$-free for some $k$-vertex forbidden pattern $H$. We will discuss it in much detail later. The *MakeSmooth* procedure (Algorithm \[makesmooth\]) is a standard method for getting rid of these vertices from the given $\alpha$-sequence that have many less in/out-neighbors in some element of the $\alpha$-sequence than the density condition would suggest.
**Input:** $r>1$ and $P_{k}$-free $n$-vertex tournament $T$ **Output:** an $\alpha$-sequence of length $r$ in $T$
Let us assume now that a smooth $\alpha$-sequence of length $k$ is given. The algorithm *FindTrans* tries to reconstruct a directed path $P_{k}$ by looking for its $ith$ vertex in the matching ordering of $P_{k}$ in the $ith$ element of the $\alpha$-sequence $\theta_{s}$. This is conducted backward edge by backward edge in the matching ordering of $P_{k}$. If the backward edge is not found then two linear-size subsets $A_{u},A_{v}$ of two distinct elements from the original $\alpha$-sequence such that $A_{u}$ is complete to $A_{v}$ are detected. Otherwise an $\alpha$-sequence is updated. The update is done in such a way that if in the new $\alpha$-sequence the other backward edges of the matching ordering of $P_{k}$ are found then they can be combined with the edges that were already found to reconstruct a copy of $P_{k}$. Since a tournament $T$ the algorithm is working on is $P_{k}$-free, at some point of its execution two subsets $A_{u},A_{v}$ mentioned above with $d(A_{u},A_{v})=1$ will be detected. When that happens, the algorithm is run recursively on the tournaments: $T|X$ and $T|Y$ and later two transitive subsets found in these two recursive runs are merged.
Let us discuss now subprocedure *CreateSequence* (Algorithm \[createsequence\]) that constructs an $\alpha$-sequence of a specified length $r$ (without loss of generality we will assume that $r=2^{w}$ for some $w>0$). As mentioned before, the procedure can be applied for any forbidden pattern, not only $P_{k}$. Its main ingredient is called *MakeDensePair* and is responsible for constructing two disjoint linear sets $X,Y$ in the $P_{k}$-free tournament such that the directed density $d(X,Y)$ is very close to one.
**Input:** a set $\{S_{i_{1}},...,S_{i_{p}}\}$ such that $S_{i_{1}} \cup ... \cup S_{i_{p}}$ induces a $P_{k}$-free tournament, a $p$-vertex tournament $H$ with $V(H)=\{h_{i_{1}},..,h_{i_{p}}\}$ and parameter $n$ **Output:** a pair of disjoint sets $(X,Y)$
The procedure *CreateSequence* acts as follows. First two linear sets $X,Y$ of the $P_{k}$-free tournament and with $d(X,Y) \geq 1 - \lambda$ for some $0<\lambda \ll 1$ are found with the use of the procedure *MakeDensePair*. If $r=2$ then $(X,Y)$ is output and the procedure is ends. Otherwise, in both $X$ and $Y$ the $\alpha$-sequences of length $\frac{r}{2}$ are constructed recursively. When the sequence is constructed, it is deleted from $X$ or $Y$ and a new sequence is being constructed in the remaining set. This is repeated as long there are at least half of the vertices left in $X$ or $Y$. Let $X_{1},X_{2},...$ denote the sets of the vertices of the $\alpha$-sequences constructed in $X$ and let $Y_{1},Y_{2},...$ denote the sets of the vertices of the $\alpha$-sequences constructed in $Y$. The algorithm is looking for sets $X_{i}$,$Y_{j}$ such that $d(X_{i},Y_{j}) \geq 1 - 4\lambda$. The way sets $X,Y$ were constructed by *MakeDensePair* as well as simple density arguments (see: the analysis of the algorithm) imply that such sets do exist. Thus even though in the formal description of *CreateSequence* we assume that the sets may not be found (and then two arbitrary sets $X_{i}$, $Y_{j}$) are taken, this in fact will never happen. The $\alpha$-sequence of length $r$ is output simply by combining two $\alpha$-sequences of length $\frac{r}{2}$ corresponding to $X_{i}$ and $Y_{j}$.
It remains to explain how the procedure *MakeDensePair* works (Algorithm \[makedensepair\]). The procedure is given a set of sets $S_{i_{1}},...,S_{i_{p}} \subseteq V(T)$ of linear size each, for some $1 < p \leq k$, a $p$-vertex tournament $H=\{h_{i_{1}},...,h_{i_{p}}\}$, and a parameter $n$. Parameter $n$ is the remembered size of the tournament which is an input of the *CreateSequence* procedure initializing the recursive runs of *MakeDensePair*.
Notice that $T|S_{i_{1}} \cup ... \cup S_{i_{p}}$ is $H$-free. The procedure tries to reconstruct $H$ in $T|S_{i_{1}} \cup ... \cup S_{i_{p}}$ in such a way that $h_{i_{j}}$ is found in $S_{i_{j}}$. It first verifies whether a good candidate for $h_{i_{1}}$ exists in $S_{i_{1}}$. A good candidate should have substantial number of outneighbors in each $S_{i_{j}}$ such that $(h_{i_{1}},h_{i_{j}})$ is an edge in $H$ and a substantial number of inneighbors in each $S_{i_{j}}$ such that $(h_{i_{j}},h_{i_{1}})$ is an edge in $H$. If such a vertex $v$ in $S_{i_{1}}$ is found then the remaining sets are modified accordingly and the algorithm tries to reconstruct $H \setminus \{h_{i_{1}}\}$ in their modified versions. This is done by a recursive run of the procedure on the set of modified sets $S_{i_{2}},...,S_{i_{p}}$. Since a tournament that the procedure operates on is $H$-free, at some recursive run no good candidate will be found. As we will see in the theoretical analysis, it will imply (by Pigeonhole Principle) the existence of two linear-size sets $X,Y$ with density $d(X,Y)$ close to one. These sets will be output by the procedure.
**Input:** $k>0$ and $P_{k}$-free tournament $T$ **Output:** an acyclic coloring of $T$ using $|T|^{1-\frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}}$ colors
The use of parameter $n$ enables us to output two sets of the same desired size. This balanceness will play important role in the theoretical analysis of the procedure *CreateSequence* that uses *MakeDensePair*.
Algorithm *AcyclicColoring*
---------------------------
The acyclic coloring algorithm (Algorithm \[alg-color\]) is a simple wrapper for the *FindTrans* procedure. It runs this procedure several times to obtain the partitioning of the $P_{k}$- free tournament $T$ into transitive sets. Each transitive set gets its own color and this coloring is as an acyclic coloring that is being output.
Analysis
========
Introduction
------------
To show that presented algorithms are correct we need to prove Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] and Theorem \[alg-theorem2\]. Let us assume first that Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] is true. Under this assumption it is easy to prove Theorem \[alg-theorem2\].
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Let $\epsilon = \frac{c}{k\log(k)^{2}}$, where $k$ is as in Theorem \[alg-theorem1\]. The Algorithm \[alg-color\] keeps finding transitive subtournaments of order at least $(\frac{n}{2})^{\epsilon}$ as long there are at least $\frac{n}{2}$ vertices left in the tournament. By the time the algorithm reaches the state with less than $\frac{n}{2}$ vertices remaining, at most $O(n^{1-\epsilon})$ transitive subtournaments are found. Then the algorithm is run on the remaining graph of less than $\frac{n}{2}$ vertices. The algorithm stops when there are no vertices left. When it happens all the vertices of the tournament are partitioned into transitive subsets. If we denote by $H(n)$ the total number of the transitive subtournaments found then we have the following simple recurrence formula: $H(n) \leq O(n^{1-\epsilon}) + H(\frac{n}{2})$, which immediately gives us: $H(n) = O(n^{1-\epsilon})$. Thus we obtain desired approximation of the acyclic coloring problem. Since finding each transitive subset takes quadratic time and at most $O(n^{1-\epsilon})$ transitive subsets are constructed, the total running time of the coloring algorithm is as stated in Theorem \[alg-theorem2\].
Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] is a result of the series of lemmas:
\[lemma1\] Let $\lambda = \frac{1}{32k^{4}}$. A run of Algorithm *MakeDensePair* from *CreateSequence* outputs two disjoint subsets $X,Y$ of the given $n$-vertex tournament such that $d(X,Y) \geq 1 - \lambda$ and $|X|=|Y| = cn$ where: $c = \frac{\lambda^{k}}{k^{2}}$, provided that $n > k$.
The next lemma gives us the parameters of the $\alpha$-sequence constructed by procedure *CreateSequence*.
\[lemma2\] Let $\lambda = \frac{1}{32k^{4}}$. If $n>\frac{k}{c_{r}}$ then Algorithm *CreateSequence* constructs a $(c_{r},\lambda_{r})$-$\alpha$-sequence of length $r$ in the given $n$-vertex tournament, where: $c_{r} = c \cdot (\frac{c}{2})^{\log(r)-1}$, $c=\frac{\lambda^{k}}{k^{2}}$, $\lambda_{r} = 4\lambda r^{2}$ for $r>2$ and $\lambda_{2}=\lambda$. Furthermore, each element of the constructed $\alpha$-sequence is of the same size $c_{r} n$.
The parameters of the smooth $\alpha$-sequence produced by *MakeSmooth* from the input $\alpha$-sequence are given in the next lemma:
\[lemma3\] Let $\lambda = \frac{1}{32k^{4}}$. Assume that the input to the Algorithm $MakeSmooth$ is a $(c_{k},\lambda_{k})$-$\alpha$-sequence of length $k$ for some $c_{k}>0$ and $\lambda_{k}=4\lambda k^{2}$. Then Algorithm $MakeSmooth$ from $\textit{FindTrans}$ procedure constructs a smooth $(\frac{c_{k}}{2},\lambda_{f})$-$\alpha$-sequence, where: $\lambda_{f} = 4k \lambda_{k}$.
The proof of Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] as well as the proofs of the above lemmas are given in the next subsection.
Proof of Theorem \[alg-theorem1\]
---------------------------------
We start with the following simple lemma.
\[densitylemma\] Let $T$ be a tournament. Assume that for two disjoint subsets $X,Y \subseteq V(T)$ the following holds: $d(X,Y) \geq 1 - \lambda$ for some $\lambda < 1$. Assume that $X_{1} \subseteq X$, $Y_{1} \subseteq Y$, $X_{1} \geq c_{1} |X|$, $Y_{1} \geq c_{2} |Y|$ for some $0 < c_{1},c_{2} < 1$. Then $d(X_{1},Y_{1}) \geq 1 - \frac{\lambda}{c_{1}c_{2}}$.
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Let $e_{Y,X}$ be the number of directed edges from $Y$ to $X$ and let $e_{Y_{1},X_{1}}$ be the number of directed edges from $Y_{1}$ to $X_{1}$. We have: $$e_{Y,X}=(1-d(X,Y))|X||Y| \leq \lambda|X||Y|,$$ since $d(X,Y) \geq 1 - \lambda$. Similarly: $e_{Y_{1},X_{1}}=(1-d(X_{1},Y_{1}))|X_{1}||Y_{1}|$. Assume by contradiction that $d(X_{1},Y_{1}) < 1 - \frac{\lambda}{c_{1}c_{2}}$. Then, since $X_{1} \geq c_{1} |X|$, $Y_{1} \geq c_{2} |Y|$, we have: $e_{Y_{1},X_{1}} > \lambda |X||Y|$. Since $e_{Y,X} \geq e_{Y_{1},X_{1}}$, we get: $e_{Y,X} > \lambda |X||Y|$, contradiction.
Let us assume that lemmas: \[lemma2\] and \[lemma3\] from the main body of the paper are correct. We will first show how Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] is implied by them. Then we will prove all three lemmas (Lemma \[lemma1\] will be used to prove Lemma \[lemma2\]). The proof of Theorem \[alg-theorem1\] is given below.\
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{} We will proceed by induction on the size of the $P_{k}$-free tournament $T$. Let $\epsilon = \frac{C}{k\log(k)^{2}}$, where $C>0$ is a small enough universal constant. Let us consider first the case when $|T| \leq \frac{k}{c_{k}}$, where $c_{k}$ is as in Algorithm *FindTrans*. In this setting $|T|$ is of the order $k^{C^{'} k\log(k)}$ for some universal constant $C^{'}>0$ so the output of the algorithm trivially satisfies conditions of Theorem \[alg-theorem1\]. Now let us consider more interesting case when $|T| > \frac{k}{c_{k}}$. Notice then that the requirement from Lemma \[lemma2\] regarding the size of the input $n$-vertex $P_{k}$-free tournament is trivially satisfied. Assuming that lemmas: \[lemma2\] and \[lemma3\] are true, we conclude that initially the $\alpha$-sequence $\theta_{s}$ from *FindTrans* is a smooth $(\frac{c_{k}}{2}, \lambda_{f})$-$\alpha$-sequence, where: $c_{k}=c \cdot (\frac{c}{2})^{\log(k)-1}$, $\lambda_{f} = 4k \lambda_{k}$, $\lambda_{k} = 4\lambda k^{2}$, $c=\frac{\lambda^{k}}{k^{2}}$ and $\lambda = \frac{1}{32k^{4}}$. Now consider the for-loop in the algorithm. Notice that it cannot be the case that in each run of the loop an edge $e=(y,x)$ is found. Indeed, assume otherwise and denote the set of edges found in all $\frac{k}{2}$ runs by $\{(y_{1},x_{1}),...,(y_{\frac{k}{2}},x_{\frac{k}{2}})\}$. Denote by $\sigma(y_{i})$ this $j$ that satisfies: $y_{i} \in A_{j}$. Similarly, denote by $\sigma(x_{i})$ this $j$ that satisfies: $x_{i} \in A_{j}$. Notice that the vertices $x_{1},y_{1},...,x_{\frac{k}{2}},y_{\frac{k}{2}}$ induce a copy of $P_{k}$ and besides the ordering of $\{x_{1},y_{1},...,x_{\frac{k}{2}},y_{\frac{k}{2}}\}$ induced by $\sigma$ is a matching ordering under which the set of backward edges is exactly: $\{(y_{1},x_{1}),...,(y_{\frac{k}{2}},x_{\frac{k}{2}})\}$. This is a straightforward conclusion from the way the $\alpha$-sequence $\theta_{s}$ is updated. That however contradicts the fact that the tournament the algorithm operates on is $P_{k}$-free. Thus we can assume that in some run of the main for-loop the algorithm recursively runs itself on $T|A_{u}$ and $T|A_{v}$ for some $A_{u},A_{v}$ from the given $\alpha$-sequence. Notice that whenever a backward edge $(y,x)$ is found the size of each $A_{i}$ in the updated $\alpha$-sequence decreases by at most $2 \cdot \frac{c_{k}}{2}n \lambda_{f}$. Thus at every stage of the execution of the algorithm each $A_{i}$ is of order at least $\frac{c_{k}}{2}n - k \cdot \frac{c_{k}}{2}n \lambda_{f}$ which is at least $\frac{c_{k}}{4}n$ (since $\lambda_{f} = 4k \lambda_{k} \leq \frac{1}{2k}$). Therefore when two recursive runs of the procedure *FindTrans* are conducted, each run operates on the tournament of size at least $\frac{c_{k}}{4}n$. By induction, a transitive tournament of order at least $2(\frac{c_{k}}{4}n)^{\epsilon}$ is produced. It remains to prove that under our choice of $\epsilon$ (for $C>0$ small enough) we have: $2(\frac{c_{k}}{4}n)^{\epsilon} \geq n^{\epsilon}$, i.e $\epsilon \leq \frac{1}{\log(\frac{4}{c_{k}})}$. We leave it to the reader.
Let us comment now on the running time of the algorithm. First notice that procedure *MakeDensePair* runs in quadratic time. Throughout its execution it is calling itself at most $k$ times and the time it takes between any two recursive calls is clearly at most quadratic. This in particular implies that procedure *CreateSequence* also runs in quadratic time. Indeed, throughout its execution at most $O(k)$ calls of the procedure *MakeDensePair* are conducted and its other operations take altogether at most quadratic time. Furthermore, Algorithm *MakeSmooth* is clearly quadratic and besides a naive implementation of each run of the for-loop in the procedure *FindTrans* takes at most quadratic time. Thus Algorithm *FindTrans* has quadratic running time.
It remains to prove lemmas: \[lemma1\], \[lemma2\], \[lemma3\]. We start with Lemma \[lemma3\].
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Let $\theta=(A_{1},...,A_{k})$ be the input $\alpha$-sequence. By Lemma \[densitylemma\] we get: $|C_{i,j}| \leq \frac{|A_{i}|}{2k}$. Thus for any $i=1,...,k$ we have: $|\bigcup_{j \neq i} C_{i,j}| \leq \frac{|A_{i}|}{2}$. This implies in particular that each updated $A_{i}$ is of size at least half the size of the original one. Now take some $1 \leq i < j \leq k$ and a vertex $v \in A_{i}^{n}$, where $A_{i}^{n}$ is the new version of $A_{i}$ after the update. By the definition of $A_{i}^{n}$ we know that $v$ has at most $2k \lambda_{k} |A_{j}|$ inneighbors from $A_{j}$. Denote by $A_{j}^{n}$ the new version of $A_{j}$ after the update. Then we can conclude that $v$ has at most $4k \lambda_{k} |A_{j}^{n}|$ inneighbors from $A_{j}^{n}$. Similar analysis can be conducted for $1 \leq j < i \leq k$. That completes the proof.
Now we prove Lemma \[lemma2\] assuming that Lemma 1 is true.
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}We proceed by induction on $r$. For $r=2$ Algorithm *CreateSequence* is reduced to procedure *MakeDensePair* thus the result follows by Lemma \[lemma1\]. Let us assume now that $r>2$. Then, by induction and Lemma \[lemma1\], each element of each $\alpha$-sequence $L$ is of size at least $c_{\frac{r}{2}} \cdot \frac{cn}{2}$ and at most $c_{\frac{r}{2}} \cdot cn$. Similarly, each element of each $\alpha$-sequence $R$ is of size at least $c_{\frac{r}{2}} \cdot \frac{cn}{2}$ and at most $c_{\frac{r}{2}} \cdot cn$. In particular, the size of each element of an arbitrary $L \in \mathcal{L}$ is at most twice the size of each element of an arbitrary $R \in \mathcal{R}$ and vice versa: the size of each element of an arbitrary $R \in \mathcal{R}$ is at most twice the size of each element of an arbitrary $R \in \mathcal{R}$. By Lemma \[lemma1\], the directed density between initial sets $X$ and $Y$ is at least $1-\lambda$. Denote $X_{1} = \bigcup_{L \in \mathcal{L}}$ and $Y_{1} = \bigcup_{R \in \mathcal{R}}$, where: $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ are taken when both while-loops in the algorithm are completed. We trivially have: $|X_{1}| \geq \frac{|X|}{2}$ and $|Y_{1}| \geq \frac{|Y|}{2}$. Thus by Lemma \[densitylemma\], we obtain: $d(X_{1},Y_{1}) \geq 1 - 4\lambda$. Notice that $d(X_{1},Y_{1}) = \frac{\sum_{L \in \mathcal{L},R \in \mathcal{R}}d(V(L),V(R))|V(L)||V(R)|}{|X_{1}||Y_{1}|}$. Let us assume first that there do not exist $L \in \mathcal{L}, R \in \mathcal{R}$ such that $d(V(L),V(R)) \geq 1-4\lambda$. But then, by the above observation, we have: $d(X_{1},Y_{1}) < \frac{\sum_{L \in \mathcal{L},R \in \mathcal{R}}(1-4\lambda)|V(L)||V(R)|}{|X_{1}||Y_{1}|}$. Thus $d(X_{1},Y_{1}) < (1-4\lambda) \frac{\sum_{L \in \mathcal{L},R \in \mathcal{R}}|V(L)||V(R)|}{|X_{1}||Y_{1}|} = 1-4\lambda$, contradiction. Therefore $\alpha$-sequences $L_{0},R_{0}$ such that $d(V(L_{0}),V(R_{0})) \geq 1-4\lambda$ will be found. Notice that, by induction and Lemma \[lemma1\] all elements of $L_{0}$ are of the same size. Similarly, all elements of $R_{0}$ are of the same size. Thus, by our previous observations and Lemma \[densitylemma\], we can conclude that in the truncated version of the $R_{0}$-part of the output $\alpha$-sequence the density between an element appearing earlier in the sequence and an element appearing later is at least $1-4 \lambda_{\frac{r}{2}}$. Similarly, the directed density between an element of the final output that is from the $L_{0}$-part of the sequence and the one that is from the $R_{0}$-part of the sequence is at least $1 - 4\lambda \cdot 4 (\frac{r}{2})^{2}$. This leads us to the following recursive formula: $\lambda_{r} = \max(4 \lambda_{\frac{r}{2}}, 4\lambda \cdot 4 (\frac{r}{2})^{2})$ for $r>2$ and $\lambda_{2}=\lambda$. One can easily check that this recursion has a solution which is exactly of the form given in the statement of Lemma \[lemma2\]. Furthermore, trivially each element of the output $\alpha$-sequence is forced to be of order $\frac{cn}{2}c_{\frac{r}{2}}$, which leads to the recursive formula on $c_{r}$ from the statement of Lemma \[lemma2\].
It remains to prove Lemma \[lemma1\].
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Notice first that output sets $X$ and $Y$ are forced to be of the size given in the statement of Lemma \[lemma1\]. Indeed, sets: $P_{j_{0}}^{t}$ and $W_{i}$ are of size $m$ each which is exactly $cn$ for $c=\frac{\lambda^{k}}{k^{2}}$. The crucial observation is that the longest path in the tree of recursive calls of the procedure *MakeDensePair* is of length at most $k$. Assume otherwise and choose $k$ consecutive vertices $v_{0}$ constructed in $k$ consecutive recursive calls. Denote these vertices as: $v_{0}^{1},...,v_{0}^{k}$. Notice that from the way each $v_{0}^{i}$ is constructed we can immediately deduce that $\{v_{0}^{1},...,v_{0}^{k}\}$ induce a copy of $P_{k}$, contradiction. So after the procedure *MakeDensePair* is called first time by *CreateSequence*, it executes at most $k$ its recursive calls. Now notice that the size of the set $S_{i_{j}}$ from the input of the procedure decreases between its two consecutive recursive calls exactly by a factor of $\frac{1}{\lambda}$. Thus when a set $P_{j_{0}}$ is found the size of $S_{j_{0}}$ is $\frac{n}{k}\lambda^{it}$, where $it\leq k$ is the number of recursive calls that were run. By the definition of $P_{j_{0}}$ we have one of two possible options:
- every vertex of $P_{j_{0}}$ is adjacent to at least $(1-\lambda)|S_{j_{0}}|$ vertices of $S_{j_{0}}$ or
- every vertex of $P_{j_{0}}$ is adjacent from at least $(1-\lambda)|S_{j_{0}}|$ vertices of $S_{j_{0}}$.
In particular we have: $d(P_{j_{0}}^{t},S_{j_{0}}) \geq 1 - \lambda$ or $d(P_{j_{0}}^{t},S_{j_{0}}) \leq \lambda$. Assume without loss of generality that the former holds. Then by the same density argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma2\] we can conclude that $d(P_{j_{0}}^{t},W_{l_{max}}) \geq 1 - \lambda$. Finally, notice that, as we have already mentioned at the very beginning of the proof, both $P_{j_{0}}^{t}$ and $W_{l_{max}}$ are of the desired length $m$. That completes the proof.
Infinite families of $P_{k}$-free tournaments with small transitive subsets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we show that our results from the main body of the paper are tight up to the $\log(k)$-factor in the following sense: there exists an infinite family of $P_{k}$-free tournaments with largest transitive subsets of order $O(n^{\frac{c\log(k)}{k}})$. Presented construction is based on [@choromanski2]. We need one more definition. Let $S, F$ be two tournaments and denote $V(S)=\{s_{1},...,s_{|S|}\}$. We denote by $S \times F$ a tournament $T$ with the vertex set $V(T) = V_{1} \cup ... \cup V_{|S|}$, where each $V_{i}$ induces a copy of $F$ and for any $1 \leq i < j \leq |S|, x \in V_{i}, y \in V_{j}$ we have the following: $x$ is adjacent to $y$ iff $s_{i}$ is adjacent to $s_{j}$ in $S$.
Fix $k>0$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $k>4$. Notice first that there exists a universal constant $c>0$ and a tournament $B$ on $2^{ck}$ vertices with largest transitive subtournaments of order $k$ and that is $P_{k}$-free. Such a tournament may be easily constructed randomly by fixing $2^{ck}$ vertices and choosing the direction of each edge independently at random with probability $\frac{1}{2}$ (standard probabilistic argument shows that most of tournaments constructed according to this procedure satisfy the condition regarding sizes of their transitive subsets and $P_{k}$-freeness).
Now we define the following infinite family $\mathcal{F}$ of tournaments:
- $F_{0}$ is a one-vertex tournament,
- $F_{i+1}=B \times F_{i}$ for $i=0,1,...$.
Each tournament $F_{i} \in \mathcal{F}$ is $P_{k}$-free.
The proof is by induction on $i$. Induction base is trivial. Now let us assume that all $F_{i}$s for $i \leq i_{0}$ are $P_{k}$-free and let us take tournament $F_{i_{0}+1}$. Denote the copies of $F_{i_{0}}$ that build $F_{i_{0}+1}$ as: $T_{1},...,T_{|S|}$. Assume by contradiction that $P$ is a subtournament of $F_{i_{0}+1}$ that is isomorphic to $P_{k}$. Notice first that $|V(P) \cap V(T_{j})| < k$ for $j=1,...,|S|$. Indeed, that follows from the fact that clearly every $T_{j}$ is $P_{k}$-free. Now observe that if $|V(P) \cap V(T_{j})| > 0$ then in fact $|V(P) \cap V(T_{j})| = 1$. Otherwise, by the definition of $\mathcal{F}$ and from the previous observation we would conclude that $V(P) \cap V(T_{j})$ is a nontrivial homogeneous subset of $V(P)$ but this contradicts the fact that $P$ is prime. But then we conclude that $P$ is a subtournament of $B$ which obviously contradicts the definition of $B$. That completes the proof.
Now notice that the size of $F_{i+1}$ is exactly $|B|$ times the size of $F_{i}$ and the size of the largest transitive subtournament of $F_{i+1}$ is exactly $tr(B)$ times the size of the largest transitive subtournament of $F_{i}$ for $i=0,1,...$, where $tr(B)$ stands for the size of the largest transitive subset of $B$. That immediately leads to the conclusion that the size of the largest transitive subtournament of $F_{i}$ is of order $|F_{i}|^{\frac{\log(tr(B))}{\log(|B|)}}$. The last expression, by the definition of $B$, is of order $|F_{i}|^{\frac{c\log(k)}{k}}$. Therefore $\mathcal{F}$ is the family we were looking for.
Conclusions
===========
One can easily notice that our methods can be extended for larger classes of forbidden tournaments, for instance tournaments with the ordering of vertices under which the graph of backward edges is a matching. It would be interesting to characterize all classes of tournaments for which presented method (or its minor modifications) works. The approximation ratio of the proposed algorithm may be in practice much better. This is another interesting direction that could be explored.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Dr. Marcin Pilipczuk for useful conversation about this work and very helpful suggestions regarding the manuscript.
[5]{} Alon N., Pach J., Solymosi J.: Ramsey-type theorems with forbidden subgraphs. Combinatorica. [**21**]{} (2001) 155–170. Arora S., Chlamtac E.: New approximation guarantee for chromatic number. Proceedings of the 38th Annual [ACM]{} Symposium on Theory of Computing. (2006) 215–224 Berge C., Chv[á]{}tal V. (eds.): Topics on perfect graphs. North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1984) Berger E., Choromanski K., Chudnovsky M.: Forcing large transitive subtournaments. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. [B]{}. (2014) Blum A., Karger D.: An $\tilde{O}(n^{3/14})$-Coloring Algorithm for 3-Colorable Graphs. Inf. Process. Lett. [**61**]{} (1997) 49–53 Choromanski K.: EH-suprema of tournaments with no nontrivial homogeneous sets. JCTB. (2015) Erdős P., Hajnal A.: Ramsey-type theorems. Discrete Applied Mathematics. [**25**]{} (2001) 37–52.
Kaminski M., Lozin V., Sawada J., Shu X.: A Note on $k$-Colorability of $P_{5}$-Free Graphs. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2008, 33rd International Symposium, [MFCS]{} 2008, Torun, Poland, August 25-29, 2008, Proceedings. (2008) 387–394 Karger D., Motwani R., Sudan M.: Approximate Graph Coloring by Semidefinite Programming. J. [ACM]{}. [**45**]{} (1998) 246–265 Kr[á]{}l D., Kratochv[í]{}l J., Tuza Z., Woeginger G.: Complexity of Coloring Graphs without Forbidden Induced Subgraphs. Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 27th International Workshop, [WG]{} 2001, Boltenhagen, Germany, June 14-16, 2001, Proceedings. (2001) 254–262
Lokshtanov D., Vatshelle M., Villanger Y.: Independent Set in $P_{5}$-Free Graphs in Polynomial Time submitted for publication. (2013) Neumann[-]{}Lara V.: The dichromatic number of a digraph. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. [B]{} [**33**]{} (1982) 265–270
Randerath B., Schiermeyer I.: 3-Colorability in [P]{} for P${}_{\mbox{6}}$-free graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics. [**136**]{} (2004) 299–313 Robertson N., Seymour P.: Graph Minors. [XX.]{} Wagner’s conjecture. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. [B]{}. [**92**]{} (2004) 325–357 Woeginger G., Sgall J.: The complexity of coloring graphs without long induced paths. Acta Cybern. [**15**]{} (2001) 107–117 Choromanski K.: The strong EH-property and the Erdős-Hajnal conjecture, *submitted for publication*.
Choromanski K.: All known prime Erdős-Hajnal tournaments satisfy $\epsilon(H) = \Omega(\frac{1}{|H|^{5}\log(|H|)})$, *submitted for publication*.
Choromanski K., Jebara T.: Coloring tournaments with forbidden substructures, *submitted for publication*.
Berger E., Choromanski K., Chudnovsky M., Fox J., Loebl M., Scott A., Seymour P., Thomassé S.: Tournaments and coloring. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Ser. B 103 (2013), p.1-20.
Choromanski K., Chudnovsky M., Seymour P.: Tournaments with near-linear transitive subsets, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Ser. B (2014).
Choromanski K.: Excluding pairs of tournaments, *submitted for publication*.
Choromanski K.: Upper Bounds for Erd[ö]{}s-Hajnal Coefficients of Tournaments, Journal of Graph Theory (2013).
Choromanski K.: Tournaments with forbidden substructures and the Erd[ö]{}s-Hajnal Conjecture, Ph.D dissertation, Columbia University (2013).
Choromanski K.: Learning how to rank from heavily perturbed statistics-digraph clustering approach, *submitted for publication*.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
McKernel introduces a framework to use kernel approximates in the mini-batch setting with SGD Optimizer as an alternative to Deep Learning. Based on Random Kitchen Sinks [@Rahimi07], we provide a C++ library for Large-scale Machine Learning[^1]. It contains a CPU optimized implementation of the algorithm in [@Le14], that allows the computation of approximated kernel expansions in log-linear time. The algorithm requires to compute the product of matrices Walsh Hadamard. A cache friendly Fast Walsh Hadamard that achieves compelling speed and outperforms current state-of-the-art methods has been developed. McKernel establishes the foundation of a new architecture of learning that allows to obtain large-scale non-linear classification combining lightning kernel expansions and a linear classifier. It travails in the mini-batch setting working analogously to Neural Networks. We show the validity of our method through extensive experiments on MNIST and FASHION-MNIST.\
---
Introduction
============
Kernel methods offer state-of-the-art estimation performance. They provide function classes that are flexible and easy to control in terms of regularization properties. However, the use of kernels in large-scale machine learning problems has been beset with difficulty. This is because using kernel expansions in large datasets is too expensive in terms of computation and storage. In order to solve this problem, [@Le14] proposed an approximation algorithm based on Random Kitchen Sinks by [@Rahimi07], that speeds up the computation of a large range of kernel functions, allowing us to use them in big data. Recent works on the topic build on it to propose state-of-the-art deep learning embeddings, [@Yang15] and [@Hong17].\
In this work, we go beyond former attempts and propose a general framework in lieu of deep learning. Our goal is to integrate current advances in Neural Networks but at the same time propose a well established theoretically sound background.\
[@Wigner60] claims the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. [@Vapnik18] in the same way, state the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in machine learning. Kernel methods originate in rigorous mathematical treatment of the problem, while at the same time are incredibly effective.\
At its heart, McKernel requires scalar multiplications, a permutation, access to trigonometric functions, and two Walsh Hadamard for implementation. The key computational bottleneck here is the Walsh Hadamard. We provide a fast, cache friendly SIMD oriented implementation that outperforms state-of-the-art codes such as Spiral [@Johnson00]. To allow for very compact distribution of models, we use hash functions and a Pseudo-random Permutation for portability. In this way, for each feature dimension, we only need one floating point number.\
In summary, our implementation serves as a drop-in feature generator for linear methods where attributes are generated on-the-fly, such as for regression, classification, or two-sample tests. This obviates the need for explicit kernel computations, particularly on large amounts of data.
#### Outline:
Learning with Kernels is briefly introduced in Section \[sn:learning\]. We begin then with a brief operational description of the feature construction McKernel in Section \[sn:mckernel\]. Fast Walsh Hadamard is enunciated in Section \[sn:wh\]. This is followed by a discussion of the computational issues for a SIMD implementation in Section \[sn:fwh\]. The concepts governing the API are described in Section \[sn:api\]. Large-scale Machine Learning by means of McKernel is discussed in Section \[sn:ml\]. Concepts regarding TIKHONOV regulation are explained in Section \[sn:tikhonov\]. Experimental results can be found in Section \[sn:ea\]. Section \[sn:d\] gives a brief overall discussion.
Learning with Kernels {#sn:learning}
=====================
The problem of learning [@Cortes95; @Cucker01; @Poggio03] arises from the necessity to adapt a model $f: X \to Y$ to a given training set of data $S_{n}=(x_{c},y_{c})_{c=1}^{n}$, with $X \subset R^{n}$ being closed and $Y \subset R$, having $f$ good generalization properties.\
Let $(x_{c},y_{c})^{n}_{c=1}$ be the data. Then, we pick a function $k_{x}(x') = k(x,x')$ symmetric, positive definite and continuous on $X \times X$. And set $f: X \to Y$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) = \sum_{z=0}^{n}t_{z}k_{x_{z}}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $t=(t_{1},\ldots,t_{n})\in R^{n}$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
(n\gamma I+K)t = y,
\label{etn:learning}\end{aligned}$$
where matrix $I$ is the identity, $K$ is the matrix square positive definite with elements $k_{c,r} = k(x_{c},x_{r})$ and $\gamma > 0$ in $R$.\
It turns out this linear system of equations in $n$ variables is well-posed as $K$ is positive and $(n\gamma I+K)$ is strictly positive.\
The intuition behind this algorithm, for instance given the Gaussian $$\begin{aligned}
k(x,x')=\exp \left(-\frac{|| x - x' ||^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}\right),
\label{etn:rbf}\end{aligned}$$ is that we approximate the unknown function by a weighted superposition of Gaussians, each centered at location $x_{c}$ of one of the $n$ examples. The weight $t_{c}$ of each gaussian is chosen to minimize the error on the training set. The $\sigma$ of the Gaussian, together with $\gamma$, controls the degree of smoothing, of noise tolerance and generalization.\
[@Vapnik18] propose a generalization of this framework by the use of invariants. Equation \[etn:learning\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
(n\gamma I+VK)t = Vy,
\label{etn:learning2}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ takes into account mutual positions of observed vectors and elements $V(c,z)$ can be computed for high-dimensional problems as follows $$\begin{aligned}
V(c,z) = \sum^{d}_{k=1} \left( t_{k} - \max (x^{k}_{c}, x^{k}_{z}) \right),
\label{etn:learning3}\end{aligned}$$ with $0 \leq x_{k} \leq t_{k}$. Matrix $V$ is a symmetric non-negative matrix. The main idea is to take into account that the desired decision rule is related to the conditional probability function of the observations.
McKernel {#sn:mckernel}
========
Kernel methods work by defining a kernel function $k(x,x')$ on a domain $X$. We can write $k$ as inner product between feature maps, as follows $$\begin{aligned}
k(x,x') = \langle \phi(x),\phi(x')\rangle\end{aligned}$$
for some suitably chosen $\phi$. Random Kitchen Sinks [@Rahimi07] approximate this feature mapping $\phi$ by a FOURIER expansion in the case of radial basis function kernels, scilicet whenever $k(x,x') = \kappa(x-x')$. This is possible since the FOURIER transform diagonalizes the corresponding integral operator. This leads to $$\begin{aligned}
k(x,x') = \int \exp{i \langle w,x\rangle} \exp{-i \langle w,x\rangle} d\rho(w)\end{aligned}$$
for some $L_2$ measurable function $\rho(\omega) \geq 0$ that is given by the FOURIER transform of $\kappa$. Random Kitchen Sinks exploit this by replacing the integral by sampling $\omega \sim \rho(\omega)/\|\rho\|_1$. This allows for finite dimensional expansions but it is costly due to the large number of inner products required. Fastfood resolves this for rotationally invariant $\kappa$ by providing a fast approximation of the matrix $W
:= [\omega_1, \ldots \omega_n]$.
This is best seen for the RBF kernel, Equation \[etn:rbf\]. Since FOURIER transforms of Gaussians are Gaussians, albeit with inverse covariance, it follows that $\rho(\omega) \propto \exp \left(-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}
\|\omega\|^2\right)$ and that $W$ contains random variables i.i.d Gaussian. It is this matrix that Fastfood approximates via $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{Z} := \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{n}} C H G \Pi H B
\label{etn:mckernel}\end{aligned}$$ Here $C, G$ and $B$ are diagonal matrices, $\Pi$ is a random permutation matrix and $H$ is the Hadamard. Whenever the number of rows in $W$ exceeds the dimensionality of the data, we can simply generate multiple instances of $\hat{Z}$, drawn i.i.d, until the required number of dimensions is obtained.
This is a matrix with entries $B_{kk} \in \{\pm 1\}$, drawn from the uniform distribution. To avoid memory footprint, we simply use Murmurhash as hash function and extract bits from $h(k,x)$ with $x \in \{0, \ldots N\}$.\
This matrix is iteratively composed of $H_{2n} =\begin{bmatrix}
H_{n} & H_{n}\\
H_{n} & -H_{n}
\end{bmatrix}$. It is fixed and matrix-vector products are carried out efficiently in $O(n \log n)$ time using the Fast Walsh Hadamard. We will discuss implementation details for a fast variant in Section \[sn:fwh\].\
We generate a random permutation using the FISHER-YATES shuffle. That is, given a list $L = \{1, \ldots n\}$ we generate permutations recursively as follows: pick a random element from $L$. Use this as the image of $n$ and move $n$ to the position where the element was removed. The algorithm runs in linear time and its coefficients can be stored in $O(n)$ space. Moreover, to obtain a deterministic mapping, replace the random number generator with calls to the hash function.\
This is a diagonal matrix with entries i.i.d Gaussian. We generate the random variates using the BOX-MULLER transform [@Box58] while substituting the random number generator by calls to the hash function to allow us to recompute the values at any time without the need to store random numbers.\
This is a random scaling operator whose behavior depends on the type of kernel chosen, such as the RBF MATÉRN Kernel, the RBF Kernel or any other radial spectral distribution, [@Yang14].
Ultimately, compute the feature pairs by assigning $$\begin{aligned}
[\cos(\hat{Z}x),\sin(\hat{Z}x)].
\label{etn:mcfeatures}\end{aligned}$$
In particular, McKernel computes the features by using the real version of the complex feature map $\phi$ in [@Rahimi07]. SIMD vectorized instructions and cache locality are used to increase speed performance. These allow a speed improvement of 18x times for a $2^{24}$ dimension input matrix.
Fast Walsh Hadamard {#sn:wh}
===================
A naïve implementation results in complexity $O(n^{2})$. A divide-and-conquer approach for this task that runs in time $O(n \log n)$ can be derived as follows.\
We define the matrix Hadamard $H_{n}$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_{0}=[1] \\
H_{n}=
\begin{bmatrix}
H_{n-1} & H_{n-1}\\
H_{n-1} & - H_{n-1}
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ with dimension $2^{n} \times 2^{n}$.\
We want to compute the product of matrix vector $H_{n}\cdot c$, being $c =(c_{o}, c_{1})$ where $|c_{0}|=|c_{1}| = \frac{|c|}{2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{n}\cdot c=
\begin{bmatrix}
H_{n-1} c_{0} + H_{n-1}c_{1}\\
H_{n-1} c_{0} - H_{n-1}c_{1}
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we only need to compute recursively $H_{n-1}c_{0}$ and $H_{n-1}c_{1}$ to obtain $H_{n}\cdot c$ via additions and subtractions. The running time is $$\begin{aligned}
T(n) = 2T(n/2)+O(n),\end{aligned}$$ that gives $T(n)=O(n\log n)$.\
In McKernel we generalize this approach to compute the resulting matrix Hadamard from a hard-coded specific-size routine.
Implementation of Fast Walsh Hadamard {#sn:fwh}
=====================================
A key part of the library is an efficient implementation of Fast Walsh Hadamard. In particular, McKernel offers considerable improvement over Spiral, due to automatic code generation, the use of SIMD intrinsics (SSE2 using 128 bit registers) and loop unrolling. This decreases the memory overhead.\
McKernel proceeds with vectorized sums and subtractions iteratively for the first $\frac{n}{2^z}$ input vector positions (where $n$ is the length of the input vector and $z$ the iteration starting from $1$), computing the intermediate operations of the COOLEY-TUKEY algorithm till a small routine Hadamard that fits in cache. Then the algorithm continues in the same way but starting from the smallest length and doubling on each iteration the input dimension until the whole Fast Walsh Hadamard is done in-place.
For instance, on an intel i5-4200 CPU @ 1.60GHz laptop the performance obtained can be observed in Figure \[fgr:fwh\].
![**Comparison of Fast Walsh Hadamard**. McKernel (red) outperforms Spiral (blue) across the range of arguments.[]{data-label="fgr:fwh"}](hadamard)
Our code outperforms Spiral consistently throughout the range of arguments, see Table \[tbl:mckernel\]. Furthermore, Spiral needs to precompute trees and by default can only perform the computation up to matrix size $n =
2^{20}$. On the other hand, our implementation works for any given size since it computes the high-level partitioning dynamically.
0.15in
$|H_{n}|$ McKernel $t(ms)$ Spiral $t(ms)$
----------- ------------------ ----------------
1024 0 0.0333
2048 0.0333 0.0667
4096 0.1 0.167
8192 0.0667 0.2
16384 0.2 0.467
32768 0.2 0.9
65536 0.7 1.667
131072 1.3 3.5
262144 3.6 7.667
524288 7.86 15.9667
1048576 15.9667 35.7
: Numeric Comparison of Fast Walsh Hadamard.[]{data-label="tbl:mckernel"}
-0.1in
API Description {#sn:api}
===============
The API follows the factory design pattern. That is, while the McKernel object is fairly generic in terms of feature computation, we have a factory that acts as a means of instantiating the parameters according to pre-specified sets of parameters for e.g. a RBF Kernel or a RBF MATÉRN Kernel. The so-chosen parameters are deterministic, given by the values of a hash function. The advantage of this approach is that there is no need to save the coefficients generated for McKernel when deploying the functions.
Customizing McKernel
--------------------
For instance, to generate each $C_{kk}$ entry for RBF MATÉRN Kernel we draw $t$ i.i.d. samples from the $n$-dimensional unit ball $S_{n}$, add them and compute its Euclidean norm.\
To draw efficiently samples from $S_{n}$ we use the algorithm provided below.\
Let $ X = (X_{1}, \ldots, X_{n})$ be a vector of i.i.d. random variables drawn from $N(0,1)$, and let $||X||$ be the Euclidean norm of $X$, then $Y = (\frac{X_{1}}{||X||}, \ldots, \frac{X_{n}}{||X||})$ is uniformly distributed over the $n$-sphere, where it is obvious to see that $Y$ is the projection of $X$ onto the surface of the $n$-dimensional sphere. To draw uniform random variables in the $n$-ball, we multiply $Y$ by $U^{1/n}$ where $U \sim U(0,1)$. This can be proved as follows: Let $Z=(Z_{1}, \ldots, Z_{n})$ be a random vector uniformly distributed in the unit ball. Then, the radius $R = || Z ||$ satisfies $P(R \leq r) = r^{n}$. Now, by the inverse transform method we get $R= U^{1/n}$. Therefore to sample uniformly from the $n$-ball the following algorithm is used: $$\begin{aligned}
Z = r U^{1/n} \frac{X}{||X||} .\end{aligned}$$
Large-scale Machine Learning {#sn:ml}
============================
We introduce McKernel as an alternative to Deep Learning, where we argue that current techniques of Neural Networks are surrogates to very large kernel expansions, where optimization is done in a huge parameter space where the majority of learned weights are trivial to the actual problem statement.\
We present here the idea that current developments in very deep neural networks can be achieved while drastically reducing the number of parameters learned. We build on the work in [@Rahimi07] and [@Le14] to expand its scope to mini-batch training with SGD Optimizer. Our concern is to demonstrate that we are able to get the same gains obtained in Deep Learning by the use of McKernel and a Linear Classifier but with a behemoth kernel expansion.\
Current research in Neural Networks is over-optimizing parameters that are indeed not informative for the problem to solve. That is, we pioneer the notion that Deep Learning is learning the inner parameters of a very large kernel expansion and, in the end, is doing a brute-force search of the appropriate kernel $k$ thats fits well the data.\
Observe that McKernel generates pseudo-random numbers by the use of hash functions which is key for large-scale data. It allows to obtain a deterministic behavior and at the same time to load the weights on both training and testing without the need to actually store the matrices. As a further matter, it is crucial for distributed computation.\
Notice here that the fact that we can increase the number of kernel expansions building high hierarchical networks, see Equations \[etn:mckernel\] and \[etn:mcfeatures\], gives the property of compositionality to McKernel. Namely, the theoretical guarantee to avoid the curse of dimensionality [@Poggio17; @Mhaskar17].\
We can behold that McKernel is corresponding to networks of the form $$\begin{aligned}
G(x) = \sum^{N}_{k=1} a_{k} \exp \left( - |x - x_{k}|^{2} \right), \qquad x \in R^{d}.\end{aligned}$$
In the following section we build on these ideas to propose some very simple examples to illustrate the essence of the problem and the solution proposed.
TIKHONOV Regularization {#sn:tikhonov}
=======================
Let $H$ be the hypothesis space of functions, in the problem of Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) we want to find $f \in H$ that minimizes
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\sum^{n}_{c=1}(f(x_{c}) - y_{c})^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
This problem is in general ill-posed, depending on the choice of $H$. Following Tikhonov [@Girosi95; @Girosi98] we minimize instead over the hypothesis space $H_{K}$, the regularized functional
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\sum^{n}_{c=1}(f(x_{c}) - y_{c})^{2} + \lambda ||f||^{2}_{K},\end{aligned}$$
where $||f||^{2}_{K}$ is the norm in $H_{K}$ - the REPRODUCING KERNEL HILBERT Space defined by the kernel K.\
In general, under the TIKHONOV regularization scheme that follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{w \in R^{D}} \hat{E}(f_{w}) + \lambda ||w||^{2},
\label{etn:tikhonov}\end{aligned}$$
where $||w||^{2}$ is the regularizer and controls the stability of the solution and $\lambda$ balances the error term and the regularizer. Different classes of methods are determined by the appropriate choice of loss function in Equation \[etn:tikhonov\]. Here we consider $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{E}(f_{w}) = \frac{1}{n} \sum^{n}_{c=1} l(y_{c},f_{w}(x_{c}))\end{aligned}$$
with loss function $l$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
l(y,f_{w}(x)) = \log (1 + \exp^{-y f_{w}(x)}),
\label{etn:loss}\end{aligned}$$
videlicet Logistic Regression.\
Considering the logistic loss is differentiable and that we are in a large-scale setting a reasonable candidate to compute a minimizer is the stochastic gradient descent (SGD), $$\begin{aligned}
w_{t+1} = w_{t} - \gamma \Delta g_{c_{t}}(w_{t}),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{t}$ denotes a stochastic sequence of indices and $\gamma$ is the learning rate.\
Augmenting the number of kernel expansions, and thus the representational power of the model, gives a degree of overparametrization. That is to say, we increase the network size to fit the training data. Given these constraints, BÉZOUT theorem argues the existence of a large number of degenerate global minimizers with zero empirical error, that are very likely to be found by SGD that will in addition select with higher probability the most robust zero-minimizer [@Liao17].
Empirical Analysis and Experiments {#sn:ea}
==================================
We generalize the use of McKernel in mini-batch with SGD Optimizer, Figure \[fgr:t\_mckernel\], drastically reducing the number of parameters that need to be learned to achieve comparable state-of-the-art results of Deep Learning.\
What is more, current breakthroughs in Neural Networks can be easily derived from Equation \[etn:mckernel\]. Say for instance, Batch Normalization [@Ioffe15] can be obtained from the normalizing factor. Or for example, the use of ensembles [@Lakshminarayanan17] to improve performance can be seen on Figure \[fgr:t\_mckernel\], as it follows from the increase on Kernel Expansions. Not only that, but increasing the number of Kernel Expansions has another great property; data augmentation, which has recently seen a lot of interest. Its importance follows directly from the construction of McKernel, take the data, apply slightly (randomized) different functions to it to create new high-dimensional samples that will aid the process of learning. It also explains the need for backpropagation: certain types of data will work better for certain kernels, so it may be necessary to learn the appropriate Calibration $C$ that fits well the data. Further, dropout [@Srivastava14] follows directly from the use of the Subsampled Randomized Hadamard.\
Note here that the number of parameters to be estimated is of the order of thousands, proportional to the number of classes (depending on the size of the input image and the number of kernel expansions),
$$\begin{aligned}
C \cdot (2 \cdot [Size\_Image]_{2} \cdot E + 1),\end{aligned}$$
where $C$ is the number of classes, $[\cdot]_{2}$ is an operator that returns the next power of $2$ and $E$ is the number of Kernel Expansions. A drastic reduction compared to Neural Networks, while achieving comparable performance. Training time is therefore severely reduced and SVM kernel like learning can be achieved at scale.\
SGD Optimizer finds $W$ and $b$ in $$\begin{aligned}
\textnormal{softmax} \left(W[\phi(\hat{Z}\hat{x})] + b\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi=\left(\sin(\cdot),\cos(\cdot)\right)$, $\hat{x}=[x]_{2}$. Namely, it minimizes the loss $l$ in Equation \[etn:loss\].\
![**MNIST Classification.** Logistic Regression (blue) and RBF MATÉRN (red) with increasing number of Kernel Expansions. $32768$ samples of training data and $8192$ samples of testing data are used in the learning process. RBF MATÉRN hyper-parameters, $\sigma=1.0$, $t=40$. Seed $1398239763$, learning rate $\gamma = 0.001$ and batch size $10$. LR learning rate $0.01$. Number of epochs $20$. []{data-label="fgr:rbfmatern"}](rbfmatern)
Figures \[fgr:rbfmatern\] and \[fgr:rbfmatern2\] show RBF MATÉRN, $\textnormal{softmax}(W \tilde{x} + b)$ where $\tilde{x} = \textnormal{mckernel}(x)$, performance compared to logistic regression, $\textnormal{softmax}(Wx + b)$, in full-batch and mini-batch on MNIST, respectively. A fixed seed is used to obtain deterministic reproducible behavior. In full-batch, the number of samples for train and test is rounded to the nearest power of $2$ due to algorithm constraint.
![**MNIST Mini-Batch Classification.** Logistic Regression (LR) (blue) and RBF MATÉRN (red) with increasing number of Kernel Expansions. $60000$ samples of training data and $10000$ samples of testing data are used in the learning process. RBF MATÉRN hyper-parameters, $\sigma=1.0$, $t=40$. Seed $1398239763$, learning rate $\gamma = 0.001$ and batch size $10$. LR learning rate $0.01$. Number of epochs $20$. []{data-label="fgr:rbfmatern2"}](rbfmatern2)
The same kind of intuition that applies to Neural Networks, where the deeper the network, the better the results, holds. But this time depending on the number of kernel expansions used.\
FASHION-MNIST is similar in scope to MNIST but relatively more difficult. Instead of classifying digits, we focus now on the task of fashion. It consists on ten classes of clothing; T-shirt/top, Trouser, Pullover, Dress, Coat, Sandal, Shirt, Sneaker, Bag and Ankle boot.\
![**FASHION MNIST Mini-Batch Classification.** Logistic Regression (LR) (blue) and RBF MATÉRN (red) with increasing number of Kernel Expansions. $60000$ samples of training data and $10000$ samples of testing data are used in the learning process. RBF MATÉRN hyper-parameters, $\sigma=1.0$, $t=40$. Seed $1398239763$, learning rate $\gamma = 0.001$ and batch size $10$. LR learning rate $0.01$. Number of epochs $20$. []{data-label="fgr:fashion_mnist"}](fashion_mnist)
Figure \[fgr:fashion\_mnist\] shows RBF MATÉRN performance compared to logistic regression in mini-batch. Comparable state-of-the-art performance of Deep Learning is achieved. The model presents a similar behavior to the one seen in MNIST dataset. McKernel performs analogously to modern techniques in Neural Networks in this highly non-linear problem of estimation.
Discussion {#sn:d}
==========
In this manuscript we provide a new framework of learning and illustrate with two examples that achieves comparable state-of-the-art performance to Neural Networks, proposing a new way to understand Deep Learning, just as a huge kernel expansion where optimization is only performed over the parameters that are actually relevant to the problem at-hand. At the same time, a new methodology to build highly compositional networks for large-scale machine learning is introduced.\
We justify both the theoretical underpinnings and the practical implications to establish an unifying theory of learning.
[^1]: McKernel is available at <https://github.com/curto2/mckernel>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We impose uniform electric fields both parallel and normal to $180^{\circ}$ ferroelectric domain walls in PbTiO$_3$ and obtain the equilibrium structures using the method of anharmonic lattice statics. In addition to Ti-centered and Pb-centered perfect domain walls, we also consider Ti-centered domain walls with oxygen vacancies. We observe that electric field can increase the thickness of the domain wall considerably. We also observe that increasing the magnitude of electric field we reach a critical electric field $E^c$; for $E > E^c$ there is no local equilibrium configuration. Therefore, $E^c$ can be considered as an estimate of the threshold field $E_h$ for domain wall motion. Our numerical results show that Oxygen vacancies decrease the value of $E^c$. As the defective domain walls are thicker than perfect walls, this result is in agreement with the recent experimental observations and continuum calculations that show thicker domain walls have lower threshold fields.'
author:
- Arzhang Angoshtari
- Arash Yavari
title: |
Effect of External Normal and Parallel Electric Fields\
on $180^{\circ}$ Ferroelectric Domain Walls in PbTiO$_3$
---
Introduction
============
Ferroelectric materials have been used in many important applications such as high strain actuators, electro-optical systems, non-volatile and high density memories, etc. [@Scott2007; @Kalinin2010]. The properties of domain walls in ferroelectric materials including their structure, thickness, and mobility are important parameters as they determine the performance of devices that use these materials [@Jia2008].
Theoretical calculations have predicted that ferroelectric domain walls are atomically sharp and their thickness is about a few angstroms [@MeyerVanderbilt2001; @Padilla1996; @YaOrBh2006b; @AngYa2010]. However, experimental measurements show the existence of domain walls with thicknesses of a few micrometers [@Iwata2003; @Lehnen2000]. It has been observed that such broadening of domain walls is due to the presence of extrinsic defects, charged walls, and surfaces [@Choudhury2008]. Shilo *et al.* [@Shilo2004] used atomic force microscopy to measure the surface profile close to emerging domain walls in PbTiO$_3$ and then fitted it to the soliton-type solution of GLD theory. They measured wall widths of $1.5nm$ and $4nm$ and observed a wide scatter in wall widths. They suggested that the presence of point defects is responsible for such wide variations. Lee *et al.* [@Lee2005] proposed a continuum model to investigate this proposal and reproduced the experimentally observed range of wall widths with their model. They mentioned that the interaction between the order parameter and point defects and interaction of point defects with each other are two important interactions that should be considered properly in such modelings. Jia *et al.* [@Jia2008] investigated the cation-oxygen dipoles near $180^{\circ}$ domain walls in PbZr$_{0.2}$Ti$_{0.8}$O$_{3}$ thin films. They measured the width and dipole distortion across domain walls using the negative spherical-aberration imaging technique in an aberration-corrected transmission electron microscope and observed a large difference in atomic details between charged and uncharged domain walls.
External electric field can cause the motion of ferroelectric domain walls if the magnitude of the field reaches the threshold field $E_h$ for wall motion, i.e., the field at which a domain wall begins to move after overcoming the intrinsic Peierls friction of the ferroelectric lattice [@Choudhury2008]. It was observed that threshold fields that are predicted via thermodynamic calculations are usually much greater than the experimental values. For example, Bandyopadhyay and Ray [@BandyopadhyayRay2004] predicted an upper limit for $E_h$ of LiNbO$_3$ to be $30000kV/cm$ but experimental observations show that the threshold field for wall motion can be less than $15kV/cm$. Choudhury *et al.* [@Choudhury2008] suggested that the reason for such large differences between theoretical and experimental values of $E_h$ is broadening of the domain walls. Using microscopic phase-field modeling, they show that the threshold field for moving an antiparallel ferroelectric domain wall dramatically drops by two or three orders of magnitude if the wall was diffused by only about $1-2nm$. Su and Landis [@Landis2007] developed a continuum thermodynamics framework to model the evolution of ferroelectric domain structures and investigated the fields near $90^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$ domain walls and the electromechanical pining strength of an array of line charges on these domain walls.
In this work, we investigate the effect of external electric field $(E)$ on the perfect and defective $180^{\circ}$ domain walls in PbTiO$_3$ using the method of anharmonic lattice statics. We consider both Pb-centered and Ti-centered perfect domain walls and also defective domain walls with oxygen vacancies. In agreement with experimental results, our calculations show that such defective domain walls are thicker than perfect walls [@AngYavari2010]. By increasing $E$ we reach a critical value $E^c$ such that for $E>E^c$ the lattice statics iterations do not converge. Therefore, this critical value can be considered as a lower bound for the threshold field for wall motion.
This paper is organized as follows. In §\[sec:Ferro\], we explain the geometry of the perfect and defective domain walls that we use throughout this work. In §\[sec:Calculation\], we describe the method of analysis used in our calculations. Our numerical results are presented in §\[sec:Results\]. The paper ends with some concluding remarks in §\[sec:Concluding\].
Ferroelectric Domain Walls {#sec:Ferro}
==========================
Due to the relative displacements between the center of the positive and negative charges, each unit cell of a ferroelectric crystal has a net polarization below its Curie temperature. Fig.\[Geom\](a) shows the relaxed unit cell of tetragonal PbTiO$_3$. In this work, we consider $180^{\circ}$ domain walls in PbTiO$_3$ parallel to a $(100)$-plane. These domain walls are two dimensional defects across which the direction of the polarization vector switches. There are two types of perfect $180^{\circ}$ domain walls in PbTiO$_3$: Pb-centered and Ti-centered domain walls. Fig.\[Geom\](b) shows the geometry of a Ti-centered domain wall.
In addition to perfect domain walls, we also consider $180^{\circ}$ domain walls with oxygen vacancies. It is known that oxygen vacancies tend to move toward domain walls and pin them [@HeVanderbilt2001; @Calleja2003; @Salje2010]. Therefore, we study domain walls with oxygen vacancies sitting on them. In order to be able to obtain a solution, we need to consider periodically arranged vacancies on the domain walls. Although in reality oxygen vacancies have lower densities, our results with the current assumption can still provide important insights on the effect of oxygen vacancies on $180^{\circ}$ domain walls. Depending on which oxygen in the PbTiO$_3$ unit cell sits on the domain wall, there would be three types of defective domain walls: (i) O2-defective, (ii) O1-defective, and (iii) O3-defective. Fig.\[Geom\](c) shows an O1-defective domain wall. Note that O1- and O3-defective domain walls are Ti-centered while O2-defective domain wall is Pb-centered. It has been observed that O2-defective domain walls are not stable [@AngYavari2010; @HeVanderbilt2001], i.e., the lattice statics iterations do not converge. Thus, we consider O1- and O3-defective domain walls in the following.
Let x, y, and z denote coordinates along the $\langle100\rangle$, $\langle010\rangle$, and $\langle001\rangle$-directions, respectively. We assume a 1D symmetry reduction, which means that all the atoms with the same x-coordinates have the same displacements. Therefore, we partition the 3D lattice $\mathcal{L}$ as $\mathcal{L}=\bigsqcup_{I}^{}\bigsqcup_{\alpha\in
\mathbbm{Z}}\mathcal{L}_{I\alpha}$, where $\mathcal{L}_{I\alpha}$ and $\mathbbm{Z}$ are 2D equivalence classes parallel to the $(100)$ plane and the set of integers, respectively. $j=J\beta$ is the atom in the $\beta$*th* equivalence class of the $J$*th* sublattice. See [@YaOrBh2006a; @YavariAngoshtari2010] for more details on the symmetry reduction.
Method of Calculation {#sec:Calculation}
=====================
We apply a uniform electric field on $180^{\circ}$ domain walls and obtain the equilibrium structure using the method of anharmonic lattice statics [@YaOrBh2006a]. We use a shell potential for PbTiO$_3$ [@Asthagiri2006] for modeling the atomic interactions. Each ion is represented by a core and a massless shell in this potential. Let $\mathcal{L}$ denote the collection of cores and shells, $i\in\mathcal{L}$ denotes a core or a shell in $\mathcal{L}$, and $\left\{\mathbf{x}^i \right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}}$ represents the current position of cores and shells. In this shell potential, three different energies are assumed to exist due to the interactions of cores and shells: $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{short}}$, $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{long}}$, and $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{core-shell}}$. $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{short}}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i
\right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}}\right)$ denotes the energy of short range interactions, which are assumed to be only between Pb-O, Ti-O, and O-O shells. The short range interactions are described by the Rydberg potential of the form $(A+Br)\exp(-r/C)$, where A, B, and C are potential parameters and $r$ is the distance between interacting elements. $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{long}}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i
\right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}} \right)$ denotes the Coulombic interactions between the core and shell of each ion with the cores and shells of all the other ions. For calculating the classical Coulombic energy and force, we use the damped Wolf method [@Wolf99]. Finally, $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{core-shell}}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i
\right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}}\right)$ represents the interaction of core and shell of an atom and is assumed to be an anharmonic spring of the form $(1/2)k_2 r^2 +(1/24)k_4 r^4$, where $k_2$ and $k_4$ are constants. The total static energy is written as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{E}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i \right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}}
\right) = \mathcal{E}_{\textrm{short}}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i \right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}}
\right)
+ \mathcal{E}_{\textrm{long}}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i \right\}_{i\in
\mathcal{L}} \right) \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{core-shell}}\left(\left\{\mathbf{x}^i \right\}_{i\in \mathcal{L}}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that all the calculations are done for absolute zero temperature. At this temperature PbTiO$_3$ has a tetragonal unit cell with lattice parameters $a=3.843~{\AA}$ and $c=1.08a$ [@Asthagiri2006].
Assume that a uniform electric field $\mathbf{E}=(E_{x},E_{y},E_{z})$ is applied to a collection of atoms. Then for the relaxed configuration $\mathcal{B}=\left\{\mathbf{x}^i
\right\}_{i\in\mathcal{L}}\subset\mathbbm{R}^3$, we have $$\label{equilibrium}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}}{\partial \mathbf{x}^i}+
q_{i}\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{0}~~~~~~~\forall~i\in\mathcal{L},$$ where $q_i$ denotes the charge of the i*th* particle (core or shell). To obtain the solution of the above problem, we utilize the Newton method. Having a configuration $\mathcal{B}^{k}$ the next configuration $\mathcal{B}^{k+1}$ is calculated from the current configuration $\mathcal{B}^{k}$ as: $\mathcal{B}^{k+1}=\mathcal{B}^{k}+\tilde{\boldsymbol{\delta}}^k$, where $$\tilde{\delta}^k=-\mathbf{H}^{-1}\left(\mathcal{B}^{k}\right)\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}\mathcal{E}\left(\mathcal{B}^{k}\right),$$ with $\mathbf{H}$ denoting the Hessian matrix. The calculation of the Hessian becomes inefficient as the size of the problem increases and hence we use the quasi-Newton method. This method uses the Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) algorithm to approximate the inverse of the Hessian [@PressTVF1989] instead of the direct calculation of the Hessian at each iteration. We start from a positive-definite matrix and use the BFGS algorithm to update the Hessian at each iteration as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BFGS}
&& \mathbf{C}^{i+1} = \mathbf{C}^i + \frac{\tilde{\boldsymbol{\delta}}^k\otimes\tilde{\boldsymbol{\delta}}^k}{
(\tilde{\boldsymbol{\delta}}^k)^{\textsf{T}}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}}
-\frac{\left(\mathbf{C}^{i}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}\right)\otimes\left(\mathbf{C}^{i}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}\right)}
{\mathbf{\Delta}^{\textsf{T}}\cdot\mathbf{C}^{i}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}} \nonumber\\
&& ~~~~~~~~+ \left(\mathbf{\Delta}^{\textsf{T}}\cdot\mathbf{C}^{i}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}\right)\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{C}^{i}=\left(\mathbf{H}^i\right)^{-1}$, $\mathbf{\Delta}=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\mathcal{E}^{i+1}-\boldsymbol{\nabla}\mathcal{E}^{i}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{u}=\frac{\tilde{\boldsymbol{\delta}}^k}{(\tilde{\boldsymbol{\delta}}^k)^{\textsf{T}}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}}-
\frac{\mathbf{C}^{i}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}}{\mathbf{\Delta}^{\textsf{T}}\cdot\mathbf{C}^{i}\cdot\mathbf{\Delta}}.\end{aligned}$$ Calculating $\mathbf{C}^{i+1}$, one then should use $\mathbf{C}^{i+1}$ instead of $\mathbf{H}^{-1}$ to update the current configuration. If $\mathbf{C}^{i+1}$ is a poor approximation, then one may need to perform a linear search to refine $\mathcal{B}^{k+1}$ before starting the next iteration [@PressTVF1989].
In the presence of oxygen vacancies on the domain wall, one needs to consider charge redistribution between some ions. To model an oxygen vacancy using a shell potential, we remove the core and shell of the oxygen atom and because we assume a charge neutral oxygen vacancy, there will be a charge redistribution in the neighboring shells [@AngYavari2010]. It is known that charge redistribution is highly localized and hence in our calculations we equally distribute the charge $\Delta Q=Q_s+Q_c$, where $Q_s$ and $Q_c$ are oxygen shell and core charges, between the (fourteen) first nearest neighbors of each oxygen vacancy.
![The polarization profiles of O1-defective domain walls under (a) zero, (b) normal critical field ($E^{c}_{x}$), and (c) parallel critical field ($E^{c}_{y}$). (d) Components of the polarization vector $\overline{\mathbf{P}}=(\bar{P}_x,\bar{P}_y)$ of O1-defective domain walls under zero, $E^{c}_{x}$, and $E^{c}_{y}$.[]{data-label="PolarO1"}](PolO1)
To obtain the equilibrium configuration under an external electric field we need to start from an appropriate initial configuration. This initial configuration for perfect and defective domain walls is the equilibrium configuration of these domain walls under zero electric field (see [@AngYavari2010; @YaOrBh2006b] for discussions on how to calculate these configurations). As we mentioned earlier, we assume a 1D symmetry reduction for the lattice and hence as is shown in Fig.\[CB\], our computational box (CB) consists of a row of unit cells perpendicular to the domain wall. In this figure, the shaded region is the computational box. Note that because in general there is no symmetry in the problem, we need to relax all the atoms inside the CB. For removing the rigid body translation freedom of the atoms, one should fix the core of an atom and relax the other atoms. We fix Pb-core (Ti-core) of an atom located on the domain wall in Pb-centered (Ti-centered) domain walls. Thus, if there are $M$ unit cells in the CB, we would have $30M-3$ variables in our calculations. We should mention that to investigate the effect of the size of CB in the domain wall plane, we consider CBs with one, four, and sixteen unit cells in the domain wall plane and therefore the number of the unit cells in CB in each case is $M$, $4M$, and $16M$, respectively. We observe that the final relaxed structure does not depend on the size of CB in the domain wall plane. This suggests that the symmetry reduction that we use in our calculations is a reasonable assumption for this problem.
Note that we consider a finite number of unit cells in the CB and do not assume any periodicity condition in our calculations. This means that we need to impose some proper boundary conditions to take into account the effect of the atoms located outside of CB. To this end, we rigidly move the unit cells outside of CB with displacements equal to those of the first or last unit cell of the CB (the unit cell on the boundary of the CB that is closer to the unit cell outside of the CB). This is a natural boundary condition as we expect the bulk configuration far from the domain wall.
In our calculations we use $M=20$ as larger values for $M$ do not affect the results. Imposing an external electric field should be done step by step, i.e., one first needs to obtain the configuration for $\mathbf{E}=\Delta \mathbf{E}_{1}$ from the initial configuration and then use this configuration to obtain the equilibrium configuration for $\mathbf{E}=\Delta
\mathbf{E}_{1}+\Delta \mathbf{E}_{2}$ and so on. We use the average step size of $20kV/cm$ for electric field. Using this step size and force tolerance of $0.005eV{\AA}^{-1}$, our solutions converge after about $30$ to $40$ iterations.
Numerical Results {#sec:Results}
==================
In this section we present our numerical results for perfect and defective domain walls. Note that as the coordinates of cores and shells are close to each other, we only report the results for cores. Also as we mentioned earlier, x, y, and z are coordinates along the $\langle100\rangle$, $\langle010\rangle$, and $\langle001\rangle$-directions, respectively.
**Perfect domain walls:** We plot the y-coordinates of Ti-cores under external electric field normal to the Ti-centered domain wall, $E_x$, in Fig.\[Perfect\](a). As expected, we see that increasing the electric field, the atomic structure loses its symmetry. We observe that there exists an upper bound for $E_x$, i.e., there exists a critical electric field $E^{c}_{x}$ such that for $E_{x}>E^{c}_{x}$ there is no local equilibrium structure. The critical value of the normal electric field is about $E^{c}_{x}=1400kV/cm$. The thickness of the domain wall slightly increases as the normal electric field increases. Note that domain wall thickness cannot be defined uniquely very much like boundary layer thickness in fluid mechanics. Here, domain wall thickness is by definition the region that is affected by the domain wall, i.e. those layers of atoms that are distorted. One can use definitions like the $99\%$-thickness in fluid mechanics and define the domain wall thickness as the length of the region that has $99\%$ of the far field rigid translation displacement. What is important here is that no matter what definition is chosen, domain wall “thickness" increases as the normal electric field increases. For a Ti-centered domain wall, the domain wall thickness increases from $3$ atomic spacings ($1nm$) to about $5$ atomic spacings ($1.5nm$) for $E_{x}=E^{c}_{x}$.
Fig.\[Perfect\](b) depicts the y-coordinates of Ti-cores under an external electric field $E_y$ parallel to a Ti-centered domain wall. It is observed that such electric fields do not alter the domain wall thickness. Note that similar to the atomic structure for normal fields, the atomic structure under parallel fields loses its symmetry as well. The critical value of the parallel electric field is about $E^{c}_{y}=5900kV/cm$, which is $4$ times larger than that of the normal electric field.
Fig.\[Perfect\](c) shows the y-coordinates of Pb-cores of a Pb-centered domain wall under normal electric field $E_x$. We observe that the critical electric field is about $E^{c}_{x}=6300kV/cm$, which is about $4.5$ times greater than the critical normal electric field of Ti-centered walls. Also it is observed that domain wall thickness increases to about $11$ atomic spacings ($4nm$) under critical normal electric field. The y-coordinates of Pb-cores of a Pb-centered domain wall under parallel electric field $E_y$ are shown in Fig.\[Perfect\](d). Similar to perfect Ti-centered domain walls, we observe that parallel electric fields do not affect the domain wall thickness. The critical parallel electric field is about $E^{c}_{y}=6500kV/cm$. For Pb-centered domain walls we see that unlike Ti-centered domain walls, the critical normal electric field is close to the critical parallel electric field.
Fig.\[PolarPerfect\] depicts the polarization profiles normal and parallel to the domain walls. For calculation of the cell-by-cell polarization, we follow Meyer and Vanderbilt [@MeyerVanderbilt2001]. We plot $\overline{\mathbf{P}}=(\bar{P}_{x},\bar{P}_{y})=
\mathbf{P}/|\mathbf{P}_{b}|$, where $\mathbf{P}$ is the polarization and $|\mathbf{P}_{b}|=80.1\mu Ccm^{-2}$ is the norm of the bulk polarization [@AngYa2010_4]. Fig.\[PolarPerfect\](a) shows $\bar{P}_{x}$ and $\bar{P}_{y}$ for a Ti-centered domain walls under zero and critical electric fields. In agreement with Lee *et al.* [@Lee2009] and Angoshtari and Yavari [@AngYa2010], it is observed that $(100)$ Ti-centered domain walls have a mixed Ising-Néel character, i.e., polarization rotates normal to the $(100)$-plane near the domain wall. For $E=0$, the maximum normal component of the polarization is about $2\%$ of the bulk polarization. For $E=E^{c}_{x}$, as can be expected, normal electric field causes the positive and negative charges to have normal displacements that create a polarization in the x-direction. This normal component of the polarization ($\bar{P}_x$) reaches to about $13.5\%$ of the bulk polarization at $E^{c}_x$, but we observe that normal electric field $E^{c}_x$ does not have a remarkable effect on the parallel component of polarization, $\bar{P}_{y}$. On the other hand, we observe that under $E=E^{c}_{y}$, $\bar{P}_{x}$ does not change considerably but $\bar{P}_y$ has an unsymmetric profile with the maximum value of about $105\%$ of the bulk polarization.
Fig.\[PolarPerfect\](b) presents similar results for Pb-centered domain walls. Similar to Ti-centered domain walls, we observe that Pb-centered domain walls have a mixed Ising-Néel character [@Lee2009; @AngYa2010] with $\bar{P}_x$ about $2\%$ of the bulk polarization for zero electric field. For $E=E^{c}_{x}$, $\bar{P}_{x}$ reaches to about $38\%$ of the bulk polarization. Also we observe that $E^{c}_{x}$ has more impact on $\bar{P}_{y}$ compared to Ti-centered walls. Finally, it is observed that similar to Ti-centered domain walls, $E^{c}_{y}$ does not have a significant effect on $\bar{P}_x$ but makes $\bar{P}_y$ unsymmetric with maximum value of about $107\%$ of the bulk polarization.
**Defective domain walls:** In this part we report the structure of defective domain walls under normal and parallel external electric fields. Because the results for O1- and O3-defective domain walls are similar, we only present the results for O1-defective walls, which are Ti-centered. Note that as we mentioned earlier, O2-defective domain walls, which are Pb-centered, are not stable. Our calculations show that they are not stable even under external electric fields. We had earlier shown that they are not stable under strain as well [@AngYavari2010].
Fig.\[O1\](a) depicts the y-coordinates of Ti-cores in an O1-defective domain wall under normal external electric field $E_x$. The critical normal field is about $E^{c}_{x}=380kV/cm$. It is observed that domain wall thickness increases up to about $16$ atomic spacings ($6nm$) under the critical normal electric field. Comparing O1-defective atomic structure with the structure of perfect Ti-centered domain wall under normal field (Fig.\[Perfect\](a)), we observe that oxygen vacancies increase the thickness of the domain wall considerably. Also it is observed that critical normal electric field of defective domain walls is smaller than that of perfect Ti-centered wall. Fig.\[O1\](b) shows the y-coordinates of Ti-cores in an O1-defective domain walls under parallel electric field $E_y$. The value of the critical field is about $E^{c}_{y}=5100kV/cm$. Here we observe a major difference between the atomic structures of perfect and defective domain walls; unlike perfect domain walls, parallel electric fields increase the thickness of defective domain walls up to about $13$ atomic spacings ($5nm$) under the critical parallel electric field. Also similar to normal electric fields, we observe that critical electric field of defective domain walls is smaller than that of perfect domain walls.
Defective domain walls are thicker than perfect domain walls. The observation that the defective domain walls have smaller critical electric fields is in agreement with the experimental observations of Choudhury *et al.* [@Choudhury2008]. They observed that the threshold field for domain wall motion exponentially decreases as the domain wall width increases.
Fig.\[PolarO1\] shows the polarization profiles for O1-defective domain walls. It is observed that similar to perfect domain walls, defective domain walls have an Ising-Néel character with $\bar{P}_{x}$ of about $2.5\%$ of the bulk polarization for zero electrical field. For $E=E^{c}_x$, $\bar{P}_x$ reaches to about $55\%$ of the bulk polarization, which is greater than the corresponding values for perfect domain walls, and $\bar{P}_y$ shows more Ising-type character. As we mentioned earlier, for $E=E^{c}_y$ we observe a difference between perfect and defective domain walls; unlike perfect walls, parallel electric fields have considerable effects on $\bar{P}_x$: it reaches to about $55\%$ of the bulk polarization under $E^{c}_y$. Similar to perfect domain walls, $\bar{P}_y$ has an unsymmetric distribution and reaches to about $106\%$ of the bulk polarization.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:Concluding}
==================
In this work we obtained the atomic structure of perfect and defective $180^{\circ}$ domain walls in PbTiO$_3$ under both parallel and normal external electric fields using the method of anharmonic lattice statics. We observe that electric field can increase the thickness of a domain wall considerably (up to $5$ times thicker than domain walls under no external electric field). This can be one reason for the wide scatter of the domain wall thicknesses observed in experimental measurements. In agreement with previous works [@AngYavari2010; @Shilo2004], we observe that oxygen vacancies can increase the thickness of the domain walls. We also observe that by increasing the external electric field we reach a critical electric field $E^c$. For $E>E^c$ there is no local equilibrium configuration and hence $E^c$ can be considered as an estimate of the threshold field for the domain wall motion. We observe that defective domain walls, which are thicker than perfect domain walls, have smaller critical fields. This is in agreement with the experimental observations that show the threshold field decreases as the domain wall thickness increases [@Choudhury2008].
In practice, it has been observed that domain walls move or break down under electric fields in the order of a few $kV/cm$ [@Choudhury2008; @Roy2010], which are considerably smaller than the high-fields that we consider here. We do not consider break down of the domain walls in our model. Also as was mentioned earlier, the high density of oxygen vacancies that we assume is unrealistic. In practice, steps and other complex defects on domain walls can increase the thickness of the domain walls considerably [@Iwata2003; @Lehnen2000; @AngYa2010_4]. Therefore, as the threshold fields for domain walls decrease exponentially with the increase of the domain wall width [@Choudhury2008], one can obtain better estimates for the critical electric fields with more realistic models for defects on domain walls. Also as suggested by Roy *et al.* [@Roy2010] electric fields change the potential parameters. In this paper our aim is to demonstrate that even with our simple model, one can show that the threshold field has an inverse relation with the domain wall thickness.
We benefited from a discussion with C.M. Landis. We thank an anonymous reviewer whose comments helped us improve the paper.
J. F. Scott, [*Science*]{}, [**315**]{} , 954 (2007).
S. V. Kalinin, A. N. Morozovska, L. Q. Chen and B. J. Rodriguez, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{}, [**73**]{} , 056502 (2010).
C-L. Jia, S-B. Mi, K. Urban, I. Vrejoiu, M. Alexe, D. Hesse, [*Nature Mater.*]{}, [**7**]{}, 57 (2008).
B. Meyer and D. Vanderbilt [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**65**]{}, 104111 (2002).
J. Padilla, W. Zhong and D. Vanderbilt [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**53**]{}, R5969 (1996).
A. Yavari, M. Ortiz and K. Bhattacharya, [*Philos. Mag.*]{}, [**87**]{} , 3997 (2007).
A. Angoshtari and A. Yavari, [*EPL*]{}, [**90**]{}, 27007 (2010).
M. Iwata, K. Katsuraya, I. Suzuki, M. Maeda, N. Yasuda and Y. K. Ishibashi, [*Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.*]{}, [**42**]{}, 6201 (2003).
P. Lehnen, J. Dec and W. Kleemann, [*J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.*]{}, [**33**]{}, 1932 (2000).
S. Choudhury et al., [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{}, [**104**]{}, 084107 (2008).
D. Shilo, G. Ravichandran and K. Bhattacharya, [*Nature Mater.*]{}, [**3**]{}, 453 (2004).
W. T. Lee, E. K. H. Salje and U. Bismayer, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**72**]{}, 104116 (2005).
A. K. Bandyopadhyay and P. C. Ray, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{}, [**95**]{}, 226 (2004).
Y. Su and C. M. Landis, [*J. Mech. Phys. Solids*]{}, [**55**]{}, 280 (2007).
L. X. He and D. Vanderbilt, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**68**]{}, 134103 (2001).
M. Calleja, M. T. Dove and E. K. H. Salje, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{}, [**15**]{}, 2301 (2003).
L. Goncalves-Ferreira, S. A. T. Redfern, E. Artacho, E. Salje and W. T. Lee, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**81**]{}, 024109 (2010).
A. Angoshtari and A. Yavari, [*Comput. Mater. Sci.*]{}, [**48**]{}, 258 (2010).
A. Yavari, M. Ortiz and K. Bhattacharya, [*J. Elasticity*]{}, [**86**]{} , 41 (2007).
A. Yavari and A. Angoshtari, [*Inter. J. Solids Struct.*]{}, [**47**]{}, 1807 (2010).
A. Asthagiri, Z. Wu, N. Choudhury and R. E. Cohen, [*Ferroelec.*]{}, [**333**]{} , 69 (2006).
D. P. Wolf, P. Keblinski, S. R. Phillpot and J. Eggebrecht, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, [**110**]{}, 8254 (1999).
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, [*Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989).
A. Angoshtari and A. Yavari, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{}, [**108**]{}, 084112 (2010).
D. Lee, R. K. Behera, P. Wu, H. Xu, Y. L. Li, S. B. Sinnott, S. R. Phillpot, L. Q. Chen and V. Gopalan, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**80**]{}, 060102(R) (2009).
A. Roy, M. Stengel, and D. Vanderbilt, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**81**]{}, 014102 (2010).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This report of the BOOST2012 workshop presents the results of four working groups that studied key aspects of jet substructure. We discuss the potential of the description of jet substructure in first-principle QCD calculations and study the accuracy of state-of-the-art Monte Carlo tools. Experimental limitations of the ability to resolve substructure are evaluated, with a focus on the impact of additional proton proton collisions on jet substructure performance in future LHC operating scenarios. A final section summarizes the lessons learnt during the deployment of substructure analyses in searches for new physics in the production of boosted top quarks.'
author:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'boost2012\_report.bib'
subtitle: 'Report of BOOST2012, held at IFIC Valencia, 23$^{rd}$-27$^{th}$ of July 2012.'
title: '-1cm Boosted objects and jet substructure at the LHC'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Measurements and first-principle QCD predictions for jet substructure {#sec:qcd}
=====================================================================
Monte Carlo Generators for Jet Substructure Observables {#sec:mc}
=======================================================
The impact of multiple proton-proton collisions on jet reconstruction {#sec:pileup1}
=====================================================================
The potential of boosted top quarks {#sec:top}
===================================
Summary & Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
=====================
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the Spanish Center for Particle Physics, Astroparticle and Nuclear Physics (CPAN), the regional government (Generalitat Valenciana), Heidelberg University and IFIC (U. Valencia/CSIC) for their generous support of the BOOST2012 conference.
We furthermore thank the Fundación Cultural Bancaja for putting at our disposal the “Centro Cultural” that hosted the workshop, the IT teams at IFIC, UW and LPTHE for the facilities offered to host the BOOST samples, TotNou for the organization of the workshop, Isidoro García of CPAN for organizing the outreach event and coordinating the contacts with the media and Pilar Ordaz for the design of the poster and logotype.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We apply the phenomenological Reggeon field theory framework to investigate rapidity gap survival (RGS) probability for diffractive dijet production in proton-proton collisions. In particular, we study in some detail rapidity gap suppression due to elastic rescatterings of intermediate partons in the underlying parton cascades, described by enhanced (Pomeron-Pomeron interaction) diagrams. We demonstrate that such contributions play a subdominant role, compared to the usual, so-called “eikonal”, rapidity gap suppression due to elastic rescatterings of constituent partons of the colliding protons. On the other hand, the overall RGS factor proves to be sensitive to color fluctuations in the proton. Hence, experimental data on diffractive dijet production can be used to constrain the respective model approaches.'
author:
- Sergey Ostapchenko
- Marcus Bleicher
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Rapidity Gap Survival in Enhanced Pomeron Scheme
---
Introduction {#intro.sec}
============
An important direction in experimental studies of high energy hadronic collisions is related to diffractive hadron production, in particular, to production of high transverse momentum $p_{\rm t}$ particles in events characterized by large rapidity gaps (RGs) not covered by secondary hadrons. The scientific interest to such so-called hard diffraction phenomena is multifold and related, in particular, to searches for signatures of new physics in a relatively clean experimental environment (see Ref. [@kmr17] for a recent review). On the other hand, the corresponding observables involve both perturbative and nonperturbative physics and may thus shed some light on the interplay of the two and provide an additional insight into the nonperturbative proton structure.
In contrast to hard diffractive processes in deep inelastic scattering, final states with large rapidity gaps constitute a much smaller fraction of events containing high $p_{\rm t}$ particles in proton-proton collisions. This is because hard processes typically take place for small values of the impact parameter $b$ between the colliding protons, where one has a significant overlap of the projectile and target parton clouds, but then, also the probability for additional inelastic rescatterings between protons’ constituents is high. Therefore, there is little chance that a rapidity gap produced in a hard diffraction process at small $b$ is not covered by secondaries created by the accompanying multiple scattering [@dok92]. It has been realized long ago that the corresponding penalty factor, nicknamed “rapidity gap survival (RGS) probability”, results from an interplay between the transverse profile for a hard diffraction process of interest and the much broader inelastic profile for $pp$ collisions [@bjo93].
Since then, the problem has been widely addressed in literature and numerous estimations of the RGS probability for various hard diffraction reactions have been obtained [@glm93; @glm98; @glm99; @glm06; @glm11; @glm16; @kmr97; @kmr01; @kmr02; @kmr03; @kmr09; @pet04; @fs07; @kop07; @pas11; @lon16; @fag17]. Most of those studies have been devoted to the dominant, so-called “eikonal”, mechanism of the RG suppression, related to elastic rescatterings between constituent partons of the colliding protons, addressing, in particular, the energy dependence of the RGS probability [@glm98; @glm99] and the role of the inelastic diffraction treatment in respective models[^1] [@glm99; @glm06; @kmr01; @kmr09]. Much less understood are the noneikonal absorptive effects corresponding to elastic rescatterings of intermediate partons, for which the obtained numerical results differ considerably [@glm11; @glm16; @kmr09].
In this work, we are going to investigate the RGS probabilities for diffractive dijet production in the framework of the Gribov’s Reggeon Field Theory (RFT) [@gri68], addressing, in particular, in some detail the role of the noneikonal absorption. Our choice was partly motivated by previous study of soft diffraction by one of us, where such noneikonal effects proved to be extremely important, giving rise to huge (up to an order of magnitude) corrections to diffractive cross sections [@ost10] (see, e.g., Fig. 15 in that reference). Since the role of semihard processes, for relatively small parton transverse momentum, in multiple scattering is not too different from the one of purely soft interactions, at least in our model, we expected that the noneikonal absorption is quite important for diffractive jet production as well.
More specifically, we employ the enhanced Pomeron framework [@kan73; @kai86; @ost06], as implemented in the QGSJET-II model [@ost06a; @ost11]. The approach treats consistently both the usual multiple scattering processes, describing individual parton cascades as Pomeron exchanges, and rescatterings of intermediate partons in those cascades off the projectile and target protons and off each other, which is treated as Pomeron-Pomeron interactions. Importantly, the latter contributions are resummed to all orders [@ost06].
Hard processes are incorporated in the scheme following the so-called “semihard Pomeron” approach [@dre01]: splitting general parton cascades into soft and hard parts. The latter are characterized by high enough parton virtualities $|q^{2}|>Q_{0}^{2}$, $Q_{0}$ being some cutoff for pQCD being applicable, and are treated by means of the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP)\
evolution equations. In turn, the nonperturbative soft parts involve low-$q^2$ ($|q^{2}|<Q_{0}^{2}$) partons and are described by phenomenological soft Pomeron asymptotics.
To treat low mass diffraction and the related absorptive effects, a Good-Walker-type [@goo60] framework is employed, considering the interacting protons to be represented by a superposition of a number of eigenstates which diagonalize the scattering matrix, characterized by different couplings to Pomerons [@kai79]. The respective partonic interpretation is based on the color fluctuations picture [@fra08], i.e. the representation of the proton wave function by a superposition of parton Fock states of different sizes. Fock states of larger transverse size are characterized by lower (more dilute) spatial parton densities, while more compact ones are more densely packed with partons.[^2] As will be demonstrated in the following, such color fluctuations have an important impact on the strength of the rapidity gap suppression.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:jet-diffr\], we derive expressions for cross sections of single and central diffractive dijet production, introducing step by step the various absorptive corrections. In Section \[sec:results\], we present our numerical results and discuss them in some detail. Finally, we conclude in Section \[sec:Outlook\].
Cross sections for diffractive dijet production\[sec:jet-diffr\]
================================================================
To set the scene, let us start with the inclusive cross section for high $p_{{\rm t}}$ jet production. Partial contributions to this cross section from various configurations of proton-proton collisions generally involve multiple scattering processes, containing additional soft ($|q^{2}|<Q_{0}^{2}$) and hard ($|q^{2}|>Q_{0}^{2}$) parton cascades fragmenting into secondary hadrons, as well as virtual parton cascades describing elastic rescatterings between constituent partons of the protons. Nevertheless, by virtue of the Abramovskii-Gribov-Kancheli (AGK) cancellations [@agk], such multiple scattering processes give zero contribution to the inclusive cross section of interest, which is described by Kancheli-Mueller-type diagrams depicted in Fig. \[fig:2jet\].
![Schematic view for the general RFT diagram for inclusive jet production in $pp$ collisions: the projectile and target “triangles” consist of fanlike enhanced Pomeron graphs; $V_{J}(p_{J})$ is the parton $J$ emission vertex from a cut Pomeron. The cut plane is shown by the vertical dotted-dashed line.\[fig:2jet\]](rapgap1){width="3cm" height="4cm"}
The internal structure of the projectile and target triangles in Fig. \[fig:2jet\] is explained in Fig. \[fig:triangle\]: it contains both the basic contribution of an “elementary” parton cascade described as a single Pomeron emission by the parent hadron [\[]{}1st graph in the right-hand side (rhs) of Fig. \[fig:triangle\][\]]{} and various absorptive corrections to that process due to rescatterings of intermediate partons in the cascade off the parent hadron and off each other.
{width="90.00000%" height="2.5cm"}
As a result, we obtain the usual collinear factorization ansatz for the inclusive cross section $\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}})$ for the production of a pair of jets of transverse momentum $p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}})= \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'
\int\! dx^{+}\, dx^{-}\int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm
t}}^{2} &&
\nonumber \\\times \; \sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}\;
G_{I}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},b')&&
\nonumber \\\times \;
G_{J}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|)
\,, \label{eq:sig-2jet} &&\end{aligned}$$ where for future convenience we keep the impact parameter $b$ dependence and express the integrand in the rhs of Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet\]) via the generalized parton distributions (GPDs) in impact parameter space $G_{I}(x,Q^{2},b)$, instead of the usual integrated parton distribution functions (PDFs), $f_{I}(x,Q^{2})=\int \! d^2b\;G_{I}(x,Q^{2},b)$. Here $s$ is the center of mass (c.m.) energy squared, $x^{\pm}$ - parton light-cone momentum fractions, $M_{{\rm F}}^{2}$ - the factorization scale, and $d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(\hat s,p_{t}^{2})/dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}$ is the parton scatter cross section.
The GPDs for arbitrary $Q^{2}>Q_{0}^{2}$ are obtained evolving the input ones from the cutoff scale $Q_{0}^{2}$: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{I}(x,Q^{2},b) =\sum_{I'}\int_{x}^{1}\!\frac{dz}{z}\,
E_{I'\rightarrow I}(z,Q_{0}^{2},Q^{2})&& \nonumber \\
\times \; G_{I'}(x/z,Q_{0}^{2},b)\,,
\label{eq:GPD-evolv}\end{aligned}$$ with $E_{I\rightarrow J}(z,q^{2},Q^{2})$ being the solution of the DGLAP equations for the initial condition $E_{I\rightarrow J}(z,q^{2},q^{2})=\delta_{I}^{J}\,\delta(1-z)$. In turn, $G_{I}(x,Q_0^{2},b)$ is defined summing over partial contributions of different diffractive eigenstates $|i\rangle$ of the proton, with the partial weights $C_{i}$, as[^3] [@ost06a; @ost16] $$\begin{aligned}
x\,G_{I}(x,Q_0^{2},b) =\sum_i C_i \left\{\chi_{(i)I}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}/x,b)
\right. \nonumber &&\\
+ \;G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'}
\; \chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}\,x'/x,|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|) \nonumber &&\\
\times \left.\left[1-e^{-\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')}
-\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')\right]
\right\} \!,\label{eq:GPD-Q0} &&\end{aligned}$$ being expressed via the solution $\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}$ of the “fan” diagram equation of Fig. \[fig:ffan\],
![Recursive equation for a fan diagram contribution $\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(\hat{s},b)$, $\hat{s}=s_{0}/x$. \[fig:ffan\]](rapgap3){width="45.00000%" height="3cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(\hat{s},b)=
\chi_{(i)\mathbb{P}}^{\mathbb{P}}(\hat{s},b)\nonumber &&\\
+\;G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'}\;
\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}}(x'\hat{s},|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|) \nonumber &&\\
\times \left[1-e^{-\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')}
-\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')\right] \!.&&
\label{eq:fan}\end{aligned}$$
In Eqs. (\[eq:GPD-Q0\]-\[eq:fan\]), $s_0=1$ GeV$^2$ is the hadronic mass scale and the eikonals $\chi_{(i)\mathbb{P}}^{\mathbb{P}}$ and $\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}}$ correspond to Pomeron exchanges between the proton diffractive eigenstate $|i\rangle$ and a multi-Pomeron vertex or, respectively, between two multi-Pomeron vertexes, while $\chi_{(i)I}^{\mathbb{P}}$ and $\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}$ describe Pomerons coupled to parton $I$ on one side and to the proton represented by its diffractive eigenstate $|i\rangle$ or, respectively, to a multi-Pomeron vertex, on the other side, as discussed in more detail in [@ost06a; @ost11]. It is easy to see that the expression in the curly brackets in Eq. (\[eq:GPD-Q0\]) is obtained from the rhs of Eq. (\[eq:fan\]) under the replacements $\chi_{(i)\mathbb{P}}^{\mathbb{P}}
\rightarrow \chi_{(i)I}^{\mathbb{P}}$, $\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}} \rightarrow
\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}$, i.e. by picking up parton $I$ from the downmost Pomeron.
It is noteworthy that Eqs. (\[eq:GPD-evolv\]-\[eq:fan\]) have been derived in Ref. [@ost06a], neglecting parton transverse diffusion during the perturbative ($|q^{2}|>Q_{0}^{2}$) evolution and assuming Pomeron-Pomeron interactions to be mediated by nonperturbative parton processes, using the vertexes for the transition of $m$ into $n$ Pomerons of the form [@kai86]: $G^{(m,n)}=G\,\gamma_{\mathbb{P}}^{m+n}$, where $G$ is related to the triple-Pomeron coupling $r_{3\mathbb{P}}$ as $G=r_{3\mathbb{P}}/(4\pi\gamma_{\mathbb{P}}^{3}$). For smaller $x$, the soft ($|q^{2}|<Q_{0}^{2}$) parton evolution proceeds over a longer rapidity interval and results in a larger transverse spread of the parton cloud at the scale $Q_{0}^{2}$, due to the transverse diffusion. On the other hand, for a higher scale $Q^{2}$, a larger part of the available rapidity range is “eaten” by the perturbative evolution \[c.f. Eq. (\[eq:GPD-evolv\])\]. As a consequence, for a given $x$, partons of higher $Q^{2}$ are distributed over a smaller transverse area.
{width="65.00000%" height="3.cm"}
If we naively assumed the same kind of factorization for diffractive dijet production, the respective cross sections would be defined by subsets of cut diagrams corresponding to Fig. \[fig:2jet\], characterized by a desirable structure of rapidity gaps. For example, for the case of central hard diffraction (“double Pomeron exchange”), with the forward and backward rapidity gaps being larger than $y^{\rm gap}$, we would obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(fact)}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}
,y^{\rm gap})= \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'
\int\! dx^{+}dx^{-} &&
\nonumber \\
\times \int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm
t}}^{2} \;
\sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}&&
\nonumber \\
\times \;G^D_{I}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},b',y^{\rm gap})\,
G^D_{J}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|,y^{\rm gap})
\,. \label{eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact}&&\end{aligned}$$ Here the diffractive GPDs $G^D_{I}(x,Q^{2},b,y^{\rm gap})$ for an arbitrary scale $Q^{2}$ are obtained via DGLAP evolution from $Q_{0}^{2}$ till $Q^{2}$ \[similarly to Eq. (\[eq:GPD-evolv\])\], while\
$G^D_{I}(x,Q_0^{2},b,y^{\rm gap})$ is expressed via the contribution $2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan(D)}}$ of diffractive cuts of the fan diagrams of Fig. \[fig:ffan\] as $$\begin{aligned}
x\,G^D_{I}(x,Q_0^{2},b,y^{\rm gap})= \sum_i C_i
\left\{\frac{G}{2}\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'} \right. && \nonumber \\
\times \; \Theta (-\ln x'-y^{\rm gap}) \;
\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}\, x'/x,|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|)
&& \nonumber \\
\times \left[(1-e^{-\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')})^2
+ (e^{2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan(D)}}(s_{0}/x',b',y^{\rm gap})}-1)
\right. && \nonumber \\
\times \left.\left. e^{-2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')}
- 2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan(D)}}(s_{0}/x',b',y^{\rm gap}) \right]
\right\}\!.\label{eq:GPD-D}&&\end{aligned}$$ The latter are defined by the recursive equation of Fig. \[fig:ffan-D\]: $$\begin{aligned}
2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan(D)}}(\hat s,b,y^{\rm gap})=
G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'} && \nonumber \\
\times \; \Theta (-\ln x'-y^{\rm gap})\;
\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}}(x'\hat s,|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|)
&& \nonumber \\
\times \left[(1-e^{-\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')})^2
+ (e^{2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan(D)}}(s_{0}/x',b',y^{\rm gap})}-1) \right.
&& \nonumber \\
\times \left. e^{-2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan}}(s_{0}/x',b')} \;
-2\chi_{(i)}^{{\rm fan(D)}}(s_{0}/x',b',y^{\rm gap}) \right]\!.
&&\label{eq:ffan-D}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to Eqs. (\[eq:GPD-Q0\]-\[eq:fan\]), the expression in the curly brackets in Eq. (\[eq:GPD-D\]) is obtained from the rhs of Eq. (\[eq:ffan-D\]) under the replacement $\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}} \rightarrow
\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}$.
The analog of Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]) for single (here, projectile) hard diffraction is[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}
,y^{\rm gap}) = \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'\int\! dx^{+}dx^{-}
\nonumber &&\\
\times
\int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}
\; \sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}\nonumber &&\\
\times \;G^D_{I}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},b',y^{\rm gap})\,
G_{J}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|)
\,. \label{eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact} &&\end{aligned}$$
Since the integrated diffractive PDFs $f^D_{I}(x,Q^{2},y^{\rm gap})= \int \! d^2b \,
G^D_{I}(x,Q^{2},b,y^{\rm gap})$ can be inferred from experimental studies of diffractive deep inelastic scattering, Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]) and (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]) could have been well-defined predictions. In reality, there is no good reason to assume such kind of factorization for not fully inclusive quantities, like diffractive cross sections, and the real picture is significantly more complicated, as shown symbolically in Fig. \[fig:ddijets\].
![Schematic view for central hard diffraction; parton $J$ is emitted from a cut Pomeron at the central rapidity, the cut plane shown by the vertical dotted-dashed line. Eikonal absorption due to constituent parton rescatterings is shown symbolically by the vertical ellipse marked “$S^2_{\rm eik}$”; noneikonal absorptive corrections due to rescatterings of intermediate partons mediating the diffractive scattering are indicated by inclined ellipses. \[fig:ddijets\]](rapgap5){width="40.00000%" height="4.5cm"}
First, the expressions in the rhs of Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]) and (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]) have to be supplemented by the probability that the desirable rapidity gaps are not filled by secondary particles produced in additional inelastic scatterings processes between constituent partons of the projectile and target protons. For given diffractive eigenstates $|i\rangle$, $|j\rangle$ of the two protons and impact parameter $b$, the corresponding RGS probability is $\exp (-\Omega _{ij}(s,b))$, where the so-called opacity $\Omega _{ij}$ is defined as twice the sum over imaginary parts of all significant irreducible Pomeron graphs coupled to the eigenstates $|i\rangle$ and $|j\rangle$.
A relatively compact expression for $\Omega _{ij}$ has been obtained in [@ost06] summing the contributions of arbitrary Pomeron “nets” exchanged between the projectile and target protons:[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega _{ij}(s,b)=2\chi_{ij}^{\mathbb{P}}(s,b)+2G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'}
\left\{(1\right.
&&\nonumber \\
-\;e^{-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})\,
(1-e^{-\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x' s,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})
&&\nonumber \\
-\;\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b}) \,
\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x' s,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})
&&\nonumber \\
-\, (\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})
-\chi_{(i)\mathbb{P}}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}/x',b')) &&\nonumber \\
\times \left[(1-e^{-\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x'
s,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})\,
e^{-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}
\right. &&\nonumber \\
- \left.\left.
\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x' s,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})\right]\right\}\!, &&
\label{chi-tot}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_{ij}^{\mathbb{P}}(s,b)$ is the eikonal for a single Pomeron exchange between the eigenstates $|i\rangle$ and $|j\rangle$ while the “net-fan” eikonal $\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}$ corresponds to the summary contribution of arbitrary irreducible Pomeron nets exchanged between the projectile and target protons (represented by the eigenstates $|i\rangle$ and $|j\rangle$) and coupled to a given multi-Pomeron vertex, which is defined by the recursive equation \[c.f. Eq. (\[eq:fan\])\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(\hat s,\vec{b}''|s,\vec{b})=
\chi_{(i)\mathbb{P}}^{\mathbb{P}}(\hat{s},b'')
+G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'}
&&\nonumber \\
\times \; \chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}}(x'\hat{s},|\vec{b}''-\vec{b}'|)
\left[(1-e^{-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})\right.
&&\nonumber \\
\times \left. e^{-\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x's,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}
-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})\right]\!.&&
\label{net-fan}\end{aligned}$$
Taking into consideration only the above-discussed eikonal rapidity gap suppression, shown symbolically by the vertical ellipse in Fig. \[fig:ddijets\], Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]) and (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]) will change to $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(eik)}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}
,y^{\rm gap}) = \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'
\int\! dx^{+}dx^{-}
\nonumber && \\
\times \int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}\;
\sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}
\nonumber && \\
\times \; \sum_{i,j} C_i\, C_j \;
G^D_{I(i)}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},b',y^{\rm gap})
\nonumber && \\
\times \; G^D_{J(j)}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|,y^{\rm gap})\;
e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}
\label{eq:sig-2jet-dpe-eik} && \\
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(eik)}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}
,y^{\rm gap}) = \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'
\int\! dx^{+}dx^{-}
\nonumber && \\
\times \int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}\;
\sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}
\nonumber && \\
\times \; \sum_{i,j} C_i\, C_j \;
G^D_{I(i)}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},b',y^{\rm gap})
\nonumber && \\
\times \; G_{J(j)}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},|\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|)\;
e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}
, \label{eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik} &&\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{I(i)}$ and $G^D_{I(i)}$ are obtained evolving from $Q_0^2$ till $M_{{\rm F}}^{2}$ the corresponding partial contributions \[expressions in the curly brackets in Eqs. (\[eq:GPD-Q0\]) and (\[eq:GPD-D\]), respectively\] of the eigenstate $|i\rangle$.
Neglecting color fluctuations in the interacting protons, i.e. considering a single eigenstate $i\equiv 1$, would significantly simplify the analysis since the total opacity $\Omega _{pp}(s,b)$ can be inferred from measurements of the differential elastic $pp$ cross section. Yet, as already stressed previously [@bjo93; @kmr01; @kmr03], even in such a case the overall RGS factor would not be a universal constant, depending generally on the process under study and the respective kinematics. In the particular case of diffractive dijet production, considered here, a higher jet transverse momentum cutoff $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$ implies a lower probability for the rapidity gap survival, since a larger part of the available rapidity range will be “eaten” by the DGLAP evolution of $G_{I(i)}$ and $G^D_{I(i)}$ in the high $q^2$ range \[c.f. Eq. (\[eq:GPD-evolv\])\]. Hence, a smaller part will be left for parton transverse diffusion during the soft evolution at $|q^{2}|<Q_{0}^{2}$, with the end result that the contribution of moderately large impact parameters $b$ to the integrands of Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-eik\]-\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik\]) will be reduced. On the other hand, diffractive production at small $b$ is strongly suppressed by a higher opacity $\Omega _{pp}(s,b)$, which reflects a higher probability for additional inelastic scattering processes, due to a stronger overlap of parton clouds of the interacting protons.
While Eqs. (\[eq:GPD-Q0\]) and (\[eq:GPD-D\]) already account for absorptive corrections to $G_{I}$ and $G^D_{I}$ due to rescatterings of intermediate partons off their parent protons, additional suppression, shown symbolically by the inclined ellipses in Fig. \[fig:ddijets\], comes from their elastic rescatterings off the partner protons. Intermediate partons in the cascades mediating those rescatterings may in turn scatter elastically off the initial protons, etc. Taking these effects into consideration, we obtain, similarly to the case of soft diffraction in Refs. [@ost10; @ost06a], the cross sections for central and single (here, projectile) diffractive dijet production as
{width="65.00000%" height="3.5cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}
,y^{\rm gap}) = \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'
\int\! dx^{+}dx^{-}
\nonumber && \\
\times \int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm
t}}^{2}\; \sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}
\nonumber && \\
\times \sum_i C_i\, C_j\;
\tilde G^D_{I(i)|(j)}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},\vec b',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec b)
\nonumber && \\
\times \; \tilde G^D_{J(j)|(i)}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},\vec{b}-\vec{b}',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec b)\;
e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}
\label{eq:sig-2jet-dpe} && \\
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD}}(s,p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}
,y^{\rm gap}) = \int \! d^2b \, d^2b'
\int\! dx^{+}dx^{-}
\nonumber && \\
\times \int_{p_{{\rm t}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}}\! dp_{{\rm
t}}^{2} \;\sum_{I,J=q,\bar{q},g}
\frac{d\sigma_{IJ}^{2\rightarrow2}(x^{+}x^{-}s,p_{{\rm t}}^{2})}
{dp_{{\rm t}}^{2}}
\nonumber && \\
\times \sum_i C_i\, C_j \;
\tilde G^D_{I(i)|(j)}(x^{+},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},\vec b',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec b)
\nonumber && \\
\times \; \tilde G_{J(j)|(i)}(x^{-},M_{{\rm F}}^{2},\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec b)\;
e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}
, \label{eq:sig-2jet-sd} &&\end{aligned}$$
where $\tilde G_{I(i)|(j)}$ and $\tilde G^D_{I(i)|(j)}$ now depend explicitly on the geometry of the $pp$ collision, being defined at the $Q_0^{2}$-scale as $$\begin{aligned}
x\,\tilde G_{I(i)|(j)}(x,Q_0^{2},\vec b''|s,\vec b) =
\chi_{(i)I}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}/x,b'') \nonumber &&\\
+\;G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'} \;
\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}\,x'/x,|\vec{b''}-\vec{b}'|)
\nonumber &&\\
\times
\left\{(1-e^{-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})\,
e^{-2\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x's,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}\right.
\nonumber &&\\
-\left. \chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})\right\}
\label{eq:GPD'-Q0} && \\
x\,\tilde G^D_{I(i)|(j)}(x,Q_0^{2},\vec b'',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec b) =
\frac{G}{2}\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'}
\nonumber &&\\
\times \; \Theta (-\ln x'-y^{\rm gap})\;
\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}(s_{0}\, x'/x,|\vec{b}''-\vec{b}'|)
\nonumber &&\\
\times \left\{(1-
e^{-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})^2
\right.
\nonumber &&\\
\times \; e^{-2\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x's,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}
+ (e^{2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net(D)}}(s_{0}/x',\vec b',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec{b})}
\nonumber &&\\
-\;1)
\; e^{-2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}\!(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})
-2\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x's,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}
\nonumber &&\\
-\left. 2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net(D)}}(s_{0}/x',\vec b',y^{\rm
gap}|s,\vec{b})\right\}\!. \label{eq:GPD'-D} &&\end{aligned}$$ Here the total contribution $2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net(D)}}$ of all the unitarity cuts of the net-fan diagrams, characterized by the desirable rapidity gap signature, is defined by the recursive equation of Fig. \[fig:ffan-D’\] \[c.f. Fig. \[fig:ffan-D\] and Eq. (\[eq:ffan-D\])\]: $$\begin{aligned}
2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net(D)}}(\hat s,\vec b'',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec b) =
G\int\! d^{2}b'\int\!\frac{dx'}{x'}
\nonumber &&\\
\times \; \Theta (-\ln x'-y^{\rm gap})\;
\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}}(x'\hat s,|\vec{b}''-\vec{b}'|)
\nonumber &&\\
\times \left\{(1-e^{-\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})})^2
e^{-2\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x's,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}\right.
\nonumber &&\\
+(e^{2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net(D)}}(s_{0}/x',\vec b',y^{\rm gap}|s,\vec{b})}
-1) \nonumber &&\\
\times \; e^{-2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net}}\!(s_{0}/x',\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})
-2\chi_{(j)|(i)}^{{\rm net}}(x's,\vec{b}-\vec{b}'|s,\vec{b})}
\nonumber &&\\
-\left. 2\chi_{(i)|(j)}^{{\rm net(D)}}(s_{0}/x',\vec b',y^{\rm
gap}|s,\vec{b})\right\}\!. \label{eq:ffan-D'} &&\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, the rhs of Eq. (\[eq:GPD’-D\]) is obtained from the rhs of Eq. (\[eq:ffan-D’\]) under the replacement $\chi_{\mathbb{PP}}^{\mathbb{P}} \rightarrow
\chi_{\mathbb{P}I}^{\mathbb{P}}$.
In the next section, we apply Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]), (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]), (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-eik\]-\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik\]), and (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe\]-\[eq:sig-2jet-sd\]) to investigate the rapidity gap survival for diffractive dijet production in $pp$ collisions. We shall use the parameter set of the QGSJET-II-04 model [@ost11], which has been obtained by fitting the model to available accelerator data on total and elastic proton-proton cross sections, elastic scattering slope, and total and diffractive structure functions $F_{2}$, $F_{2}^{{\rm D}(3)}$.
Results and discussion\[sec:results\]
=====================================
Let us start with the investigation of the energy dependence of the dijet production cross section and of the respective rapidity gap survival probability for single diffractive (SD) proton-proton collisions. In Fig. \[fig:sigjet-sd-s\] (left),
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
we compare our results for $\sqrt{s}$-dependence of $\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}$ calculated according to Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]), based on the factorization assumption, to the one of $\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(eik)}}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik\])\], which accounts for the eikonal rapidity gap suppression, and to $\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD}}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd\])\], which takes into account all the above-discussed suppression effects. We impose here cuts on the jet transverse momentum, $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm jet}}>p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}=20$ GeV/c, and on the light cone momentum loss by the projectile proton, $\xi =M_X^2/s <\xi_{\max}=0.01$, i.e. $y^{\rm gap}=-\ln \xi_{\max}$, with $M_X^2$ being the mass squared of the produced diffractive system. Additionally, we demand both jets to be produced in the central pseudorapidity $\eta$ region, $|\eta_{\rm jet}|<2.5$. In Fig. \[fig:sigjet-sd-s\] (right), we plot the corresponding RGS factors $S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}\equiv
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(eik)}}
/\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}$ and $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}\equiv
\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD}} /\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}$. While the plotted diffractive dijet cross sections steeply rise with energy, due to the increase of the kinematic space for parton evolution, we observe a mild energy-dependence for the respective RGS factors. Naturally, the probability for the rapidity gap survival goes down at higher energies - due to the increase of parton densities, resulting in an enhancement of multiple scattering, hence, in a decrease of $S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$. However, the additional RG suppression by absorptive corrections of non-eikonal type, reflected by the ratio $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}/S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}\simeq 0.6$, appears to be a much weaker and almost energy-independent effect. At the first sight, this seems surprising as the energy rise of parton densities should lead to an enhancement of rescatterings of intermediate partons from the cascades mediating the diffractive scattering, hence, to stronger non-eikonal absorptive corrections.
To get a further insight into the problem, let us check the dependence of the dijet SD cross sections and of the RGS factors on the jet transverse momentum cutoff $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$ at the energies of the Tevatron (Fig. \[fig:sigjet-sd-pt-tev\]), for $\xi_{\max}=0.1$, and the LHC (Fig. \[fig:sigjet-sd-pt\]), for $\xi_{\max}=0.01$.
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
The obtained $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$-dependencies for both $S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$ and $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}$ are rather flat. There is a mild decrease of $S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$ for increasing $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$ - due to the shift of the dijet production into more opaque region of smaller impact parameters, which is related to the reduction of the phase space available for soft ($|q^{2}|<Q_{0}^{2}$) parton evolution, as discussed in Section \[sec:jet-diffr\]. On the other hand, the ratio $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}/S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$ remains nearly constant over the studied range 5 GeV/c$<p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}<50$ GeV/c. To some extent, this is less surprising than the flat energy-dependence in Fig. \[fig:sigjet-sd-s\] (right), since there are two competing effects here, both arising from the reduced kinematic phase space for the soft parton evolution. On the one side, the shift of the dijet production towards smaller impact parameters should enhance the absorptive effects related to rescatterings of intermediate partons. On the other hand, due to the reduction of the rapidity space for the soft parton evolution, one may expect a weakening of those effects.[^6]
For completeness, let us also study the dependencies of the dijet SD cross sections and of the RGS factors on the size of the rapidity gap. These are plotted in Fig. \[fig:sigjet-xgap\]
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
as a function of $\xi_{\max}$, for the production of jets of $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm jet}}> 20$ GeV/c at the LHC energy $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV. Here we observe a rather flat behavior for $S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$, since the size of the rapidity gap makes a small impact on the slope for the diffractive scattering, hence, on the range of impact parameters relevant for SD dijet production. On the other hand, for decreasing $\xi_{\max}$ (thus, for an increasing rapidity range for virtual parton cascades mediating the diffractive scattering), there is some enhancement of absorptive effects related to rescatterings of intermediate partons, which results in a slight decrease of the RGS probability, with $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}/S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$ changing from 0.65 for $\xi_{\max}=0.1$ to 0.53 for $\xi_{\max}=10^{-3}$.
It is clear from our discussion so far that the key to the understanding of the rapidity gap suppression of diffractive dijet production is in the impact parameter dependence of the respective transverse profiles $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}/d^2b$, $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(eik)}}/d^2b$, and $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD}}/d^2b$, which are defined by the $b$-integrands of Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]), (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik\]), and (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd\]), respectively. In Fig. \[fig:rapgap-prof\] (left),
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
we plot\
$d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}/d^2b$ for $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV and $\xi_{\max}=10^{-2}$, for two values of the jet $p_{{\rm t}}$-cutoff: $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}=5$ and 50 GeV/c, in comparison to the inelastic profile $G_{pp}^{\rm inel}(s,b)=1-\sum_{i,j}C_i\, C_j\; e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}$. Here we immediately see the origin of the factorization breaking for diffractive dijet production: the respective profile defined by the factorization ansatz, Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]), is confined to the opaque region of small impact parameter $b$, where the probability of additional inelastic rescatterings between the protons’ constituents is close to unity. When taking into account the eikonal RG suppression, i.e. including the probability for no such rescatterings \[factor $e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}$ in the rhs of Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik\])\], the corresponding production rate at $b\simeq 0$ is reduced by many orders of magnitude \[c.f. dotted and dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:rapgap-prof\] (right)\]. At $b> 2$ fm, the absorption becomes weak, yet the production rate is miserable there. Hence, the bulk of the SD dijet production comes from the intermediate region $b\sim 1-1.5$ fm. It is worth stressing that the above-discussed transverse picture is of generic character, being a consequence of the fundamental feature of hadronic collisions, namely, that the slope for diffractive scattering is considerably smaller than the elastic scattering slope $B_{pp}^{\rm el}$ which defines the transverse spread of the inelastic profile $G_{pp}^{\rm inel}(s,b)$.
Let us next consider the profile $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(noneik)}}/d^2b$, plotted as the dotted-dashed line in Fig. \[fig:rapgap-prof\] (right), which corresponds to taking noneikonal absorption into account, while neglecting the eikonal RG suppression. It is defined by the $b$-integrand of Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd\]), omitting the factors $e^{-\Omega _{ij}(s,b)}$. We see that the respective effects, being reflected by the differences between the dotted and dotted-dashed lines in the Figure, are strongest at small $b$, i.e. where rescatterings of intermediate partons are enhanced by a higher parton density. However, as discussed above, the contribution of the small $b$ region to the diffractive dijet production is strongly suppressed by the eikonal absorption. This explains the relatively weak effect of the noneikonal absorption, observed in Figs. \[fig:sigjet-sd-s\]–\[fig:sigjet-xgap\]. In other words, as argued in Ref. [@kmr17; @kmr09], the eikonal RG suppression effectively eliminates the kinematic region where noneikonal absorptive effects could be of significant importance. This also helps us to understand the very week energy-dependence of the noneikonal absorption, observed in Fig. \[fig:sigjet-sd-s\] (right). Moving to higher energies, diffractive dijet production at relatively small $b$ is stronger and stronger suppressed by the eikonal RG suppression and important contributions come only from larger impact parameters where the noneikonal absorption becomes weaker.
The above-discussed tendencies become more clear if we compare the energy-dependence of the average impact parameter squared for the different approximations, $\langle b_{(X)}^2\rangle=\int \!d^2b\;b^2\,
\frac{d^2\sigma_{pp}^{(X)}}{d^2b}/\sigma_{pp}^{(X)}$ \[$X=$ 2jet-SD(fact), 2jet-SD(eik), and 2jet-SD\], to the one for general inelastic collisions, $\langle b_{\rm inel}^2\rangle=\int \!d^2b\;b^2\,
G_{pp}^{\rm inel}(s,b)/\sigma_{pp}^{\rm inel}(s)$, as plotted in Fig. \[fig:rapgap-bb\].
![Average $b^2$ for inelastic $pp$ collisions (solid) and for SD dijet production for $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV, $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}=20$ GeV/c, $\xi_{\max}=0.01$, and $|\eta_{\rm jet}|<2.5$, as calculated using the different approximations: factorization (dotted), eikonal suppression (dashed), and all suppression effects (dotted-dashed). \[fig:rapgap-bb\]](rapgap12){width="45.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
We notice that $\langle b_{\rm (2jet-SD(fact))}^2\rangle$ calculated based on the factorization assumption is more than twice smaller than $\langle b_{\rm inel}^2\rangle$. This is not surprising since, firstly, already the slope for soft diffraction is considerably smaller than $B_{pp}^{\rm el}$ and, secondly, in case of hard diffraction a large part of the available rapidity range is “eaten” by hard ($|q^{2}|>Q_{0}^{2}$) parton evolution characterized by weak transverse diffusion, $\Delta b^2 \sim 1/|q^{2}|$, neglected here. Let us also remark that for increasing energy $\langle b_{\rm (2jet-SD(fact))}^2\rangle$ rises slower than $\langle b_{\rm inel}^2\rangle$ because the hard parton evolution covers a longer and longer rapidity interval. Next, we notice that, firstly, $\langle b_{\rm (2jet-SD(eik))}^2\rangle$ is considerably larger than $\langle b_{\rm (2jet-SD(fact))}^2\rangle$ and, secondly, it has a significantly steeper energy rise. This is because the region of small $b$ is strongly suppressed by the eikonal absorption \[c.f. dotted and dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:rapgap-prof\] (right)\] and for higher energies the strong absorption extends towards larger impact parameters, as a consequence of the widening and “blackening” of the inelastic profile, as noticed already in Ref. [@glm98], which are caused by parton transverse diffusion and the energy rise of parton densities, respectively. The same arguments apply to the noneikonal absorption, due to its dependence on parton density: it is strongest at small $b$ and, for increasing energy, becomes more important at larger impact parameters. Consequently, $\langle b_{\rm (2jet-SD)}^2\rangle$ is slightly larger than $\langle b_{\rm (2jet-SD(eik))}^2\rangle$.
As the cross section formulas, Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]), (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-eik\]), and (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd\]), are obtained averaging over contributions of different Fock states of the projectile and target protons, it may be sensible to discuss the relative roles of the different absorptive corrections separately for particular combinations of those Fock states. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:prof-gw\],
{width="95.00000%" height="13cm"}
where we plot for $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV, $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}=5$ GeV/c, and $\xi_{\max}=10^{-2}$ the respective partial contributions $d^2\sigma_{pp(ij)}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}/d^2b$, $d^2\sigma_{pp(ij)}^{2{\rm jet-SD(noneik)}}/d^2b$,\
$d^2\sigma_{pp(ij)}^{2{\rm jet-SD(eik)}}/d^2b$, and $d^2\sigma_{pp(ij)}^{2{\rm jet-SD}}/d^2b$ for the 4 different cases: when both the projectile and the target protons are represented by their largest size Fock states, marked as “L–L” in the Figure, for an interaction between the small size states (“S–S”), and for interactions between Fock states of different sizes (“L–S” and “S–L”). In the “L–L” case, we see that all the above-discussed tendencies, in particular, the strong suppression of the small $b$ region are much more prominent, being enhanced by the larger (integrated) parton densities for the large size states. On the other hand, in the “S–S” case, the interaction profile is more transparent due to smaller parton densities, resulting in a weaker absorption at small impact parameters. However, because of the smaller scattering slope, the dijet production is confined here to the small $b$ region, thus making a small contribution to the overall yield. A similar competition between the transverse spread and the strength of absorption we observe for the two non-diagonal cases. In the “L–S” case, the diffractive scattering of the projectile proton is enhanced by its larger parton density. Moreover, both the eikonal absorption and the one due to intermediate parton rescatterings off the target proton are reduced because of the lower parton density for the latter. However, the scattering slope in this case is sizably smaller tahn in the “S–L” case. Consequently, the latter contribution appears to be a more important one, despite stronger noneikonal absorptive corrections related to rescatterings of intermediate partons off the target proton which has a higher parton density than in the “L–S” case (c.f. dotted and dotted-dashed lines in the lower right panel of Fig. \[fig:prof-gw\]).
Let us now turn to the case of central diffractive dijet production. In Fig. \[fig:rapgap-dpe\],
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
we plot the energy (for $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm jet}}> 20$ GeV/c) and the $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$ (for $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV) dependencies of the corresponding RGS factors (all for $\xi_{\max}=0.1$), $S^2_{\rm DPE(eik)}= \sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(eik)}}
/\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(fact)}}$ and $S^2_{\rm DPE(tot)}= \sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE}}
/\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(fact)}}$, where\
$\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(fact)}}$, $\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(eik)}}$, and $\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE}}$ are defined by Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]), (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-eik\]), and (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe\]), respectively. Additionally, in Fig. \[fig:dpe-prof\]
![Transverse profiles for central diffractive dijet production at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV for $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm jet}}>20$ GeV/c, calculated taking different absorptive effects into account: $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(fact)}}/d^2b$ (dotted), $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD(eik)}}/d^2b$ (dashed), and $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-SD}}/d^2b$ (solid); $\xi_{\max}=0.1$, $|\eta_{\rm jet}|<2.5$. \[fig:dpe-prof\]](rapgap15){width="45.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
we show the corresponding transverse profiles $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(fact)}}/d^2b$, $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE(eik)}}/d^2b$, and $d^2\sigma_{pp}^{2{\rm jet-DPE}}/d^2b$, given by the $b$-integrands in the rhs of Eqs. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]), (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-eik\]), and (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe\]). Here we observe for the RGS probability the same tendencies as in the case of single diffraction: a relatively weak dependence on the collision energy and a low sensitivity to the jet transverse momentum cutoff, also a nearly constant ratio $S^2_{\rm DPE(tot)}/S^2_{\rm DPE(eik)}\simeq 0.4$. The overall absorption is approximately twice stronger, compared to SD dijet production, because of the smaller scattering slope for central diffraction, which thus concentrates at smaller impact parameters \[c.f. dotted lines in Figs. \[fig:rapgap-prof\] (right) and Fig. \[fig:dpe-prof\]\]. There, both eikonal and noneikonal absorptive corrections are enhanced by the higher parton densities in the projectile and target protons, resulting in a substantial suppression of the production profile, as one can see in Fig. \[fig:dpe-prof\]. Interestingly, the obtained additional suppression of the RGS probability by noneikonal absorptive effects, $S^2_{\rm DPE(eik)}/S^2_{\rm DPE(tot)}\simeq 2.5$, fits well in the range \[2–3\] estimated earlier in Ref. [@fs07] using a different framework.
It may be interesting to check how robust are the presented results with respect to variations of parameters of the adopted model. To address that, we repeat the calculations of the RGS probability for SD dijet production using two alternative parameter tunes of the QGSJET-II-04 model, discussed in Ref. [@ost14] in relation to present uncertainties of soft diffraction measurements at the LHC. One of the tunes, referred to as “SD-”, yields 30% smaller low mass diffraction cross section, compared to the default parameter settings, because of a smaller difference between the strengths of the Pomeron coupling to different diffractive eigenstates of the proton. At parton level, this would correspond to weaker color fluctuations in the proton. The other one, referred to as “SD+”, is characterized by an increased rate of high mass diffraction in $pp$ collisions, which has been achieved by using a higher value for the triple-Pomeron coupling, and a slightly smaller low mass diffraction. Apart from those features, both parameter tunes have been calibrated with the same set of experimental data on hadronic cross sections and particle production as the default model (see Ref. [@ost14] for more details). The calculated energy (for $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}= 20$ GeV/c and $\xi_{\max}=0.01$) and $p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}$ (for $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV and $\xi_{\max}=0.1$) dependencies of the corresponding RGS factors for SD dijet production are shown in Fig. \[fig:rapgap-opt\],
{width="95.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
being very similar to each other and to the above-discussed results obtained using the default model parameters. This applies also to the relative importance of the noneikonal absorption: the calculated $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}/S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$ ranges between 0.6 and 0.8, depending on the parameter set and the event selection. However, the absolute value of the RGS probability appears to be quite sensitive to the treatment of low mass diffraction, being some 70% higher for the SD- tune, due to a slightly more transparent inelastic profile, compared to the default case.
Let us finally check whether the obtained values for the RGS probability are compatible with available experimental data. Here the situation is somewhat confusing. At $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV, using the parameter sets of QGSJET-II-04, SD+, and SD- tunes, for SD dijet production ($p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}= 7$ GeV/c and $\xi_{\max}=0.1$) we obtain the values $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}\simeq 0.05$, 0.07, and 0.09, respectively \[see Fig. \[fig:rapgap-opt\] (right)\], which are all compatible with the CDF result, $0.06 \pm 0.02$ [@aff00]. However, recent measurements at the LHC by the CMS [@cha13] and ATLAS [@atlas16] experiments indicate that the RGS probability for SD dijet production at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV ($p_{{\rm t}}^{{\rm cut}}= 20$ GeV/c and $\xi_{\max}\sim 10^{-3}$) is at 10% level, which is compatible with the CDF result at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV and is almost an order of magnitude higher than what we obtain here \[c.f. Fig. \[fig:rapgap-opt\] (left)\]. Thus, we find the experimental situation very puzzling since the decrease with energy of the RGS probability is closely related to the significant shrinkage of the diffractive cone, convincingly demonstrated by the TOTEM [@totem17] and ATLAS [@aad14] measurements. As the scattering slope for (unabsorbed) diffractive dijet production rises with energy slower than $B_{pp}^{\rm el}$ (c.f. dotted and solid lines in Fig. \[fig:rapgap-bb\] for the respective $\langle b^2 \rangle$), at higher energies the bulk of the production becomes confined to more and more opaque region. If the flat energy behavior of the RGS probability is further confirmed, notably, by using also information from proton tagging by forward detectors at the LHC, this would imply a very nontrivial dynamics of hadronic collisions.
Conclusions\[sec:Outlook\]
==========================
In this work, we applied the phenomenological Reggeon field theory framework for calculations of the rapidity gap survival probability for diffractive dijet production in proton-proton collisions, investigating in some detail various absorptive effects contributing to the RG suppression. Most importantly, we have demonstrated that the absorption due to elastic rescatterings of intermediate partons mediating the diffractive scattering plays a subdominant role, compared to the eikonal rapidity gap suppression due to elastic rescatterings of constituent partons of the colliding protons. The corresponding suppression factors, $S^2_{\rm SD(tot)}/S^2_{\rm SD(eik)}$ and $S^2_{\rm DPE(tot)}/S^2_{\rm DPE(eik)}$, are found to depend very weakly on the collision energy and the event kinematics. This is good news since, for a given process of interest, one may account for such effects, in the first crude approximation, via a rescaling of jet rates by a constant factor. On the other hand, such a weak dependence is somewhat accidental, as it results from a complex interplay between particular event selections (e.g. the choice for the jet $p_{\rm t}$ cutoff) and the corresponding modification of the transverse profile for diffractive dijet production. Generally, such corrections depend on the shape of the transverse profile for a hard diffraction process of interest and on the kinematic range available for soft parton evolution, which is influenced, in turn, by the kinematics of the hard process. For example, we observed $\simeq 40$% difference for the noneikonal suppression factors between the cases of single and central diffraction. Consequently, our results can not be directly applied to other hard diffraction reactions.
The main suppression mechanism for hard diffraction, related to elastic rescatterings of constituent partons of the colliding protons, is defined by the interplay between the shape of the inelastic profile for general $pp$ collisions and the transverse profile for a diffractive process of interest, as already demonstrated previously [@kmr17; @bjo93; @kmr01; @fs07]. On the other hand, it appears to depend sizably on color fluctuations in the proton, which thus introduces a significant model dependence for calculations of the RGS probability. Reversing the argument, experimental studies of rapidity gap survival in hard diffraction can provide an insight into the nonperturbative structure of the proton.
The authors acknowledge useful discussions with V. Khoze and M. Tasevsky. This work was supported in part by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Project No. OS 481/1-2) and the State of Hesse via the LOEWE-Center HIC for FAIR. This work was also partially supported by the COST Action THOR, CA15213.
[99]{} V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, arXiv:1710.11505 \[hep-ph\]. Yu. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, and T. Sjostrand, Phys. Lett. B [**274**]{}, 116 (1992). J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 101 (1993). E. Gotsman, E. M. Levin, and U. Maor, Phys. Lett. B [**309**]{}, 199 (1993). E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor, Phys. Lett. B [**438**]{}, 229 (1998). E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 094011 (1999). E. Gotsman, H. Kowalski, E. Levin, U. Maor, and A. Prygarin, Eur. Phys. J. C [**47**]{}, 655 (2006). E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1685 (2011). E. Gotsman, E. Levin, and U. Maor, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 177 (2016). A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin, and V. A. Khoze, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 5867 (1997). A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{}, 521 (2001). V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C [**26**]{}, 229 (2002). A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Lett. B [**559**]{}, 235 (2003). M. G. Ryskin, A. D. Martin, and V. A. Khoze, Eur. Phys. J. C [**60**]{}, 265 (2009). V. A. Petrov and R. A. Ryutin, JHEP [**0408**]{}, 013 (2004); J. Phys. G [**35**]{}, 065004 (2008). L. Frankfurt, C. E. Hyde, M. Strikman, and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 054009 (2007). B. Z. Kopeliovich, I. K. Potashnikova, I. Schmidt, and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 034019 (2007). R. S. Pasechnik and B. Z. Kopeliovich, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1827 (2011); R. Pasechnik, B. Kopeliovich, and I. Potashnikova, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 114039 (2012). L. Lönnblad and R. Zlebcik, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 668 (2016). D. A. Fagundes, A. Grau, G. Pancheri, O. Shekhovtsova, and Y. N. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, 054010 (2017). V. N. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP [**26**]{}, 414 (1968). S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 114028 (2010). O. V. Kancheli, JETP Lett. [**18**]{}, 274 (1973); J. L. Cardi, Nucl. Phys. B [**75**]{}, 413 (1974). A. B. Kaidalov, L. A. Ponomarev, and K. A. Ter-Martirosyan, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**44**]{}, 468 (1986). S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Lett. B [**636**]{}, 40 (2006); Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 034009 (2008). S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 014026 (2006). S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 014018 (2011). H. J. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, Phys. Rep. [**350**]{}, 93 (2001); S. Ostapchenko, H. J. Drescher, F. M. Liu, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, J. Phys. G [**28**]{}, 2597 (2002). M. L. Good and W. D. Walker, Phys. Rev. [**120**]{}, 1857 (1960). A. B. Kaidalov, Phys. Rep. [**50**]{}, 157 (1979). L. Frankfurt, M. Strikman, D. Treleani, and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 202003 (2008). V. A. Abramovskii, V. N. Gribov, and O. V. Kancheli, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**18**]{}, 308 (1974). S. Ostapchenko and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 034015 (2016). S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 074009 (2014). T. Affolder [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5043 (2000). S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 012006 (2013). ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B [**754**]{}, 214 (2016). G. Antchev et al. (TOTEM Collaboration), EPL [**96**]{}, 21002 (2011); EPL [**101**]{}, 21002 (2013); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 012001 (2013); Nucl. Phys. B [**899**]{}, 527 (2015); Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 661 (2016); arXiv:1712.06153 \[hep-ex\]. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B [**889**]{}, 486 (2014); M. Aaboud (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**761**]{}, 158 (2016).
[^1]: Note, however, the arguments of Ref. [@fs07] concerning a suppression of contributions of inelastic intermediate states.
[^2]: It is noteworthy that the integrated parton density is, however, lower for Fock states of smaller size [@kmr01; @fra08].
[^3]: To simplify the discussion, we neglect here Pomeron “loop” contributions, exemplified by the last graph in the rhs of Fig. \[fig:triangle\], the complete treatment being described in Refs. [@ost10; @ost11].
[^4]: Strictly speaking, Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-sd-fact\]) contains also the contribution of double diffraction, corresponding to a dissociation of the projectile proton into a low mass hadronic system, in addition to the formation of a high mass state on the target side (see the discussion in Refs. [@ost10; @ost14]). Similarly, Eq. (\[eq:sig-2jet-dpe-fact\]) accounts also for situations when the projectile or/and target protons are excited into low mass hadronic states, in addition to the formation of the central diffractive system.
[^5]: As mentioned above, in our discussion we neglect for simplicity the contributions of graphs containing Pomeron loops. In numerical calculations, presented in Section \[sec:results\], we use the complete formalism of the QGSJET-II model, Pomeron loop contributions included.
[^6]: Let us remind that in the current approach only rescatterings of soft ($|q^{2}|<Q_{0}^{2}$) partons are taken into consideration.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a metric space $\as$ and show that its (continuous) theory is the almost-sure theory of finite metric spaces of diameter at most $1$.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of California, Irvine, 340 Rowland Hall (Bldg.\# 400), Irvine, CA 92697-3875
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St., Hamilton ON, Canada L8S 4K1'
author:
- Isaac Goldbring and Bradd Hart
title: The almost sure theory of finite metric spaces
---
Introduction
============
Recall that the *Urysohn sphere $\u$* is the unique Polish metric space of diameter $1$ satisfying two properties: *universality:* all Polish metric spaces of diameter at most $1$ embed into $\u$; and *ultrahomogeneity:* any isometry between finite subspaces of $\u$ extends to a self-isometry of $\u$. From the model-theoretic perspective, $\u$ is the Fraïsse limit of the class of all finite metric spaces of diameter at most $1$ and is the model completion of the pure theory of metric spaces.
A lingering question about $\u$ is whether or not it is *pseudofinite*, that is, elementarily equivalent to an ultraproduct of finite metric spaces, or, equivalently, whether or not, given a sentence $\sigma$ for which $\sigma^\u=0$ and $\epsilon>0$, there is a finite metric space $X$ of diameter at most $1$ such that $\sigma^X<\epsilon$. In an earlier preprint, we claimed that not only is $\u$ pseudofinite, but indeed a stronger result is true, namely $\operatorname{Th}(\u)$ is the almost-sure theory of finite metric spaces, which means, given any sentence $\sigma$ and any $\epsilon>0$, almost all sufficiently large metric spaces $X$ of diameter at most $1$ satisfy $|\sigma^X-\sigma^\u|<\epsilon$.
However, a serious flaw in our argument was discovered by Alex Kruckman and thus the pseudofiniteness of the Urysohn sphere is still in question. It is the purpose of this note to rescue the latter fact, namely that there is an almost-sure theory of finite metric spaces of diameter at most $1$. The motivation for the definition of this theory comes from the fact that almost all sufficiently large metric spaces of diameter at most $1$ have all nontrivial distances at least $\frac{1}{2}-O(n^C)$ (see [@MT] and [@KMPS]). This led us to consider a space defined just like $\u$ except with all nontrivial distances being at least $\frac{1}{2}$. Since any assignment of distances between distinct points taking values at least $\frac{1}{2}$ automatically satisfies the triangle inequality, this allowed us to salvage a version of our argument in this context.
In Section 2, we precisely define this modified version of $\u$, which we denote by $\as$, and list its relevant model-theoretic properties. In Section 3, we show that the theory of $\as$ is indeed the almost-sure theory of finite metric spaces of diameter at most $1$. In an appendix, we review an amalgamation result that we need in our arguments.
The almost-sure metric space
============================
Suppose that $\mathcal C$ is the class of finite metric spaces in which the distance between any two distinct points lies in the interval $[1/2,1]$. Note that all such metric spaces are discrete as any ball of radius $\frac{1}{4}$ consists just of its center. We let $L$ denote the “empty” metric language, that is, the language that only consists of the metric symbol.
$\mathcal C$ is a metric Fraïsse class with separably categorical Fraïsse limit $\as$. $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ has quantifier elimination and is the model completion of the $L$-theory $\{\sup_{x,y}\min(\frac{1}{2}{
\buildrel\textstyle\ .\over{\hbox{
\vrule height3pt depth0pt width0pt}{\smash-}
}}d(x,y),d(x,y))=0\}$.
The notation $\as$ for the Fraïsse limit standards for “almost-sure.” This notation will become clear when we show that $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ is the almost-sure theory of finite metric spaces with values in $[0,1]$.
The proof of the preceding theorem proceeds just as in the case of the class of all metric spaces with distances in $[0,1]$ (whose corresponding limit is the Urysohn sphere). We refer the reader to [@U]. However, we will spell out an axiomatization of $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ as this will be important for what is to follow.
Given a finite metric space $X=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$, we let $Conf_X(v_1,\ldots,v_n)$ denote the formula $$\max_{1\leq i < j\leq n} |d(x_i,x_j) - d(v_i,v_j)|.$$
We use the notation $X\sqsubset Y$ when $X$ is a finite metric space and $Y$ is a one-point extension of $X$, in which case the extra point is denoted by $y$.
Given $X\sqsubset Y$ with $X,Y\in \mathcal C$, we let $\Psi^\epsilon_{X\sqsubset Y}$ denote the sentence
$$\sup_{\bar v} \min \{ \epsilon {
\buildrel\textstyle\ .\over{\hbox{
\vrule height3pt depth0pt width0pt}{\smash-}
}}Conf_X (\vec v), \inf_w Conf_Y(\vec v,w) {
\buildrel\textstyle\ .\over{\hbox{
\vrule height3pt depth0pt width0pt}{\smash-}
}}\epsilon \}.$$
The set of conditions $\{\Psi^\epsilon_{X\sqsubset Y}=0 \ : \ \epsilon>0, \ X\sqsubset Y, \ X,Y\in \mathcal C\}$ axiomatizes $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$.
That these axioms hold in $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ follows from the definition of $\as$ and a simple amalgamation result that we discuss in the appendix. It remains to note that any separable model of these axioms must be isometric to $\as$ by a simple back-and-forth argument.
We end this section with one result for the model-theorists:
$\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ is not stable but is supersimple of $U$-rank $1$. Moreover, forking independence is characterized by $$A{\mathop{\mathpalette\indsym{}}}_C B\Leftrightarrow A\cap B\subseteq C,$$ where $A,B,C$ are small subsets of some monster model $\as^*$ of $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$.
It is straightforward to verify that the independence relation in the above display satisfies all of the axioms of forking independence in simple theories. We verify only the Independence Theorem over Models. Suppose that $M$ is a model, $M\subseteq A,B$, $A{\mathop{\mathpalette\indsym{}}}_M B$ and $p(x)\in S(A)$ and $q(x)\in S(B)$ are types with a common restriction to $M$. Since we are free to amalgamate $A$ and $B$ in $\as^*$ over $M$ (again, see the appendix), the types $p$ and $q$ can be amalgamated.
Since $\as$ is discrete, to see that $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ is supersimple, it suffices to show that any type does not fork over a finite subset of its domain. If $p(x)\in S_n(A)$ and $a=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)\models p$, then setting $B:=\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}\cap A$, we see that $p$ does not fork over $B$.
To see that the $U$-rank of the theory is $1$, suppose that $p\in S_1(A)$ is a type with $U(p)\geq 1$. Take a forking extension $q\in S_1(B)$ of $p$ and let $a\models p$. Then $a\in B\setminus A$ and thus the condition $d(x,a)=0$ belongs to $q$. It follows that $q$ is algebraic, whence $U(p)=1$.
To see that $\operatorname{Th}(\as)$ is not stable, let $p(x)$ be any $1$-type over a model $M$, let $a\in \as^*$ realize $p$ and take $b\in \as^*\setminus Ma$. Then we can assign $d(x,b)$ to be any number in $[\frac{1}{2},1]$ and obtain an extension of $p$ to $Mb$ in this manner. Thus, there are continuum many different nonforking extensions of $p$ to $Mb$.
The reader should contrast the previous result with the case of the Urysohn sphere, which is not simple (see [@U]).
The almost-sure theory of finite metric spaces
==============================================
We set $\lambda_n$ to be Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]^{n\choose 2}$, $C_n:=[\frac{1}{2},1]^{n\choose 2}$, $\mu_n:=\lambda_n \upharpoonright C_n$, and $\mu_n':=\frac{\mu_n}{\mu_n(C_n)}=2^{n\choose 2}\mu_n$, a probability measure on $C_n$.
We identify $\bar d=(d_{ij})\in C_n$ with the metric space on $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with $d(i,j):=d_{ij}$. In this manner, if $X\in \mathcal C$, we write $Conf_X(\bar d)$, with the interpretation that the appearance of $d(v_i,v_j)$ gets replaced with $d_{ij}$. We perform a similar identification with $\Psi^\epsilon_{X\sqsubset Y}(\bar d)$.
\[keytheorem\] For any $X_1 \sqsubset Y_1, \ldots, X_m \sqsubset Y_m$ from $\mathcal C$ and any $\epsilon > 0$, we have $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\mu_n'\left(\left\{\bar d\in C_n \ : \ \max_{i=1,\ldots,n}\Psi_{X_i\sqsubset Y_i}^\epsilon(\bar d)=0\right\}\right)=1.$$
Fix $i\in \{1,\ldots,m\}$ and set $X:=X_i$ and $Y:=Y_i$. We decompose $$C_n=C_k\times [\frac{1}{2},1]^k\cdots \times [\frac{1}{2},1]^k\times C_{n-k}$$ and likewise decompose $\bar d=(\bar d',\bar d^1,\ldots,\bar d^{n-k},\bar d'')$. The intention is that $\bar d'$ represents $d_{ij}$ for $1\leq i<j\leq k$, $\bar d^t$ represents $d_{it}$ for $i=1,\ldots,k$ and $t=k+1,\ldots,n$, and $\bar d''$ represents $d_{ij}$ for $k+1\leq i<j\leq n$. Set $$A:=\{\bar d\in C_n \ : \ Conf_X(\bar d')\leq \epsilon \text{ and }Conf_Y(\bar d',\bar d^t)\geq \epsilon \text{ for all }t=1,\ldots,n-k\}.$$ Let $B$ be the projection of $A$ onto $C_k$ and $B'$ be the projection of $A$ onto $C_k\times [\frac{1}{2},1]^k\cdots \times [\frac{1}{2},1]^k$. Since we are free to assign the distances to $x_{k+1},\ldots,x_n$ in any way we want (as the triangle inequality is always satisfied), we have $\mu_n(A)=(\mu_k\times \eta^{n-k})(B')\cdot \mu_{n-k}(C_{n-k})$; here, $\eta$ is Lebesgue measure on $[\frac{1}{2},1]^k$. For $\bar d'\in B$, set $f(\bar d'):=\eta(\{\bar d^1 \in [\frac{1}{2},1]^k \ : \ Conf_Y(\bar d',\bar d^1)\leq \epsilon\})$. Note that $f(\bar d')<(\frac{1}{2})^k$ for each $\bar d'\in B$. Since $f$ is upper semi-continuous, $\sup_{\bar d'\in B}f(\bar d')=\max_{\bar d'\in B}f(\bar d')$, whence there is $\delta>0$ such that $f(\bar d')\leq (\frac{1}{2})^k-\delta$ for all $\bar d'\in B$. Now notice that, since we can independently assign the values of $d_{it}$, we have $(\mu_k\times \eta^{n-k})(B')\leq ((\frac{1}{2})^k-\delta)^{n-k}\mu_k(B)$. After normalizing, we have $$\mu_n'(A)\leq 2^{n \choose 2}\mu_k(B) ((\frac{1}{2})^k-\delta)^{n-k}\mu_{n-k}(C_{n-k}).$$ Since $${n \choose 2} = {k \choose 2} + k(n-k) + {{n-k} \choose 2},$$ we rewrite the right-hand side of the above inequality as $$\mu_k'(B)(1 - 2^k\delta)^{n-k}.$$ This entire expression is then of the form $C_ip_i^n$ for some constants $C_i>0$ and $p_i < 1$, which are independent of $n$ (but do depend on $i$).
Now $\mu_n'(A)$ is an upper bound of the measure of those $\bar d\in C_n$ which make $\Psi^\epsilon_{(X,Y)}$ false *as witnessed by* $x_1,\ldots,x_k$, that is, the “first” $k$ points of the space. However, the same reasoning applies to any $k$ points from our space, whence $$\mu_n(\{\bar d\in C_n \ : \ \Psi^\epsilon_{X\sqsubset Y}>0\}\leq n(n-1)\cdots n(n-k+1) C_ip_i^n.$$ Set $C:=\max_{1\leq i\leq m}C_i$ and $p:=\max_{1\leq i\leq m}p_i$. We then have $$\mu_n'(\{\bar d\in C_n \ : \ \max_{i=1,\ldots,m}\Psi^\epsilon_{X_i\sqsubset Y_i}(\bar d)>0\}\leq m\cdot n(n-1)\cdots n(n-k+1) Cp^n.$$ Since the quantity on the right goes to $0$ as $n$ tends to $\infty$, we have the desired result.
Let $M_n\subseteq [0,1]^{n\choose 2}$ denote the set of all metric spaces on $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with values in $[0,1]$. Note that $C_n\subseteq M_n$. We let $\nu_n$ be Lebesgue measure normalized to $M_n$, that is, $\nu_n(A)=\frac{\lambda_n(A)}{\lambda_n(M_n)}$.
\[keylemma\] $\lim_{n\to \infty}\nu_n(C_n)=1$.
Let $C_n^r$ be the set of $1/r$-grid points in $C_n$ and similarly for $M_n^r$, that is, the $n$-element $[0,1]$-metric spaces with distances that are multiples of $1/r$. By [@MT], Theorem 1.2, for even $r \geq 4$, there is $\beta > 0$ such that for all $n$, $$|C_n^r| \leq |M_n^r| \leq \frac{1}{1 - 2^{-\beta n}} |C_n^r|.\label{MT}$$ From this we conclude that for large, even $r$, $\displaystyle\frac{|C_n^r|}{|M_n^r|}$ tends to 1 as $n$ tends to infinity. Since $\displaystyle\frac{|C_n^r|}{|M_n^r|}$ approximates $\nu(C_n)$ as $r\to \infty$ (by grid approximation to Lebesgue measure), we have the desired result.
Given $\bar d\in M_n$ and an $L$-sentence $\sigma$, we write $\sigma^{\bar d}$ for the value of $\sigma$ in the metric space on $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ corresponding to $\bar d$.
For any sentence $\sigma$ and any $\delta>0$, we have $$\nu_n(\{\bar d\in M_n \ : \ |\sigma^{\bar d}-\sigma^{\as}|<\delta\})=1.$$
Set $r:=\sigma^{\as}$. Take $X_1 \subset Y_1, \ldots, X_m \subset Y_m$, finitely many 1-point extensions of finite $[1/2,1]$-metric spaces, and $\epsilon > 0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq i\leq m}\Psi^{\epsilon}_{(X_i,Y_i)}(\bar d)=0\models |\sigma^{\bar d}-r|<\delta.$$ Let $A_n:=\{\bar d\in M_n \ : \ \max_{1\leq i\leq m}\Psi^{\epsilon}_{(X_i,Y_i)}(\bar d)=0\}$. We then have $$\nu_n(A_n)=\frac{\lambda_n(A_n)}{\lambda_n(M_n)}=\frac{\lambda_n(A_n\cap C_n)}{\lambda_n(C_n)}\cdot \frac{\lambda_n(C_n)}{\lambda_n(M_n)}+\frac{\lambda_n(A_n\setminus C_n)}{\lambda_n(M_n)}.$$ By Theorem \[keytheorem\] and Lemma \[keylemma\], the right-hand side of the previous display approaches $1$ as $n$ approaches $\infty$, whence the desired result follows.
An amalgamation reminder
========================
We remind the reader of the following construction: suppose that $X \sqsubset Y$ is a 1-point extension, with $y$ as the additional point from $Y$, and suppose that $X \subset Z$ is another finite extension of $X$. Then $Y$ and $Z$ can be amalgamated over $X$ by setting, for every $z \in Z$, $$d(y,z) := \min_x (d(x,y) + d(x,z)).$$ Moreover, if $X = \{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ and $Z = X \cup \{z_1,\ldots,z_n\}$ then with the above amalgamation, we have $$| d(y,x_i) - d(y,z_i) | \leq d(x_i,z_i).$$ This calculation shows that if we have two $n$-element metric spaces $X = \{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ and $X' = \{x_1',\ldots,x_n'\}$ that have been jointly embedded in some metric space $Z$ such that $d(X,X') \leq \epsilon$ (that is, $\max_i d(x_i,x'_i) \leq \epsilon$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$), then for $Y$ as above, it is possible to jointly embed $Y$ and $Z$ in such a way that $d(Y,X' \cup \{y\}) \leq \epsilon$.
[99]{} B. Hart, Lecture notes from short course, Notre Dame, June 2016,
https://ms.mcmaster.ca/~bradd/Research/Lec4-examples.pdf
G. Kozma, T. Meyerovitch, R. Peled, and W. Samotij, Random points in the metric polytope, 2013, Slides for a talk given at Random Combinatorial Structures and Statistical Mechanics, May, 2013, Venice. D. Mubayi and C. Terry, Discrete metric spaces: structure, enumeration, and 0-1 laws, to appear in the J. Symb. Log. G. Conant and C. Terry, Model theoretic properties of the Urysohn sphere, APAL 167 (1), 2016, 49–72. A. Usvyatsov, Generic separable metric structures, Topology and its Applications, 155 (14), 2008, 1607–1617.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove that a weakly ergodic, eventually strong Feller semigroup on the space of measures on a Polish space converges strongly to a projection onto its fixed space.'
author:
- Moritz Gerlach
bibliography:
- 'analysis.bib'
title: |
A Tauberian Theorem\
for Strong Feller Semigroups
---
Introduction
============
In the study of Markov processes one is interested in semigroups of operators on the space of measures that describe the evolution of distributions. Of specific importance is the question under which conditions such a semigroup is stable in the sense that for every initial distribution the process converges to an invariant measure as time goes to infinity. A celebrated theorem by Doob asserts that a stochastically continuous Markov semigroup is stable if it admits an invariant measure, is irreducible and has the strong Feller property; see [@doob48], [@gerlach2014 Thm 4.4], [@gerlach2012], [@stettner1994] and [@seidler1997] for various versions and proofs of this result. We recall that a semigroup on the space of measures is said to have the strong Feller property if its adjoint maps bounded measurable functions to continuous ones.
A necessary condition for stability of a semigroup is weak ergodicity, i.e. convergence of the Cesàro averages in the weak topology induced by the bounded continuous functions. In [@gerlach2013] M. Kunze and the author characterized ergodicity of semigroups on general norming dual pairs in the spirit of the classical mean ergodic theorem. In particular for eventually strong Feller Markov semigroups it was shown that they are weakly ergodic if the space of invariant measures separates the space of invariant continuous functions.
In the present article we prove that for eventually strong Feller semigroups weak ergodicity is already sufficient for stability, i.e. pointwise convergence of the semigroup in the total variation norm. In comparison to Doob’s classical result, this Tauberian theorem even shows stability of not necessarily irreducible semigroups whose fixed space is of arbitrary high dimension.
In the following section we show that the square of every strong Feller operator is a kernel operator in the sense that it belongs to the band generated by the finite rank operators. Section \[sec:main\] addresses Markov semigroups and their asymptotic behavior and contains the proof of our main result, Theorem \[thm:tauberian\].
Strong Feller and Kernel operators {#sec:kernelops}
==================================
Throughout, $\Omega$ denotes a Polish space and $\mathscr{B}(\Omega)$ its Borel $\sigma$-algebra. We denote by $\mathscr{M}(\Omega), B_b(\Omega)$ and $C_b(\Omega)$ the spaces of signed measures on $\mathscr{B}(\Omega)$, the space of bounded, Borel-measurable functions on $\Omega$ and the space of bounded continuous functions on $\Omega$, respectively. We denote by ${\langle \; \cdot\;,\; \cdot\;\rangle}$ the duality between $B_b(\Omega)$ and $\mathscr{M}(\Omega)$.
\[def:transkernel\] A *Markovian transition kernel* on $\Omega$ is a map $k: \Omega\times\mathscr{B}(\Omega)\to {\mathds{R}}_+$ such that
(a) $A \mapsto k(x, A)$ is a probability measure for every $x\in \Omega$ and
(b) $x \mapsto k(x,A)$ is a measurable function for every $A\in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$.
To each Markovian transition kernel $k$, one can associate a positive operator $T \in \mathscr{L}(\mathscr{M}(\Omega))$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.kernel}
(T\mu)(A) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\int_\Omega k(x,A)\, {\mathrm{d}}\mu (x).\end{aligned}$$ for all $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ and $A \in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$. The following lemma characterizes operators of this form.
\[lem:weaklycont\] For a positive operator $T \in \mathscr{L}(\mathscr{M}(\Omega))$ the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) There exists a Markovian transition kernel $k$ such that $T$ is given by .
(ii) The norm adjoint $T^*$ of $T$ leaves $B_b(\Omega)$ invariant and $T^* \mathds{1} = \mathds{1}$.
(iii) The operator $T$ is continuous in the $\sigma(\mathscr{M}(\Omega), B_b(\Omega))$-topology.
This follows from Propositions 3.1 and 3.5 of [@kunze2011].
If an operator $T\in {\mathscr{L}}({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))$ satisfies the equivalent conditions from Lemma \[lem:weaklycont\], then $T$ is called *Markovian* and we write $T'$ for the restriction of $T^*$ to $B_b(\Omega)$.
If a Markovian operator $T\in {\mathscr{L}}({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))$ even satisfies $T' f \in C_b(\Omega)$ for all $f\in B_b(\Omega)$, then $T$ is called *strong Feller* and if, in addition, the family $$\{ T'f : f \in B_b(\Omega),\; \lvert f\rvert \leq c\mathds{1} \}$$ is equi-continuous for all $c> 0$, then $T$ is said to be *ultra Feller*.
It is well know that the product of two strong Feller operators is ultra Feller, see [@revuz1975 §1.5].
We recall that for two Riesz spaces $E$ and $F$ a linear operator from $E$ to $F$ is called regular if it is the difference of two positive operators. If the Riesz space $F$ is order complete, the regular operators from $E$ to $F$ form itself a order complete Riesz space. By $E^*_{\text{oc}}$ we denote the order continuous linear functionals on $E$.
\[def:kernelops\] Let $E$ and $F$ be Riesz spaces and $F$ be order complete. We denote by $E^*_{\text{oc}}\otimes F$ the space of order continuous finite rank operators from $E$ to $F$. The elements of $(E^*_{\text{oc}}\otimes F)^{\bot\bot}$, the band generated by $E^*_{\text{oc}}\otimes F$ in the regular operators from $E$ to $F$, are called *kernel operators*.
Since $\mathscr{M}(\Omega)$ is a $L$-space, its norm is order continuous. Therefore, every bounded linear operator on $\mathscr{M}(\Omega)$ is regular and order continuous and ${\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)^*={\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)^*_{\text{oc}}$. Thus, $\mathscr{L}(\mathscr{M}(\Omega))$ is an order complete Banach lattice with respect to the natural ordering, see [@schaefer1974 Thm IV 1.5].
We use the following characterization of kernel operators on $L^\infty$-spaces due to Bukhvalov:
\[thm:bukhvalov\] Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be finite measures on $(\Omega,{\mathscr{B}}(\Omega))$ and $T$ a bounded linear operator from $L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)$ to $L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)$. Then $T$ is a kernel operator if and only if $\lim Tf_n =0$ $\mu$-almost everywhere for each bounded sequence $(f_n)\subset L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)$ satisfying $\lim \lVert f_n \rVert_{L^1(\Omega,\nu)} =0$.
This follows from Bukhvalov’s theorem [@zaanen1983 Thm 96.5] and the identification of concrete and abstract kernel operators [@schaefer1974 Prop IV 9.8].
\[thm:ultrafellerkernel\] Let $T\in{\mathscr{L}}({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))$ be an ultra Feller operator. Then $T$ is a kernel operator.
Let $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$ and $\nu {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}T\mu$, then $T \{ \mu\}^{\bot\bot} \subset \{\nu\}^{\bot\bot}$. Let us denote by $T_\mu$ the restriction of $T$ to $\{\mu\}^{\bot\bot}$. By the Radon-Nikodym theorem, $\{\mu\}^{\bot\bot}$ and $\{\nu\}^{\bot\bot}$ are isometrically isomorphic to $L^1(\Omega,\mu)$ and $L^1(\Omega,\nu)$. Thus, we may consider $T_\mu$ as an operator from $L^1(\Omega,\mu)$ to $L^1(\Omega,\nu)$ and we prove that $T_\mu^* : L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)\to L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)$ is a kernel operator by applying Bukhvalov’s theorem in the version of Theorem \[thm:bukhvalov\]. It is easy to check that $$T_\mu^* [f] = [T' f]$$ for every $f\in B_b(\Omega)$, where $[f]$ denotes the equivalent class of $f$ in $L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)$.
Let $(f_n) \subset L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)$ be a bounded sequence such that $\lim \lVert f_n \rVert_{L^1(\Omega,\nu)} =0$. By choosing representatives we may assume that every $f_n$ is a bounded measurable function. Moreover, we may assume that each $f_n$ vanishes on $\Omega\setminus \operatorname{supp}(\nu)$. Then $$0= \lim {\langle f_n,\nu\rangle}=\lim {\langle T_\mu^*f_n,\mu\rangle} = \lim {\langle T_\mu'f_n,\mu\rangle}.$$ Let $\omega \in \Omega$ such that $(T_\mu'f_n)(\omega)$ does not converge to $0$. Then there exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ and a subsequence $(f_{n_k})$ of $(f_n)$ such that $T_\mu'f_{n_k}(\omega) \geq {\varepsilon}$ for all $k\in{\mathds{N}}$. By the ultra Feller property of $T_\mu$, the family $$\{ T_\mu'f_{n_k} : k\in {\mathds{N}}\}$$ is equi-continuous. Therefore, we find an open neighborhood $U$ of $\omega$ such that $(T_\mu'f_{n_k})(s)\geq {\varepsilon}/2$ for all $s\in U$ and $k\in{\mathds{N}}$. Now we conclude from $$\mu(U)\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \leq \int_\Omega T_\mu'f_{n_k} {\mathrm{d}}\mu \to 0 \quad (k\to\infty)$$ that $\mu(U)=0$ and hence $U \subset \Omega\setminus \operatorname{supp}(\mu)$. This proves that $(T_\mu' f_n)(\omega)$ converges to $0$ for all $\omega\in \operatorname{supp}(\mu)$ and hence almost everywhere. Thus, it follows from Theorem \[thm:bukhvalov\] that $$T_\mu^*\in (L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)^*_{\text{oc}} \otimes L^\infty(\Omega,\mu))^{\bot\bot}.$$ By [@meyer1991 Prop 1.4.15], the order continuous functionals on $L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)$ are precisely $L^1(\Omega,\nu)$. Thus, $T_\mu^*\in (L^1(\Omega,\nu) \otimes L^\infty(\Omega,\mu))^{\bot\bot}$.
Now we prove that $T_\mu \in (L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)\otimes L^1(\Omega,\nu))^{\bot\bot}$. Let $0\leq S_\alpha\leq T_\mu^*$, $\alpha\in\Lambda$, be an upwards directed net and $R_\alpha \in L^1(\Omega,\nu)\otimes L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)$ such that $\sup S_\alpha=T_\mu$ and $S_\alpha \leq R_\alpha$ for all $\alpha\in\Lambda$. Then $S_\alpha^* \leq R_\alpha^* \in L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)\otimes L^1(\Omega,\nu)$ for all $\alpha\in\Lambda$. Since $L^1(\Omega,\nu)$ is an ideal in the dual of $L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)$, we obtain that $${S_\alpha^*}\mid_{L^1(\Omega,\mu)} : L^1(\Omega,\mu) \to L^1(\Omega,\nu).$$ Now it follows from $$\sup {\langle (T_\mu-S^*_\alpha)f,g\rangle} = \sup {\langle f,(T_\mu^*-S_\alpha)g\rangle} = 0$$ for all $f\in L^1(\Omega,\mu)$ and $g\in L^\infty(\Omega,\nu)$ that $T_\mu = \sup S^*_\alpha$ and therefore $$T\mid_{ L^1(\Omega,\mu)} = T_\mu \in (L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)\otimes L^1(\Omega,\nu))^{\bot\bot}.$$ It follows that $TP_\mu \in ({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)^*\otimes {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))^{\bot\bot}$ for every $\mu\in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$ where $P_\mu$ denotes the band projection onto $\{\mu\}^{\bot\bot}$. Thus, $$T = \sup \{ TP_\mu : \mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+ \}$$ belongs to $({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)^*\otimes {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))^{\bot\bot}$ which completes the proof.
Stability of ergodic strong Feller semigroups {#sec:main}
=============================================
A *Markovian semigroup* on ${\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ is a family ${\mathscr{T}}=(T(t))_{t\geq 0} \subset {\mathscr{L}}({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))$ of Markovian operators on ${\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ such that $T(t+s) = T(t)T(s)$ for all $t,s\geq 0$ and $T(0)=I$. A Markovian semigroup is called *stochastically continuous* if $t\mapsto {\langle T(t)\mu,f\rangle}$ is continuous for all $f\in C_b(\Omega)$ and $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$.
Throughout, let ${\mathscr{T}}=(T(t))_{t\geq 0}$ be a stochastically continuous Markovian semigroup.
It follows from [@kunze2011 Thm 6.2] that ${\mathscr{T}}$ is *integrable* in the sense of [@kunze2011 Def 5.1]. In particular, by [@kunze2011 Thm 5.8], for every $t>0$ there exists a Markovian operator $A_t \in {\mathscr{L}}({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega))$ satisfying $${\langle A_t \mu,f\rangle} = \frac{1}{t} \int_0^t {\langle T(s)\mu,f\rangle} {\mathrm{d}}s$$ for all $\mu\in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ and $f\in B_b(\Omega)$. We call the semigroup ${\mathscr{T}}$ $B_b$-*ergodic* if $\lim_{t\to\infty} A_t \mu$ exists in the $\sigma({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega),B_b(\Omega))$-topology for all $\mu\in{\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$.
The following proposition ensures that for every initial distribution the part on the disjoint complement of ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ converges to zero if ${\mathscr{T}}$ is $B_b$-ergodic and eventually strong Feller.
\[prop:stabilityonfixbot\] Let $P$ denote the band projection onto ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot}$. If ${\mathscr{T}}$ is $B_b$-ergodic and $T(t_0)$ is strong Feller for some $t_0>0$, then $$\lim_{t\to\infty} PT(t)\mu = 0$$ for all $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$.
First note that, since ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot\bot}$ is ${\mathscr{T}}$-invariant, $R(t) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}PT(t)$ defines a semigroup. Obviously, every operator $R(t)$ is positive and contractive. Fix $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$ and let $$\alpha {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\lim_{t\to\infty} \lVert PT(t) \mu \rVert = \inf_{t\geq 0} \lVert R(t)\mu \rVert.$$ We pick $t_1>0$ such that $\nu {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}PT(t_1)\mu$ satisfies $\lVert \nu \rVert < \alpha+\frac{\alpha}{2}$. Since ${\mathscr{T}}$ is $B_b$-ergodic, $\lim A_t \nu {=\mathrel{\mathop:}}\tilde\nu$ exists with respect to the $\sigma({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega),B_b(\Omega))$-topology and $\tilde \nu \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ by [@gerlach2013 Lem 4.5]. In particular, $${\langle \tilde\nu,\mathds{1}\rangle} = \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{1}{t} \int_0^t {\langle T(s)\nu,\mathds{1}\rangle}{\mathrm{d}}s = \lVert\nu\rVert \geq \alpha.$$ Let $t\geq t_0$. As $PT(2t)\nu$ and $\nu$ are disjoint, there exists a Borel set $B \subset \Omega$ such that $$(PT(2t)\nu)(B) = \tilde \nu (\Omega\setminus B)=0.$$ Since $\lVert T(2t)\nu \rVert \leq \lVert \nu\rVert < \alpha+\frac{\alpha}{2}$ and $$\lVert PT(2t)\nu\rVert = \lVert R(t_1+2t)\mu \rVert \geq \alpha$$ it follows from the additivity of the total variation norm that $\lVert (I-P)T(2t)\nu \rVert < \frac{\alpha}{2}$. Hence, $(T(2t)\nu)(B) < \frac{\alpha}{2}$. Let $f{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}T'(t)\mathds{1}_B$ and $g{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}T'(t)\mathds{1}_{\Omega\setminus B}$. Since $T(t)=T(t-t_0)T(t_0)$ is strong Feller and Markovian, $f,g \in C_b(\Omega)_+$ and $f+g = \mathds{1}$. It follows from ${\langle \tilde \nu,g\rangle}=0$ that $$A {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\operatorname{supp}\tilde\nu \subset \{ g=0 \} = \{ f=1\},$$ i.e. $\mathds{1}_A \leq f$. Thus, $${\langle T(t)\nu,\mathds{1}_A\rangle} \leq {\langle T(t)\nu,f\rangle} = {\langle T(2t)\nu,\mathds{1}_B\rangle} < \frac{\alpha}{2}.$$ Since $t\geq t_0$ was arbitrary, we conclude that ${\langle T(t)\nu,\mathds{1}_A\rangle} < \frac{\alpha}{2}$ for all $t\geq t_0$ and hence $$\alpha = {\langle \tilde\nu,\mathds{1}_A\rangle} = \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{1}{t} \int_0^t {\langle T(s)\nu,\mathds{1}_A\rangle} \leq \frac{\alpha}{2}.$$ Thus, $\alpha=0$.
The assumption that ${\mathscr{T}}$ is eventually strong Feller cannot be dropped in Proposition \[prop:stabilityonfixbot\]. A counterexample is given by the rotation group on the Borel measures on the unit circle.
Note that the situation is different for time-discrete semigroups. If $T$ is a positive and mean ergodic contraction on an $L$-space $E$ and $P$ is the band projection onto ${\mathrm{fix}}(T)^\bot$, then it is possible to prove that $$\lim_{n \to\infty} \lVert P T^n x \rVert = 0$$ for all $x\in E$.
Our main tool for the proof of the desired Tauberian theorem is the following result from [@gerlach2012b Thm 4.2], a generalized version of [@greiner1982 Kor 3.11]. We recall that a family ${\mathscr{S}}= (S(t))_{t\geq 0} \subset {\mathscr{L}}(E)$ of positive operators on a Banach lattice $E$ is called a *positive strongly continuous semigroup* if $S(t)S(s) = S(t+s)$ for all $t,s\geq 0$, $S(0)=I$ and the mapping $t\mapsto S(t)x$ is continuous for all $x\in E$. A positive strongly continuous semigroup ${\mathscr{S}}= (S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ is called *irreducible* if $\{0\}$ and $E$ are the only closed ideals in $E$ that are invariant under the action of every operator $S(t)$.
\[thm:greiner\] Let ${\mathscr{S}}= (S(t))_{t\geq 0} \subset {\mathscr{L}}(E)$ be a positive, bounded, irreducible and strongly continuous semigroup on a Banach lattice $E$ with order continuous norm such that ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{S}}) \not= \{0\}$. If $S(t_0)\in (E^*_{\text{oc}}\otimes E)^{\bot\bot}$ for some $t_0>0$, then there exists a positive $z^* \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{S}}^*)$ and a positive $z \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{S}})$ of $E_+$ such that $$\lim_{t\to\infty} S(t)x = {\langle z^*,x\rangle} z$$ for all $x\in E$.
The following theorem shows that, if the semigroup ${\mathscr{T}}$ contains a kernel operator, every principal band $\{\mu\}^{\bot\bot}$ spanned by an invariant measure $\mu$ can be decomposed into countably many invariant bands such that the restriction of ${\mathscr{T}}$ to each of them is irreducible.
\[thm:irreddecomp\] Let $\mu\in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ be a positive ${\mathscr{T}}$-invariant measure. If $T(t_0)$ is a kernel operator, then there exist at most countably many disjoint ${\mathscr{T}}$-invariant measures $\{ \mu_n \} \subset {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$ such that $\mu = \mu_1+\mu_2+\dots$ and the restriction of ${\mathscr{T}}$ to each $\{\mu_n\}^{\bot\bot}$ is irreducible.
By the Radon-Nikodym theorem we may identify the band $\{\mu\}^{\bot\bot}$ with $L^1(\Omega,\mu)$ and thus consider ${\mathscr{T}}$ as a contractive semigroup on $L^1(\Omega,\mu)$. Since the measure $\mu$ is ${\mathscr{T}}$-invariant and corresponds to $\mathds{1} \in L^1(\Omega,\mu)$, $T(t)\mathds{1}_B \leq \mathds{1}$ for all $B\in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ and $t\geq 0$.
In this proof, we call a Borel set $B\subset {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ *invariant* if $T(t)\mathds{1}_B \leq \mathds{1}_B$ almost everywhere for all $t\geq 0$ and *irreducible* if for every invariant Borel set $A\subset B$ we have $\mu(A)=0$ or $\mu(A)=\mu(B)$.
With this identification and notation, we have to find at most countable many disjoint invariant and irreducible Borel sets $B_1,B_2,\dots$ such that $B_1 \cup B_2 \cup \dots = \Omega$.
First, we show that a Borel set $B$ is invariant if and only if $\Omega\setminus B$ is invariant if and only if $\mathds{1}_B, \mathds{1}_{\Omega\setminus B}\in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$. Let $B\in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ be invariant. Then, for every $t\geq 0$, $$T(t)\mathds{1}_{\Omega\setminus B} = T(t)\mathds{1} - T(t)\mathds{1}_B \geq \mathds{1} - \mathds{1}_B = \mathds{1}_{\Omega\setminus B} \quad \mu\text{-almost everywhere.}$$ Since $T(t)$ is contractive, $\mathds{1}_{\Omega\setminus B}$ is a fixed point of $T(t)$ and so is $\mathds{1}_B$.
Next, we prove the existence of an irreducible Borel set of positive measure. Aiming for a contradiction, we assume that $\mu(B)=0$ for every irreducible $B\in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$. For $n\in{\mathds{N}}$ define $${\mathscr{A}}_n {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\left\{ \mathds{1}_A : A\subset {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega) \text{ is invariant and } \mu(A)\leq \frac{1}{n} \right\}$$ and let $B_n\in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ such that $$\mathds{1}_{B_n} = \bigvee_{A\in {\mathscr{A}}_n} \mathds{1}_A \quad \mu\text{-almost everywhere,}$$ where the supremum is taken in the order complete lattice $L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)$. Then $B_n$, hence by the above also $\Omega\setminus B_n$, is invariant. Since we assumed every irreducible set to be a null-set and $\mu(\tilde B)>\frac{1}{n}$ for every measurable invariant subset $\tilde B \subset \Omega\setminus B_n$, we conclude that $\mu(\Omega\setminus B_n)=0$. Therefore, $\mathds{1}_{B_n} = \mathds{1}$ almost everywhere.
Let ${\mathscr{D}}_n$ be a maximal disjoint system in ${\mathscr{A}}_n$. By the countable sup property of $L^\infty(\Omega,\mu)$, see [@aliprantis2006 Thm 8.22], we obtain the existence of a countable subset $(\mathds{1}_{A_{k,n}})_{k\in{\mathds{N}}} \subset {\mathscr{D}}_n$ with $\sup_{k\in{\mathds{N}}} \mathds{1}_{A_{k,n}} = \mathds{1}$. Since the functions $\{\mathds{1}_{A_{k,n}} : k\in{\mathds{N}}\}$ are pairwise disjoint, it follows that $\lim_{k\to\infty} \lVert \mathds{1}_{A_{k,n}} \rVert_{L^1}=0$ for every $n\in{\mathds{N}}$. By ordering the sets $A_{k,n}$ decreasing in measure, we obtain a single sequence $(A_n)\subset {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ that contains every set $A_{k,n}$ and satisfies $\lim \lVert \mathds{1}_{A_n} \rVert_{L^1} = 0$. Now it follows from Theorem \[thm:bukhvalov\] that $\lim T(t_0)\mathds{1}_{A_n} = 0$ almost everywhere in contradiction to $$\sup_{n\geq k} T(t_0) \mathds{1}_{A_n} = \sup_{n\geq k} \mathds{1}_{A_n} = \mathds{1}$$ for all $k\in{\mathds{N}}$. Thus, there exists an irreducible set $B\in{\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ with $\mu(B)>0$. Moreover, the same argument shows that every invariant set $\tilde \Omega \in{\mathscr{B}}(\Omega)$ of positive measure contains an irreducible Borel set of positive measure.
Let ${\mathscr{D}}{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\{ D \in {\mathscr{B}}(\Omega) : D \text{ is irreducible} \}$. Then $\sup\{ \mathds{1}_D : D \in {\mathscr{D}}\} = \mathds{1}$. By the countable sup property, we find a sequence $(D_n)\subset {\mathscr{D}}$ with $\sup \mathds{1}_{D_n} = \mathds{1}$. This proves the claim.
Let us note that, by applying a general version of Bukhvalov’s theorem proven in [@grobler1980], Theorem \[thm:irreddecomp\] can be generalized to contractive semigroups containing a kernel operator on an arbitrary Banach lattice whose norm is strictly monotone and order continuous.
Combining Greiner’s Theorem \[thm:greiner\] and the irreducible decomposition of Theorem \[thm:irreddecomp\], we obtain stability of ${\mathscr{T}}$ on the band spanned by its fixed space.
\[prop:convfixed\] If $T(t_0)$ is a kernel operator for some $t_0>0$, then $\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t) \mu$ exists for all $\mu\in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot\bot}$.
Since every $T(t)$ is a contraction and the total variation norm is strictly monotone on the positive cone ${\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$, for all $\mu\in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ it follows from $$\lvert \mu\rvert = \lvert T(t)\mu\rvert \leq T(t) \lvert \mu\rvert$$ that $T(t)\lvert \mu\rvert = \lvert \mu\rvert$. Hence, ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ is a sublattice.
Now let $\mu\in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot\bot}_+$ and denote by $P$ the band projection onto ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot}$. Let ${\mathscr{D}}$ be a maximal disjoint system in ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})_+$. Since the total variation norm on ${\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ is a $L$-norm, i.e. it is additive on the positive cone ${\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$, there exists an at most countable subset $\mathscr{C} \subset {\mathscr{D}}$ such that $\mu \in {\mathscr{C}}^{\bot\bot}$. In fact, for $\zeta\in {\mathscr{D}}$ let $P_\zeta$ denote the band projection onto $\{\zeta\}^{\bot\bot}$. Then for every $m\in{\mathds{N}}$ there exist only finitely many $\zeta\in {\mathscr{D}}$ such that $\lVert P_\zeta \mu \rVert \geq \frac{1}{m}$. This implies that there are at most countably many $\zeta\in {\mathscr{D}}$ such that $P_\zeta \mu >0$. Let $\mathscr{C} {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(\zeta_k) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\{ \zeta \in {\mathscr{D}}$ and $(\mu_k) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(P_\zeta \mu)_{\zeta \in {\mathscr{C}}}$.
Since $\mu$ is a fixed point of ${\mathscr{T}}$, the band $\{\mu \}^{\bot\bot}$ is ${\mathscr{T}}$-invariant. By Theorem \[thm:irreddecomp\], we may assume that the restriction of ${\mathscr{T}}$ to $\{\mu\}^{\bot\bot}$ is irreducible. Moreover, since ${\mathscr{T}}$ is stochastically continuous, this restriction is strongly continuous by [@hille2009 Thm 4.6]. Thus, for each $k\in {\mathds{N}}$, the limit $\nu_k {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t)\mu_k \in \{ \zeta_k \}^{\bot\bot}$ exists by Theorem \[thm:greiner\] applied to the Banach lattice $\{\zeta_k\}^{\bot\bot}$.
Next, we show that $\tau_n {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\nu_1 + \dots + \nu_n$ is a Cauchy sequence. For a given ${\varepsilon}>0$ choose $n\in{\mathds{N}}$ such that $\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty \lVert \mu_k \rVert < {\varepsilon}$. Then $$\lVert \tau_n - \tau_m \rVert = \sum_{k=n+1}^m \lVert \nu_k \rVert \leq \sum_{k=n+1}^\infty \lVert \mu_k \rVert < {\varepsilon}$$ for all $m >n$. Therefore, $\tau {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\lim \tau_m \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot\bot}$ exists. We prove that $\lim T(t)\mu = \tau$. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ and choose $n\in{\mathds{N}}$ such that $\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty \lVert \mu_k\rVert < {\varepsilon}$. Since $T(t)\mu_k$ converges to $\nu_k$ we find $s>0$ such that $\lVert T(t)\mu_k - \nu_k\rVert < {\varepsilon}/n$ for all $t\geq s$ and all $1\leq k\leq n$. Finally, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert T(t)\mu - \tau\rVert &\leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty \lVert T(t)\mu_k - \nu_k \rVert \\
&\leq \sum_{k=1}^n \lVert T(t)\mu_k - \nu_k\rVert + \sum_{k=n+1}^\infty 2 \lVert \mu_k\rVert < n\cdot \frac{{\varepsilon}}{n} + 2{\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\geq s$. This shows that $\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t)\mu = \tau$.
Let us remark that, using a generalized version of Theorem \[thm:irreddecomp\], Proposition \[prop:convfixed\] remains true for every positive and contractive semigroup ${\mathscr{T}}=(T(t))_{t\geq 0}$ on a Banach lattice with strictly monotone and order continuous norm such that the restriction of ${\mathscr{T}}$ to $\{x\}^{\bot\bot}$ is strongly continuous for every $x\in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot\bot}$.
Now we prove our main result.
\[thm:tauberian\] If ${\mathscr{T}}$ is $B_b$-ergodic and $T(t_0)$ is strong Feller for some $t_0>0$, then $\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t)\mu$ exists for all $\mu\in{\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$.
Let $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)_+$ and denote by $P$ the band projection onto ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot}$. By Proposition \[prop:stabilityonfixbot\], there exists an increasing sequence $t_n >0$ such that $\lVert PT(t_n)\mu \rVert < \frac{1}{n}$ for all $n\in{\mathds{N}}$. Define $$\mu_n {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(I-P)T(t_n)\mu \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})^{\bot \bot}.$$ It follows from [@revuz1975 §1.5] that $T(2t_0)$ is ultra Feller and therefore a kernel operator by Theorem \[thm:ultrafellerkernel\]. Therefore, by Proposition \[prop:convfixed\], $\nu_n {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t)\mu_n$ exists in ${\mathrm{fix}}(\mathscr{S})^{\bot\bot}$ for every $n\in{\mathds{N}}$. Hence, there exists an increasing sequence $s_n > 0$ such that $\lVert T(t)\mu_n -\nu_n\rVert < \frac{1}{n}$ for all $n\in{\mathds{N}}$ and $t\geq s_n$. This implies that for every $n\in{\mathds{N}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert T(t+t_n)\mu - \nu_n \rVert &\leq \lVert T(t) (I-P) T(t_n)\mu - \nu_n \rVert + \lVert T(t) P T(t_n) \mu\rVert\\
&\leq \lVert T(t)\mu_n -\nu_n \rVert + \lVert PT(t_n)\mu \rVert < \frac{2}{n}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $t \geq s_n$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \nu_n - \nu_m \rVert &\leq \lVert \nu_n - T(s_m+t_m)\mu\rVert + \lVert T(s_m +t_m)\mu -\nu_m\rVert <\frac{2}{n} + \frac{2}{m}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $m\geq n$, $(\nu_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence. Let $\nu{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\lim \nu_n \in {\mathrm{fix}}(\mathscr{S})^{\bot\bot}$. Then for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $n\in{\mathds{N}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert T(t)\mu - \nu\rVert &\leq \lVert T(t)\mu - \nu_n \rVert + \lVert \nu_n -\nu \rVert < {\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\geq t_n+s_n$ which proves the claim.
Making use of the characterization of weak ergodicity in [@gerlach2013 Thm 5.7], we obtain the following Corollary.
If $T(t_0)$ is strong Feller for some $t_0>0$, then the following are equivalent
(i) ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ separates ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}}') {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\{ f\in C_b(\Omega) : T'(t)f=f \text{ for all } t\geq 0\}$.
(ii) The semigroup ${\mathscr{T}}$ is weakly ergodic in the sense that $\lim_{t\to\infty} A_t \mu$ exists in the $\sigma({\mathscr{M}}(\Omega),C_b(\Omega))$-topology for all $\mu\in{\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$.
(iii) The semigroup ${\mathscr{T}}$ is $B_b$-ergodic.
(iv) $\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t)\mu$ exists for each $\mu\in{\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$.
Let us assume (i) and pick $\mu \in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$. It follows from [@gerlach2013 Thm 5.7] that there exists $\tilde \mu \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ such that $$\lim {\langle A_t \mu - \tilde \mu,f\rangle} = 0$$ for all $f\in C_b(\Omega)$, i.e. assertion (ii) holds.
As explained in [@gerlach2013 Ex 3.6], one has that $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \lVert (T(t_0) - I)A_t \mu \rVert =0.$$ Since $T(t_0)$ is strong Feller, assertion (ii) implies that $$\lim_{t\to\infty} {\langle A_t \mu-\tilde \mu,f\rangle} = \lim_{t\to\infty} {\langle A_t \mu - T(t_0)A_t \mu,f\rangle} + {\langle A_t \mu - \tilde \mu,T'(t_0)f\rangle} =0$$ for all $f\in B_b(\Omega)$, i.e. ${\mathscr{T}}$ is $B_b$-ergodic.
Theorem \[thm:tauberian\] yields that (iii) implies (iv). In order to prove that (i) follows from (iv), we assume that $\lim T(t)\mu$ exists for each $\mu\in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$. For $f\in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}}')$ choose $\mu\in {\mathscr{M}}(\Omega)$ such that ${\langle \mu,f\rangle} {=\mathrel{\mathop:}}\alpha \neq 0$. Let $\tilde\mu {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\lim T(t)\mu \in {\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$. Then $${\langle \tilde \mu,f\rangle} = \lim_{t\to\infty} {\langle T(t)\mu,f\rangle} = \alpha \neq 0$$ which shows that ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}})$ separates ${\mathrm{fix}}({\mathscr{T}}')$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The X-ray binary population of the SMC is very different from that of the Milky Way consisting, with one exception, entirely of transient pulsating Be/neutron star binaries. We have now been monitoring these SMC X-ray pulsars for over 10 years using the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer with observations typically every week. The RXTE observations have been complemented with surveys made using the Chandra observatory. The RXTE observations are non-imaging but enable detailed studies of pulsing sources. In contrast, Chandra observations can provide precise source locations and detections of sources at lower flux levels, but do not provide the same timing information or the extended duration light curves that RXTE observations do. We summarize the results of these monitoring programs which provide insights into both the differences between the SMC and the Milky Way, and the details of the accretion processes in X-ray pulsars.'
---
Introduction
============
Mass transfer in high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) may occur in 3 different ways from the OB star component. (i) The mass-donor primary star may fill its Roche lobe. These systems are very luminous ($\sim$10$^{38}$ ) but are very rare. (ii) If the system contains a supergiant primary with an extensive stellar wind then accretion from the wind may take place. These systems have modest luminosity ($\sim$10$^{36}$ - 10$^{37}$ ) but are rather more common. (iii) For systems containing a Be star accretion takes place from the circumstellar envelope. These have a wide range of luminosities (10$^{34}$ - 10$^{39}$ ) and are very common, but are transient.
In most HMXBs the accreting object is a highly magnetized neutron star. Accretion is funneled onto the magnetic poles of the neutron star and we see pulsations at the neutron star spin period. If the pulse periods of HMXBs are plotted against their corresponding orbital periods then it is seen that sources divide into three groups in this diagram which correspond to the three modes of mass transfer (Corbet 1986). In particular there is strong correlation between pulse period and orbital period for the Be star systems. The positions of sources in this diagram is thought to depend on the accretion torques experienced by the neutron stars and hence on the circumstellar environments around the primary stars. These classes of HMXB are well-studied in the Galaxy and we wish to know how the HXMB populations compare in other galaxies. Because of their proximity, the SMC and LMC make them the easiest external galaxies to investigate.
Initial estimates of the estimated HMXB population of the SMC were based on the mass of the SMC. The SMC is a few percent of the mass of the Galaxy and about 65 Galactic X-ray pulsars are known. Therefore, 1 or 2 X-ray pulsars would be expected in the SMC. The larger fraction of Be stars in the SMC increased the estimate to 3. The first X-ray pulsar discovered in the SMC was SMC X-1 in 1970s. Its luminosity can reach 10$^{39}$ and it has a 0.71s pulse period and a 3.89 day orbital period. The mass-donating companion is a Roche-lobe filling B0I star. In 1978 two transients, SMC X-2 and SMC X-3, were found (Clark 1978). The three pulsars then known agreed with the simple prediction, although all three were surprisingly bright.
RXTE Observations of the SMC
============================
RXTE was launched in 1995 and its primary instrument is the Proportional Counter Array (PCA). The RXTE PCA has a 2 FWZI, 1 FWHM field of view. The PCA is non-imaging, but it has a large collecting area of up to 7,000 cm$^2$. The RXTE observing program is extremely flexible and almost all observations are time constrained. These include monitoring, phase constrained, and target of opportunity observations as well as observations coordinated with other observatories both in space and ground-based.
Serendipitous RXTE PCA slew observations in 1997 showed a possible outburst from SMC X-3 (Marshall 1997). A follow-up pointed RXTE observation showed a complicated power spectrum with several harmonic, almost-harmonic, and non-harmonic peaks. Imaging ASCA observations were then made of this region and they showed the presence of two separate pulsars. However, neither of these pulsars coincided with the position of SMC X-3. A revised look at the RXTE power spectrum revealed three pulsars simultaneously active with periods of 46.6, 91.1, and 74.8 s (Corbet 1998).
Since 1997 we have monitored one or more positions weekly using the RXTE PCA. The flexible observing program of RXTE has enabled us to carry out a regular monitoring program that would not have been possible with other satellites. The typical observation duration has been about 10,000 seconds. We use power spectra of the light curves to extract pulsed flux from any X-ray pulsars in the FOV. The sensitivity to pulsed flux is $\sim$10$^{36}$ at the distance of the SMC. From this program we have detected many transient sources and all identified optical counterparts have been found to be Be stars. The SMC HMXB pulsar population has now been found by ourselves and other investigators to be much larger than originally thought. Our naming convention for SMC pulsars is SXPx, where “x” is the pulse period, for [*SMC X-ray Pulsar*]{}. This convention is particularly useful for X-ray pulsars discovered with RXTE for which a precise position is not yet available. For detailed light curves and analyses see [@Laycock05] and [@Galache08]. In addition, we have recently been able to measure orbital parameters from Doppler modulation of the pulse period of SXP18.3 (Schurch 2008).
![HI Image of the SMC. Large circles = PCA FOV (FWHM and FWZI) at different monitoring positions. Small circles show locations of X-ray pulsars.[]{data-label="fig2"}](corbet_fig2.ps){width="3.0in"}
![The extended outburst from SXP 18.3. The top panel shows the amplitude of the pulsed flux. The two lower panels show two possible timing solutions. The middle panel shows the preferred solution with the orbital period fixed at the photometric period. (Schurch 2008).[]{data-label="fig3"}](corbet_fig3.ps){width="3.4in"}
The Be pulsar spin period/orbital period correlation is believed to be related to the structure of the extended envelopes of Be stars. SMC and Milky Way Be stars have differences, for example, the SMC metallicity is far lower and the Be phenomenon is more common in the SMC. Is this reflected in the P$_s$/P$_{orb}$ relation? That is, are there significant differences between Be star envelopes in the SMC and the Galaxy? For a linear fit (to the log-log diagram) the intercept is related to Be star mass loss rates and the gradient is related to the radial structure of Be star envelopes.
Currently 23 SMC Be X-ray pulsars now have measured orbital periods. The periods have been measured by several techniques. These include: X-ray flux monitoring with RXTE, pulse timing with RXTE (one system) and optical observations from MACHO and OGLE. In comparison, 24 Galactic Be X-ray pulsars now have measured orbital periods. We find that for the SMC and Galactic systems the intercepts are the same, the gradients are the same, and the scatter about the fits are the same. Thus, the metallicity difference between the two galaxies gives no measurable effect on the spin period/orbital period relationship and the Be star envelopes in SMC and Galaxy are apparently similar.
![[*Left:*]{} A comparison of the P$_s$/P$_{orb}$ relationships for the SMC and the Galaxy. [*Right:*]{} The relationship between outburst density and orbital period proposed by [@Galache06].[]{data-label="fig4"}](corbet_fig4a.ps "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![[*Left:*]{} A comparison of the P$_s$/P$_{orb}$ relationships for the SMC and the Galaxy. [*Right:*]{} The relationship between outburst density and orbital period proposed by [@Galache06].[]{data-label="fig4"}](corbet_fig4b.ps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
[@Galache06] proposes that the frequency of outbursts per orbit (X-ray “outburst density” or X$_{od}$) depends on the orbital period. Long period systems are more likely to show an outburst at periastron. The reason for this correlation is not yet clear.
Chandra SMC Wing Survey
=======================
A possible connection between hydrogen column density (N$_H$) and HMXB location was proposed by [@Coe05]. To investigate this we undertook a survey of the SMC wing using Chandra. We observed 20 fields with $\sim$10ks observation time per field. 523 sources were detected,([@McGowan08] but only $\sim$5 of these were HMXBs ([@McGowan07]) and the majority of sources are probably background AGNs. There thus appear to be fewer X-ray pulsars in the wing than the bar. This is despite that fact that the most luminous SMC HMXB, SMC X-1 is located in the wing.
![[*Left:*]{} The location of SMC pulsars superimposed on an H I contour map. [*Right:*]{} Histogram of SMC H I distributions and corresponding histogram of H I columns at the location of the X-ray pulsars (Coe 2005).[]{data-label="fig5"}](corbet_fig5a.ps "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![[*Left:*]{} The location of SMC pulsars superimposed on an H I contour map. [*Right:*]{} Histogram of SMC H I distributions and corresponding histogram of H I columns at the location of the X-ray pulsars (Coe 2005).[]{data-label="fig5"}](corbet_fig5b.ps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
RXTE Monitoring of the LMC
==========================
The SMC appears to be very abundant in Be X-ray pulsars. This was only known after regular observations of the SMC started. The known LMC X-ray pulsar population is more modest. There is one Roche lobe overflow source, and a few Be systems. To investigate the LMC population in more detail we undertook an RXTE monitoring program similar to the one used for the SMC. However, the angular size of the LMC is larger so we restricted the program to monitoring one position that was already know to contain several X-ray sources. We analyzed data from our one year monitoring program, together with archival data from other programs (Townsend et al., in preparation). In the monitoring region 4 of the 5 known X-ray pulsars were detected. However, no new X-ray pulsars were discovered. This implies that the X-ray pulsar content of the LMC is more like that of the Galaxy than the SMC.
![The PCA monitoring position for the LMC. Known pulsar positions are marked.[]{data-label="fig6"}](corbet_fig6.ps){width="2.5in"}
Conclusion
==========
The current census of SMC X-ray pulsars is: 1 supergiant Roche lobe filler (SMC X-1); $\sim$50 transients (likely all Be star systems); 1 possible Crab-like pulsar (P = 0.087s) from ASCA (Yokogawa & Koyama 2000); 1 Anomalous X-ray Pulsar (AXP) candidate (P = 8.02s) from Chandra and XMM; no supergiant wind accretion systems and no low-mass X-ray binaries.. Supergiant wind systems should easily be detectable at our $\sim$10$^{36}$ pulsed flux sensitivity. An obvious question is: why are there so many SMC X-ray pulsars? The current star formation rate in the SMC is reported not to be extremely high. The lifetime of HMXBs is short which implies an enhanced star formation rate in the recent past. However, supergiant wind systems, which have even shorter lifetimes than Be star systems, have not been found. Models of historic star formation rates in the SMC and LMC must be compatible with the observed X-ray binary populations, and they most also account for the differences between the SMC and LMC.
There are also similarities between the SMC and Galactic pulsar populations. The SMC and Galactic Be star systems have identical (within errors) P$_s$/P$_{orb}$ relationships. The LMC X-ray pulsar population also appears to be more similar to that of the Galaxy. The large and growing SMC X-ray pulsar database has considerable potential for understanding the astrophysics of accretion processes. It facilitates comparative studies, such as pulse profile morphology, as a function of luminosity. Or, luminosity effects can be removed and we can examine the effects of other parameters such as magnetic field strength. The SMC is nearby and optical counterparts can be observed with modest size telescopes. In particular, MACHO and OGLE lightcurves exist for many counterparts (e.g. Coe 2008, McGowan 2008b). The overall X-ray pulsar properties can tell us about the evolutionary similarities and differences of a very nearby galaxy compared to our own.
1978, *ApJ*, 221, L37
2005, *MNRAS*, 356, 502
2008, *IAU Symposium*, 256
1986, *MNRAS*, 220, 1047
1998, *IAUC,* 6803
2006, PhD thesis, University of Southampton
2008, *ApJS*, 177, 189
2005, *ApJS*, 161, 96
1997, *IAUC*, 6777
2007, *MNRAS*, 376, 759
2008a, *MNRAS*, 383, 330
2008b, *MNRAS*, 384, 821
2008, *MNRAS*, in press
2000, *IAUC*, 7361
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is well known that isotopic metrics of positive scalar curvature are concordant. Whether or not the converse holds is an open question, at least in dimensions greater than four. We show that for a particular type of concordance, constructed using the surgery techniques of Gromov and Lawson, this converse holds in the case of closed simply connected manifolds of dimension at least five.'
author:
- Mark Walsh
title: 'Metrics of positive scalar curvature and generalised Morse functions, part 1'
---
Department of Mathematics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
USA
Introduction {#intro}
============
Background
----------
Let $X$ be a smooth closed manifold. We denote by $\Riem (X)$, the space of Riemannian metrics on $X$. Contained inside $\Riem(X)$, as an open subspace, is the space $\Riem^{+}(X)$ which consists of metrics on $X$ which have positive scalar curvature ([*psc-metrics*]{}). The problem of whether or not this space is non-empty (i.e. $X$ admits a psc-metric) has been extensively studied, see [@GL1], [@GL2], [@RS] and [@S]. In particular, when $X$ is simply connected and $\dim X\geq 5$, it is known that $X$ always admits a psc-metric when $X$ is not a spin manifold and, in the case when $X$ is spin, it admits such a metric if and only if the index $\alpha(X)\in KO_n$ of the Dirac operator vanishes, see [@RS] and [@S]. Considerably less is known about the topology of the space $\Riem^{+}(X)$, even for such manifolds as the sphere $S^{n}$. For example, it is known that $\Riem^{+}(S^{2})$ is contractible (as is $\Riem^{+}(\mathbb{R}P^{2})$), see [@RS], but little is known about the topology of $\Riem^{+}(S^{n})$ when $n\geq
3$. In this paper, we will focus on questions relating to the path-connectivity of $\Riem^{+}(X)$.
Metrics which lie in the same path component of $\Riem^{+}(X)$ are said to be [*isotopic*]{}. Two psc-metrics $g_0$ and $g_1$ on $X$ are said to be [*concordant*]{} if there is a psc-metric $\bar{g}$ on the cylinder $X\times I$ ($I=[0,1]$) which near $X\times \{0\}$ is the product $g_0+dt^{2}$, and which near $X\times \{1\}$ is the product $g_1+dt^{2}$. It is well known that isotopic metrics are concordant, see Lemma \[isoconc\] below. It is also known that concordant metrics need not be isotopic when $\dim X =4$, where the difference between isotopy and concordance is detected by the Seiberg-Witten invariant, see [@Ru]. However, in the case when $\dim X\geq 5$, the question of whether or not concordance implies isotopy is an open problem and one we will attempt to shed some light on.
Before discussing this further, it is worth mentioning that the only known method for showing that two psc-metrics on $X$ lie in distinct path components of $\Riem^{+}(X)$, is to show that these metrics are not concordant. For example, index obstruction methods may be used to exhibit a countable inifinite collection of distinct concordance classes for $X=S^{4k-1}$ with $k>1$, implying that the space $\Riem^{+}(S^{4k-1})$ has at least as many path components, see [@Carr] (or Example \[bottex\] below for the case when $k=2$). In [@BG], the authors show that if $X$ is a connected spin manifold with $\dim X=2k+1\geq 5$ and $\pi_1(X)$ is non-trivial and finite, then $\Riem^{+}(X)$ has inifinitely many path components provided $\Riem^{+}(X)$ is non-empty. Again, this is done by exhibiting inifinitely many distinct concordance classes. For a general smooth manifold $X$, understanding $\pi_0(\Riem^{+}(X))$ is contingent on answering the following open questions?
\(i) Are there more concordance classes undetected by the index theory?
\(ii) When are concordant metrics isotopic?
For more on the first of these problems, the reader is referred to [@S0] and [@RS]. We will focus our attention on the second problem.
A fundamental difficulty when approaching this question is that an arbitrary concordance may be extraordinarily complicated. For example, let $g_s, s\in I$ denote an isotopy in the space $\Riem^{+}(S^{n})$. After an appropriate rescaling, see Lemma \[isoconc\], we may assume that the warped product metric $\bar{h}=g_t+dt^{2}$, on the cylinder $S^{n}\times I$, has positive scalar curvature and a product structure near the boundary, i.e. is a concordance of $g_0$ and $g_1$. Now let $g$ be any psc-metric on the sphere $S^{n+1}$ (this metric may be very complicated indeed). It is possible to construct a psc-metric $\bar{g}$ on $S^{n}\times I$ by taking a connected sum $$\bar{g}=\bar{h}\# g,$$ see [@GL1]. As this construction only alters the metric $\bar{h}$ on the interior of the cylinder, the resulting metric, $\bar{g}$, is still a concordance of $g_0$ and $g_1$, see Fig. \[difficultconc\]. Unlike the concordance $\bar{h}$ however, $\bar{g}$ could be arbitrarily complicated. In some sense, this makes $\bar{g}$ “unrecognisable" as an isotopy.
(0,0)![The concordance $\bar{g}$ on $S^{n}\times I$, formed by taking a conncected sum of metrics $\bar{h}$ and $g$.[]{data-label="difficultconc"}](fig1.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(6996,2775)(1249,-3013) (2076,-1861)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1264,-824)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1264,-2874)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5514,-1649)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Consequently, we will not approach this problem at the level of arbitrary concordance. Instead, we will restrict our attention to concordances which are constructed by a particular application of the surgery technique of Gromov and Lawson. Such concordances will be called [*Gromov-Lawson concordances*]{}.
Before discussing the relationship between surgery and concordance, it is worth recalling how the surgery technique alters a psc-metric. The Surgery Theorem of Gromov-Lawson and Schoen-Yau states that any manifold $X'$ which is obtained from $X$ via a codimension$\geq 3$ surgery admits a psc-metric, see [@GL1] and [@SY]. In their proof, Gromov and Lawson replace the metric $g$ with a psc-metric which is standard in a tubular neighbourhood of the embedded surgery sphere. More precisely, let $ds_{n}^{2}$ denote the standard round metric on the sphere $S^{n}$. We denote by $g_{tor}^{n}(\delta)$, the metric on the disk $D^{n}$ which, near $\p D^{n}$, is the Riemannian cylinder $\delta^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}+dr^{2}$ and which near the centre of $D^{n}$ is the round metric $\delta^{2}ds_{n}^{2}$. The metric $g_{tor}^{n}(\delta)$ is known as a [*torpedo metric*]{}, see section \[prelim\] for a detailed construction. For sufficiently small $\delta>0$ and provided $n\geq 3$, the scalar curvature of this metric can be bounded below by an arbitrarily large positive constant. Now, let $(X,g)$ be a smooth $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold of positive scalar curvature and let $S^{p}$ denote an embedded $p$-sphere in $X$ with trivial normal bundle and with $p+q+1=n$ and $q\geq 2$. The metric $g$ can be replaced by a psc-metric on $X$ which, on a tubular neighbourhood of $S^{p}$, is the standard product $ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ for some appropriately small $\delta$. In turn, surgery may be performed on this standard piece to obtain a psc-metric $g'$ on $X'$, which on the handle $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ is the standard product $g_{tor}^{p+1}+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$, see Fig. \[introsurgerypicture\].
(0,0)![The psc-metric $g'$ obtained on $X'$ by the Gromov-Lawson construction[]{data-label="introsurgerypicture"}](fig2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7038,2154)(330,-2515) (726,-1548)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3451,-2248)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5414,-2174)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5426,-2449)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
There is an important strengthenning of this technique whereby the metric $g$ is extended over the trace of the surgery to obtain a psc-metric $\bar{g}$ which is a product metric near the boundary. This is sometimes referred to as the Improved Surgery Theorem, see [@Gajer]. Suppose $\{W; X_0, X_1\}$ is a smooth compact cobordism of closed $n$-manifolds $X_0$ and $X_1$, i.e. $\p W=X_0 \sqcup X_1$, and $f:W\rightarrow I$ is a Morse function with $f^{-1}(0)=X_0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=X_1$ and whose critical points lie in the interior of $W$. The Morse function $f$ gives rise to a decomposition of $W$ into elementary cobordisms. Let us assume that each elementary cobordism is the trace of a codimension$\geq 3$ surgery. This means that each critical point of $f$ has index $\leq n-2$. Roughly speaking, such Morse functions will be called “admissible". It is now possible to extend a psc-metric $g_0$ on $X_0$ to a psc-metric $\bar{g}$ on $W$ which is a product near the boundary $\p W$, see Theorem \[GLcob\] below. In particular, the restriction $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X_1}$ is a psc-metric on $X_1$. This method is a powerful tool for constructing new psc-metrics as the following example demonstrates.
(0,0)![The existence of a concordance $(S^{7}\times I, \bar{h})$ between $g_1$ and $g_0=ds_{7}^{2}$ would imply the existence of a psc-metric on $B$, which is impossible.[]{data-label="bott"}](bott.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7678,1941)(862,-3979) (1076,-3761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3401,-3336)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5976,-3761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (7951,-3761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4851,-3761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2389,-3761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[bottex\] [Let $B=B^8$ be a Bott manifold, i.e. an 8-dimensional closed simply connected spin manifold with $\alpha(B)=1$, see [@Jo] for a geometric construction of such a manifold. The fact that $\alpha(B)\neq 0$ means that $B$ does not admit a psc-metric. Let $W=B\setminus (D_0\sqcup D_1)$ denote the smooth manifold obtained by removing a disjoint pair of $8$-dimensional disks $D_0$ and $D_1$ from $B$. The boundary of $W$ is a pair of disjoint $7$-dimensional smooth spheres, which we denote $S_0^{7}$ and $S_1^{7}$ respectively. It is possible, although we do not include the details here, to equip $W$ with an admissible Morse function. This decomposes $W$ into a union of elementary cobordisms, each the trace of a codimension$\geq 3$ surgery. Thus, we can extend the standard round metric $g_0=ds_{7}^{2}$ from the boundary component $S_{0}^{7}$ to a psc metric $\bar{g}$ on $W$, which is a product metric near both boundary components. In particular, the metric $\bar{g}$ restricts to a psc-metric $g_1$ on $S^7_1$. This metric however, is [**not**]{} concordant (and hence not isotopic) to $g_0$. This is because the existence of a concordance $\bar{h}$ of $g_1$ and $g_0=ds_{7}^{2}$, would give rise to a psc-metric $g_B$ on $B$ (see Fig. \[bott\]), defined by taking the union $$(B,g_{B})=(D_{0},g_{tor}^{8})\cup(W, \bar{g})\cup(S^{7}\times I, \bar{h})\cup (D_1, g_{tor}^{8}),$$ something we know to be impossible.]{}
Main Results
------------
In Theorem \[GLcob\], we generalise the so-called Improved Surgery Theorem, as well as correcting an error from the proof in [@Gajer], see Remark \[Gajercomment\] in section \[surgerysection\].
\[GLcob\] Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism. Suppose $g_0$ is a metric of positive scalar curvature on $X_0$ and $f:W\rightarrow I$ is an admissible Morse function. Then there is a psc-metric $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ on $W$ which extends $g_0$ and has a product structure near the boundary.
We call the metric $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$, a [*Gromov-Lawson cobordism (GL-cobordism) with respect to $g_0$ and $f$*]{}. Essentially, the metric $\bar{g}$ restricts on a regular level set of $f$ to the metric obtained by repeated application of the surgery technique with respect to each of the critical points below that level set. In the case when $W$ is the cylinder $X\times I$, the metric $\bar{g}$ is a concordance of the metrics $g_0$ and $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{1\}}$. It will be referred to as a [*Gromov-Lawson concordance (GL-concordance) with respect to $g_0$ and $f$*]{}, see Fig. \[glconcf\].
(0,0)![Obtaining a Gromov-Lawson concordance on the cylinder $X\times I$ with respect to a Morse function $f$ and a psc-metric $g_0$[]{data-label="glconcf"}](glconcf.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7230,3682)(1624,-3852) (6914,-1599)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (8839,-3786)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (8776,-324)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3096,-611)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3714,-3661)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1839,-1849)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Any admissible Morse function $f:W\rightarrow I$ can be replaced by a Morse function denoted $1-f$, which has the gradient flow of $f$, but running in reverse. This function has the same critical points as $f$, however, each critical point of index $\lambda$ has been replaced with one of index $n+1-\lambda$. The following theorem can be obtained by “reversing" the construction from Theorem \[GLcob\].
\[Reversemorse\] Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism, $g_0$ a psc-metric on $X_0$ and $f:W\rightarrow I$, an admissible Morse function. Suppose that $1-f$ is also an admissible Morse function. Let $g_1=\bar{g}(g_0,f)|_{X_1}$ denote the restriction of the Gromov-Lawson cobordism $\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ to $X_1$. Let $\bar{g}(g_1,1-f)$ be a Gromov-Lawson cobordism with respect to $g_1$ and $1-f$ and let $g_0'=\bar{g}(g_1, 1-f)|_{X_0}$ denote the restriction of this metric to $X_0$. Then $g_0$ and $g_0'$ are canonically isotopic metrics in $\Riem^{+}(X_0)$.
A careful analysis of the Gromov-Lawson construction shows that it can be applied continuously over a compact family of metrics as well as a compact family of embedded surgery spheres, see Theorem \[GLcompact\] in section \[surgerysection\]. It then follows that the construction of Theorem \[GLcob\] can be applied continuously over a compact family of admissible Morse functions and so we obtain the following theorem.
\[GLcobordismcompact\] Let $\{W, X_0, X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordim, $\mathcal{B}$, a compact continuous family of psc-metrics on $X_0$ and $\mathcal{C}$, a compact continuous family of admissible Morse functions on $W$. Then there is a continuous map
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{B}\times \mathcal{C}&\longrightarrow \Riem^{+}(W)\\
(g_b,f_c)&\longmapsto \bar{g}_{b,c}=\bar{g}(g_b, f_c)
\end{split}$$
so that for each pair $(b,c)$, the metric $\bar{g}_{b,c}$ is the metric constructed in Theorem \[GLcob\].
In [@Che], Chernysh also describes a parameterised version of the orginal Gromov-Lawson construction for compact families of psc-metrics.
In section \[GLconcordsection\] we construct an example of a GL-concordance on the cylinder $S^{n}\times I$. Here $g_0=ds_n^{2}$, the standard round metric and $f$ is an admissible Morse function with two critical points which have Morse indices $p+1$ and $p+2$ where $p+q+1=n$ and $q\geq 3$. The critical point of index $p+1$ corresponds to a $p$-surgery on $S^{n}$ resulting in a manifold diffeomorphic to $S^{p+1}\times S^{q}$. This is then followed by a $(p+1)$-surgery which restores the orginal manifold $S^{n}$. The restriction of the metric $\bar{g}(ds_{n}^{2}, f)$ to level sets of $f$ below, between and above these critical points is denoted $g_0$, $g_0'$ and $g_1$ respectively, see Fig. \[introconc\]. The metric $g_1$ is also a psc-metric on $S^{n}$, but as Fig. \[introconc\] suggests, looks radically different from the original metric $g_0$. Understanding why these metrics are in fact isotopic is crucial in proving our main result, stated below.
(0,0)![Applying the Gromov-Lawson construction over a pair of cancelling surgeries of consecutive dimension[]{data-label="introconc"}](introconc.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5878,2206)(978,-2540) (1089,-2149)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2376,-2161)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3039,-1061)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4421,-624)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5801,-2474)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[conciso\] Let $X$ be a closed simply connected manifold with $dimX=n\geq5$ and let $g_0$ be a positive scalar curvature metric on $X$. Suppose $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ is a Gromov-Lawson concordance with respect to $g_0$ and an admissible Morse function $f:X\times I\rightarrow I$. Then the metrics $g_0$ and $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{1\}}$ are isotopic.
The proof of Theorem \[conciso\] takes place over sections \[doublesurgsection\] and \[glconcisosection\]. In section \[doublesurgsection\] we prove the theorem in the case when $f$ has exactly two “cancelling" critical points. This is the key geometric step and draws heavily from some important technical observations made in section \[prelim\]. The general case then follows from Morse-Smale theory and the fact that the function $f$ can be deformed to one whose critical points are arranged in cancelling pairs.
The connection with generalised Morse functions and Part II {#introthree}
-----------------------------------------------------------
This paper is the first part of a larger project to be completed in a subsequent paper. We will present here only a brief summary of the main results. The goal of this work is to better understand the space of Gromov-Lawson cobordisms on a smooth compact cobordism and in particular, the space of Gromov-Lawson concordances. More specifically, let $\{W;X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism of closed $n$-manifolds $X_0$ and $X_1$. For the rest of this section we will assume that $W, X_0$ and $X_1$ are simply connected manifolds and $n\geq 5$. Let $g_0$ be a fixed psc-metric on $X_0$. We will consider the subspace of $\Riem^{+}(W)$ consisting of all Gromov-Lawson cobordisms which extend the metric $g_0$ from $X\times\{0\}$. This space is denoted $\G(g_0)$. Roughly speaking, Theorems \[GLcob\] and \[GLcobordismcompact\] allow us parameterise this space by admissible Morse functions.
The space of admissible Morse functions on $W$ is denoted $\M^{adm}(W)$ and can be thought of as a subspace of the space of Morse functions $W\rightarrow I$, denoted $\M(W)$. A good deal is understood about the topology of the space $\M(W)$, in particular, see [@I3]. It is clear that this space is not path connected, as functions in the same path component must have the same number of critical points of the same index. The space $\G(g_0)$ therefore consists of separate components which correspond to the various path components of $\M^{adm}(W)$. This however, gives a rather misleading picture, as it is possible for appropriate pairs of Morse critical points to cancel, giving rise to a simpler handle decomposition of $W$. In the proof of Theorem \[conciso\], we discuss a corresponding “geometric cancellation" which simplifies a psc-metric associated to this Morse function. In order to obtain a more complete picture of the space of GL-cobordisms, we need to incorporate this cancellation property into our description.
There is a natural setting in which to consider the cancellation of Morse critical points. Recall that near a critical point $w$, a Morse function $f\in\M(W)$ is locally equivalent to the map
$$(x_1, \cdots, x_{n+1})\longmapsto -x_1^{2}\cdots-x_{p+1}^{2}+x_{p+2}^{2}+\cdots+x_{n+1}^{2}.$$
A critical point $w$ of a smooth function $f:W\rightarrow I$ is said to be of [*birth-death*]{} or [*embryo*]{} type if near $w$, $f$ is equivalent to the map
$$(x_0, \cdots, x_{n})\longmapsto x_0^{3}-x_{1}^{2}\cdots-x_{p+1}^{2}+x_{p+2}^{2}+\cdots+x_{n}^{2}.$$
A [*generalised Morse function*]{} $f:W\rightarrow I$ is a smooth function with $f^{-1}(0)=X_0$, $f^{-1}(1)=X_1$ and whose singular set is contained in the interior of $W$ and consists of only Morse and birth-death critical points. There is a natural embedding of $\M(W)$ into the space of generalised Morse functions $\H(W)$. This is a path-connected space since birth-death singularities allow for the cancellation of Morse critical points of consecutive index, see [@Cerf]. Before going any further it is worth considering a couple of examples of this sort of cancellation.
[The function $F(x,t)=x^{3}+tx$ can be thought of as a smooth family of functions $x\longmapsto F(x,t)$ parameterised by $t$. When $t<0$, the map $x\longmapsto F(x,t)$ is a Morse function with 2 critical points which cancel as a degenerate singularity of the function $x\longmapsto F(x,0)$. The function $x\longmapsto F(x,0)$ is an example of a generalised Morse function with a birth-death singularity at $x=0$.]{}
More generally, any two Morse functions $f_0, f_1\in \M(W)$ may be connected by a path $f_t, t\in I$ in the space $\H(W)$ so that $f_t$ is Morse for all but finitely many $t\in I$. In Fig. \[genmorsetwo\] we sketch using selected level sets, a path $f_t, t\in[-1,1]$, in the space $\H(S^{n}\times I)$ which connects a Morse function $f_{-1}$ with two critical points of consecutive Morse index to a Morse function $f_1$ which has no critical points. We will assume that the critical points of $f_{-1}$ lie on the level sets $f_{-1}=\frac{1}{4}$ and $f_{-1}=\frac{3}{4}$ and that $f_{0}$ has only a birth-death singularity on the level set $f_{0}=\frac{1}{2}$.
(0,0)![Two Morse critical points cancelling at a birth-death singularity, from the point of view of selected level sets[]{data-label="genmorsetwo"}](genmorsetwo.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7044,4231)(1397,-5151) (1514,-1074)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2576,-1086)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3764,-1124)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4976,-1099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6151,-1099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (7526,-1099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (8376,-1549)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (8414,-3099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (8426,-4724)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
In order to capture this cancellation property in our description of the space of GL-cobordisms we specify a space of [*admissible generalised Morse functions*]{}, $\H^{adm}(W)$ on which a construction analogous to that of Theorem \[GLcob\] can be applied, see Theorem A below.\
[**Theorem A.**]{} [*Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism. Let $g_0$ be a psc-metric on $X_0$ and $f:W\rightarrow I$, an admissible generalised Morse function. Then there is a psc-metric $\bar{g}_{gen}=\bar{g}_{gen}(g_0,f)$ on $W$, which extends $g_0$ and has a product structure near the boundary.*]{}
The metric $\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ is called a [*generalised Gromov-Lawson cobordism with respect to $g_0$ and $f$*]{} and in the case when $W=X\times I$, this metric is called a [*generalised Gromov-Lawson concordance*]{}. In the case of admissible Morse functions, it was easy to extend the construction of Theorem \[GLcob\], as a continuous map on compact families, see Theorem \[GLcobordismcompact\]. A far more difficult problem is proving an analogous theorem for admissible generalised Morse functions, in other words extending the construction of Theorem A as a continuous map on a compact family of generalised Morse functions. With such a theorem in hand however, it is possible to parameterise a space of [*generalised Gromov-Lawson cobordisms*]{}, which connects up the various path components of $\G(g_0)$ and presents a more realistic topological picture of what is going on. We denote this space by $\G^{gen}(g_0)$.
The main difficulty in proving this theorem is the geometric problem of continuously varying the construction of a GL-cobordism over a pair of cancelling critical points. The key ingredient which allows us to do this is Theorem \[conciso\]. A convenient setting in which to prove an analogue of Theorem \[GLcobordismcompact\] is described by Eliashberg and Mishachev in their work on “wrinklings" of smooth maps, see [@El1] and [@El2]. Let $K$ be a smooth compact manifold of dimension $k$. Roughly speaking, a smooth map $f:W\times K\rightarrow K\times I$ is [*wrinkled*]{} if the restriction $f_{x}$ of $f$ to $W\times\{x\}$, for each $x\in K$, is a generalised Morse function and if the singular set of $f$ in $W\times K$ is a disjoint union of $k$ dimensional spheres, called wrinkles. The equator of each sphere consists of birth-death singularities, while the interiors of the northern and southern hemi-spheres consist of Morse critical points of consecutive index which cancel at the equator. After defining an appropriate notion of admissibility for a wrinkled map we can prove the following theorem.\
[**Theorem B.**]{} [*Let $\{W;X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism with $g_0$ a psc-metric on $X_0$. Let $K$ be a smooth compact manifold and $f:W\times K\rightarrow K\times I$ an admissible wrinkled map. Then there is a continuous map $$\begin{split}
K\longrightarrow&\Riem^{+}(W)\\
x\longmapsto &\bar{g}_{gen}^{x}=\bar{g}_{gen}(g_0, f_x)
\end{split}$$ where each $\bar{g}_{gen}^{x}$ is a generalised Gromov-Lawson cobordism.*]{}\
[**Corollary C.**]{} [*Suppose $f_a, f_b\in\M^{adm}(W)$. Let ${g}_a=\bar{g}(g_0, f_a)|_{X_0}$ and ${g}_b=\bar{g}(g_0, f_b)|_{X_0}$ denote the restriction to $X_0$ of GL-cobordisms with respect to $f_a$ and $f_b$. Then $g_a$ and $g_b$ are isotopic metrics.*]{}
Corollary C is a generalisation of Theorem \[conciso\]. However, the key geometric details which make Theorem B and Corollary C possible are contained in the proof of Theorem \[conciso\].
Our main result is Theorem D below.\
[**Theorem D.**]{} [*The space of generalised GL-cobordisms $\G^{gen}(g_0)$ is weakly homotopy equivalent to the space of admissible generalised Morse functions $\H^{adm}(W)$.*]{}\
In the case when $W$ is the cylinder $X\times I$, the space $\G^{gen}(g_0)$ consists of generalised GL-concordances. A considerable amount is already known about the space $\H(X\times I)$, of generalised Morse functions on the cylinder from the work of Cerf and Igusa, see [@Cerf], [@I0], [@I1], [@I2] and [@I3]. Furthermore, from the work of Cohen in [@CO], on the stable space of generalised Morse functions, it is possible to gain explicit information about some higher homotopy groups of $\H^{adm}(X\times I)$ and consequently about higher homotopy groups of $\G^{gen}(g_0)$.
Acknowledgements
----------------
This work forms part of the author’s doctoral dissertation. I am deeply grateful to my advisor Boris Botvinnik for suggesting this problem and for his guidance over the years. Some of this work took place at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden, as well as at SFB 478 - Geometrische Strukturen in der Mathematik in M[ü]{}nster, Germany. My thanks to both institutions and in particular to M. Dahl, M. Joachim and W. L[ü]{}ck for their hospitality. I am also grateful to W.M. Kantor at the University of Oregon for generous financial support from his NSF grant. Finally, it is a pleasure to thank David Wraith at NUI Maynooth, Ireland for many helpful conversations.
Definitions and preliminary results {#prelim}
===================================
Isotopy and concordance in the space of metrics of positive scalar curvature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this paper, $X$ will denote a smooth closed compact manifold of dimension $n$. In later sections we will also require that $X$ be simply connected and that $n\geq 5$. We will denote by $\Riem(X)$, the space of all Riemannian metrics on $X$. The topology on this space is induced by the standard $C^k$-norm on Riemannian metrics and defined $|g|_k=\max_{i\leq k}\sup_X|\nabla^{i}g|$. Here $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection for some fixed reference metric and $|\nabla^{i} g|$ is the Euclidean tensor norm on $\nabla^{i}g$, see page 54 of [@P] for a definition. Note that the topology on $\Riem(X)$ does not depend on the choice of reference metric. For our purposes it is sufficient (and convenient) to assume that $k=2$.
Contained inside $\Riem(X)$, as an open subspace, is the space $$\Riem^{+}(X)=\{g\in\Riem(X):R_g>0\}.$$ Here $R_g:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denotes the scalar curvature of the metric $g$, although context permitting we will sometimes denote the scalar curvature of a metric as simply $R$. The space $\Riem^{+}(X)$ is the space of metrics on $X$ whose scalar curvature function is strictly positive. Henceforth, such metrics will be referred to as [*positive scalar curvature metrics*]{} and the term [*positive scalar curvature*]{} will frequently be abbreviated by the initials [*psc*]{}. As mentioned in the introduction, the problem of whether or not $X$ admits any [*psc*]{}-metrics has been extensively studied and so unless otherwise stated, we will assume we are working with $X$ so that $\Riem^{+}(X)\neq \emptyset$.
It is a straightforward exercise in linear algebra to show that $\Riem(X)$ is a convex space, i.e. for any pair $g_0,g_1\in\Riem(X)$, the path $sg_0+(1-s)g_1$, where $s\in I$, lies entirely in $\Riem(X)$. The topology of $\Riem^{+}(X)$ on the other hand is far less understood, even at the level of $0$-connectedness. Before discussing this any further it is necessary to define the following equivalence relations on $\Riem^{+}(X)$.
[ The metrics $g_0$ and $g_1$ are said to be [*[isotopic]{}*]{} if they lie in the same path component of $\Riem^{+}(X)$. A path $g_s, s\in I$ in $\Riem^{+}(X)$ connecting $g_0$ and $g_1$ is known as an [*[isotopy]{}*]{}.]{}
[If there is a metric of positive scalar curvature $\bar{g}$ on the cylinder $X\times I$ so that for some $\delta>0$, $\bar{g}|_{X\times[0,\delta]}=g_0+ds^2$ and $\bar{g}|_{X\times[1-\delta,1]}=g_1+ds^2$, then $g_0$ and $g_1$ are said to be [*[concordant]{}*]{}. The metric $\bar{g}$ is known as a [*[concordance]{}*]{}.]{}
The following lemma is well known and proofs of various versions of it are found in [@GL1], [@Gajer] and [@RS].
\[isotopyimpliesconc\] Let $g_{r}, r\in I$ be a smooth path in $\Riem^{+}(X)$. Then there exists a constant $0<\Lambda\leq 1$ so that for every smooth function $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,1]$ with $|\dot{f}|,|\ddot{f}|\leq\Lambda$, the metric $g_{f(s)}+ds^{2}$ on $X\times\mathbb{R}$ has positive scalar curvature.
\[isoconc\] Metrics which are isotopic are also concordant.
Let $g_0$ and $g_1$ be two psc-metrics, connected by the path $g_r$ in $\Riem^{+}(X)$, where $r\in I$. Any continuous path in $\Riem^{+}(X)$ may be approximated by a smooth one and so we will assume that $g_r$ is a smooth isotopy. Let $f$ be a smooth increasing function which is of the form $$\begin{array}{cl}
f(s) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $s\geq k_2$}\\
0 & \text{if $s\leq k_1$}
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$ where $k_1<k_2$. The function $f$ can be chosen with $|\dot{f}|$ and $|\ddot{f}|$ bounded by some arbitrarily small constant provided $k_{2}-k_{1}$ is large enough. Now choose $A_{1},A_{2}$ so that $A_{1}<k_{1}<k_{2}<A_{2}$. By the lemma above, the metric $g_{f(s)}+ds^{2}$ on $X\times[A_{1},A_{2}]$ has positive scalar curvature. This metric can easily be pulled back to obtain the desired concordance on $X\times I$.
Whether or not the converse of this corollary holds, i.e. concordant metrics are isotopic, is a much more complicated question and one we discussed in the introduction. In particular, when $\dim X\geq 5$, the problem of whether or not concordance implies isotopy is completely open. Recall that a general concordance may be arbitrarily complicated. We will approach this problem restricting our attention to a particular type of concordance, which we construct using the surgery technique of Gromov and Lawson, and which we will call a Gromov-Lawson concordance. An important part of the surgery technique concerns modification of a psc-metric on or near an embedded sphere. For the remainder of this section we will consider a variety of psc-metrics both on the sphere and the disk. These metrics will play an important technical role in later sections.
Warped product metrics on the sphere
------------------------------------
We denote by $S^{n}$, the standard $n$-dimensional sphere and assume that $n\geq 3$. We will study metrics on $S^{n}$ which take the form of [*warped*]{} and [*doubly warped*]{} product metrics, see description below. All of the metrics we consider will have non-negative sectional and Ricci curvatures, positive scalar curvature and will be [*isotopic*]{} to the standard round metric on $S^{n}$. The latter fact will be important in the proof of the main theorem, Theorem \[conciso\].
The standard round metric of radius 1, can be induced on $S^{n}$ via the usual embedding into $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. We denote this metric $ds_{n}^{2}$. There are of course many different choices of coordinates with which to realise this metric. For example, the embedding $$\begin{split}
(0,\pi)\times{S^{n-1}}&\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\\
(t,\theta)&\longmapsto(\cos{t},\sin{t}.\theta)
\end{split}$$ gives rise to the metric $dt^{2}+\sin^{2}(t)ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,\pi)\times S^{n-1}$. This extends uniquely to the round metric of radius $1$ on $S^{n}$. Similarly, the round metric of radius $\epsilon$ has the form $dt^{2}+\epsilon^{2}\sin^{2}(\frac{t}{\epsilon})ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,\epsilon\pi)\times S^{n-1}$. More generally, by replacing $\sin t$ with a suitable smooth function $f:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$, we can construct other metrics on $S^{n}$. The following proposition specifies necessary and sufficent conditions on $f$ which guarantee smoothness of the metric $dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $S^{n}$.
[[([Chapter 1, section 3.4, [@P]]{})]{}]{} \[smoothwarp\] Let $f:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ be a smooth function with $f(0)=0=f(b)$. Then the metric $g=dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ is a smooth metric on the sphere $S^{n}$ if and only if $f^{(even)}(0)=0$, $\dot{f}(0)=1$, $f^{(even)}(b)=0$ and $\dot{f}(b)=-1$.
Given the uniqueness of the extension, we will regard metrics of the form $dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^2$ on $(0,b)\times S^{n-1}$ as simply metrics on $S^{n}$, provided $f$ satisfies the conditions above. For a general smooth function $f:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$, a metric of the form $dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,b)\times S^{n-1}$ is known as a [*warped product metric*]{}. From page 69 of [@P], we obtain the following formulae for the Ricci and scalar curvatures of such a metric. Let $\p_t,e_1,\cdots,e_{n-1}$ be an orthonormal frame where $\p_t$ is tangent to the interval $(0,b)$ while each $e_i$ is tangent to the sphere $S^{n-1}$. Then\
$$\label{eqn;ricwarp}
\begin{split}
Ric(\p_t)&=-(n-1)\frac{\ddot{f}}{f},\\
Ric(e_i)&=(n-2)\frac{1-\dot{f}^2}{f^2}-\frac{\ddot{f}}{f} \hspace{0.2cm}\text{, when $i=1,\cdots ,n-1$}.
\end{split}
$$
Thus, the scalar curvature is
$$\label{eqn;scalwarp}
R=-2(n-1)\frac{\ddot{f}}{f}+(n-1)(n-2)\frac{1-\dot{f}^2}{f^2}.$$
Let $\F(0,b)$ denote the space of all smooth functions $f:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ which satisfy the following conditions.
$$\label{eqns;smoothwarp}
\begin{array}{rlc}
f(0)=0,&\qquad
f(b)=0,\\
\dot{f}(0)=1,&\qquad
\dot{f}(b)=-1,\\
f^{(even)}(0)=0,&\qquad
f^{(even)}(b)=0,\\
\ddot{f}\leq 0,&\qquad
\dddot{f}(0)<0,\qquad
\dddot{f}(b)>0,&\\
\ddot{f}(t)<0,&
\text{when $t$ is near but not at $0$ and $b$}.
\end{array}$$
(0,0)![Typical elements of $\F(0,b)$[]{data-label="fig:F(0,b)"}](pict2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5355,1376)(627,-3209) (939,-3118)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2564,-3130)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3814,-3143)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5664,-3143)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
For each function $f$ in $\F(0,b)$, there is an associated smooth metric $g=dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $S^{n}$. We will denote the space of all such metrics by $\W(0,b)$. Note that $\F(0,b)$ is assumed to have the standard $C^{k}$ function space topology with $k\geq 2$, see chapter 2 of [@Hirsch] for details.
\[firstpsc\] The space $\W(0,b)=\{dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}:f\in\F(0,b)\}$ is a path-connected subspace of $\Riem^{+}(S^{n})$.
The first three conditions of (\[eqns;smoothwarp\]) guarantee smoothness of such metrics on $S^{n}$, by Proposition \[smoothwarp\]. We will now consider the scalar curvature when $0<t<b$. Recall that $\ddot{f}(t)\leq 0$ and that near the endpoints this inequality is strict. This means that when $0<t<b$, $|\dot{f}(t)|<1$ and so while the first term in (\[eqn;scalwarp\]) is at worst non-negative, the second term is strictly positive. At the end points, several applications of l’Hospital’s rule give that $$\begin{array}{c}
\lim_{t\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{-\ddot{f}}{f}=-\dddot{f}(0),\qquad \lim_{t\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{1-\dot{f}^{2}}{f^{2}}=-\dddot{f}(0)>0,\\
\lim_{t\rightarrow b^{-}}\frac{-\ddot{f}}{f}=\dddot{f}(b),\qquad \lim_{t\rightarrow b^{-}}\frac{1-\dot{f}^{2}}{f^{2}}=\dddot{f}(b)>0.
\end{array}$$
Thus $\W(0,b)\subset \Riem^{+}S^{n}$. Path connectedness now follows from the convexity of $\F(0,b)$ which in turn follows from an elementary calculation.
It is convenient to allow $b$ to vary. Thus we will define $\F=\bigcup_{b\in(0,\infty)}\F(0,b)$ and $\W=\bigcup_{b\in(0,\infty)}\W(0,b)$. Each metric in $\W$ is defined on $(0,b)\times{S^{n-1}}$ for some $b>0$. In particular, the round metric of radius $\epsilon$, $\epsilon^{2}ds_{n}^{2}$, is an element of $\W(0,\epsilon\pi)$.
\[doubletorpedopsc\] The space $\W$ is a path-connected subspace of $\Riem^{+}(S^{n})$.
Let $g$ be an element of $\W$. Then $g=dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,b)\times S^{n-1}$ for some $f\in \F(0,b)$ and some $b>0$. As $\F(0,b)$ is convex, there is a path connecting $g$ to the metric $dt^{2}+(\frac{b}{\pi})^{2}\sin^{2}(\frac{\pi t}{b})ds_{n-1}^{2}$, the round metric of radius $(\frac{b}{\pi})^{2}$ in $\W(0,b)$. As all round metrics on $S^{n}$ are isotopic by an obvious rescaling, $g$ can be isotopied to any metric in the space.
Torpedo metrics on the disk {#torpedofunc}
---------------------------
A $\delta $-[*torpedo metric*]{} on a disk $D^{n}$, denoted $g_{tor}^n(\delta)$, is an ${\rm O(n)}$ symmetric positive scalar curvature metric which is a product with the standard $n-1$-sphere of radius $\delta$ near the boundary of $D^{n}$ and is the standard metric on the $n$-sphere of radius $\delta$ near the centre of the disk. It is not hard to see how such metrics can be constructed. Let $f_\delta$ be a smooth function on $(0,\infty)$ which satisfies the following conditions.
\(i) $f_\delta(t)=\delta\sin{(\frac{t}{\delta})}$ when $t$ is near $0$.
\(ii) $f_\delta(t)=\delta$ when $t\geq\delta\frac{\pi}{2}$.
\(iii) $\ddot{f_{\delta}}(t)\leq 0$.
From now on $f_{\delta}$ will be known as a [*$\delta-$torpedo function*]{}.\
(0,0)![A torpedo function and the resulting torpedo metric[]{data-label="torpedo"}](torpedo2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5079,1559)(1902,-7227) (2114,-7136)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4189,-7161)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Let $r$ be the standard radial distance function on $\mathbb{R}^n$. By Lemma \[smoothwarp\], the metric $dr^2 + f_\delta(r)^2ds_{n-1}^2$ on $(0,\infty)\times S^{n-1}$ extends smoothly as a metric on $\mathbb{R}^n$, as $\dot{f_{\delta}}(0)=1$ and $f_{\delta}^{even}(0)=0$. The resulting metric is a torpedo metric of radius $\delta$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$. By restricting to $(0,b)\times
S^{n-1}$ for some $b>\delta\frac{\pi}{2}$ we obtain a torpedo metric on a disk $D^{n}$, see Fig. \[torpedo\]. From formula (\[eqn;scalwarp\]), it is clear that this metric has positive scalar curvature and moreover, the scalar curvature can be bounded below by an arbitrarily large constant by choosing $\delta$ sufficiently small.
We will refer to the cylindrical part of this metric as the [*tube*]{}, and the remaining piece as the [*cap*]{} of $g_{tor}^{n}(\delta)$. Notice that we can always isotopy $g_{tor}^{n}(\delta)$ to make the tube arbitrarily long. Strictly speaking then, $g_{tor}^{n}(\delta)$ denotes a collection of isotopic metrics, each with isometric cap of radius $\delta$. It is convenient however, to think of $g_{tor}^{n}(\delta)$ as a fixed metric, the tube length of which may be adjusted if necessary.
The torpedo metric on a disk $D^{n}$ can be used to construct a collection of psc-metrics on $S^{n}$ which will be of use to us later on. The first of these is the double torpedo metric on $S^{n}$. By considering the torpedo metric as a metric on a hemisphere, we can obtain a metric on $S^{n}$ by taking its double. More precisely let $\bar{f}_{\delta}(t)$ be the smooth function on $(0,b)$ which satisfies the following conditions.
\(i) $\bar{f}_{\delta}(t)=f_\delta(t)$ on $[0,\frac{b}{2}]$
\(ii) $\bar{f}_{\delta}(t)=f_\delta(b-t)$ on $[\frac{b}{2}, b]$,
where $\frac{b}{2}>\delta\frac{\pi}{2}$.
(0,0)![A double torpedo function and the resulting double torpedo metric[]{data-label="doubletorpedo"}](Dtorpedo3.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5833,1472)(995,-3093) (3944,-3027)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1294,-3027)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
As $\bar{f}\in\F(0,b)$, the metric $dt^{2}+\bar{f}_{\delta}(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,b)\times S^{n-1}$ gives rise to a smooth psc-metric on $S^{n}$. Such a metric will be called a [*double torpedo metric of radius $\delta$*]{} and denoted $g_{Dtor}^{n}(\delta)$, see Fig. \[doubletorpedo\]. Then Proposition \[doubletorpedopsc\] implies that $g_{Dtor}^{n}(\delta)$ is isotopic to $ds_{n}^{2}$.
Doubly warped products and mixed torpedo metrics
------------------------------------------------
Henceforth $p$ and $q$ will denote a pair of non-negative integers satisfying $p+q+1=n$. The standard sphere $S^{n}$ decomposes as a union of sphere-disk products as shown below. $$\begin{array}{cl}
S^{n} &= \p D^{n+1}\\
&=\p (D^{p+1}\times D^{q+1}),\\
&=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}\cup_{S^{p}\times S^{q}} D^{p+1}\times S^{q}.
\end{array}$$\
![$S^{n}$ decomposed as $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}\cup_{S^{p}\times S^{q}} D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ and equipped with a mixed torpedo metric $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$[]{data-label="fig:decomposing_S^n"}](Mtorpedo4.eps){height="40mm"}
We can utilise this decomposition to construct a new metric on $S^{n}$. Equip $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$ with the product metric $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. Then equip $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ with $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$. These metrics glue together smoothly along the common boundary $S^{p}\times S^{q}$ to form a smooth metric on $S^{n}$. Such metrics will be known as [*mixed torpedo metrics*]{} on $S^{n}$ and denoted $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$. For the remainder of this section we will show how to realise these metrics in a more computationally useful form.
Recall that a metric of the form $dt^{2}+f(t)^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,b)\times S^{n-1}$, where $f:(0,b)\rightarrow (0,\infty)$ is a smooth function, is known as a [*warped product metric*]{}. We have observed that the standard round sphere metric: $ds_{n}^{2}$, can be represented as the warped product metric $dt^{2}+\sin^{2}(t)ds_{n-1}^{2}$ on $(0,\pi)\times S^{n-1}$. The notion of a warped product metric on $(0,b)\times S^{n-1}$ generalises to something called a [*doubly warped product metric*]{} on $(0,b)\times S^{p}\times S^{q}$. Here the metric takes the form $dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$, where $u,v:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ are smooth functions.
From page 72 of [@P], we obtain the following curvature formulae. Let $\p_t,e_1,\cdots,e_{p}, e_{1}',\cdots,e_{q}'$ be an orthonormal frame where $e_1,\cdots,e_{p}$ are tangent to $S^{p}$ and $e_{1}',\cdots,e_{q}'$ are tangent to $S^{q}$. Then $$\begin{split}
Ric(\p_t)&=-(p)\frac{\ddot{u}}{u}-(q)\frac{\ddot{v}}{v},\\
Ric(e_i)&=(p-1)\frac{1-\dot{u}^2}{u^2}-\frac{\ddot{u}}{u}-q\frac{\dot{u}\dot{v}}{uv} \hspace{0.2cm}\text{, $i=1,\cdots ,p$},\\
Ric(e_i')&=(q-1)\frac{1-\dot{v}^2}{v^2}-\frac{\ddot{v}}{v}-p\frac{\dot{u}\dot{v}}{uv} \hspace{0.2cm}\text{, $i=1,\cdots ,q$}.
\end{split}
$$
Thus, the scalar curvature is $$\label{eqn;scaldoublewarp}
\begin{split}
R=-2p\frac{\ddot{u}}{u}-2q\frac{\ddot{v}}{v}+p(p-1)\frac{1-\dot{u}^2}{u^2}+q(q-1)\frac{1-\dot{v}^2}{v^2}-2pq\frac{\dot{u}\dot{v}}{uv}.
\end{split}
$$
We observe that the round metric $ds_{n}^{2}$ can be represented by a doubly warped product. Recalling that $p+q+1=n$, consider the map $$\label{map;doublewarpembedding}
\begin{split}
(0,\frac{\pi}{2})\times{{S}^{p}}\times{{S}^{q}}&\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q+1}\\
(t,\phi,\theta)&\longmapsto(\cos{t}.\phi,\sin{t}.\theta)
\end{split}$$
Here $S^{p}$ and $S^{q}$ denote the standard unit spheres in $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ respectively. The metric induced by this embedding is given by the formula $$\begin{array}{c}
dt^{2}+\cos^{2}(t)ds_{p}^{2}+\sin^{2}(t)ds_{q}^{2},
\end{array}$$ a doubly warped product representing the round metric on $S^{n}$. More generally the round metric of radius $\epsilon$ takes the form $dt^{2}+\epsilon^{2}\cos^{2}(\frac{t}{\epsilon})ds_{p}^{2}+\epsilon^{2}\sin^{2}(\frac{t}{\epsilon})ds_{q}^{2}$ on $(0,\epsilon\frac{\pi}{2})\times{S^{p}}\times{S^{q}}$.
As before, by imposing appropriate conditions on the functions $u,v:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$, the metric $dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ gives rise to a smooth metric on $S^{n}$. By combining propositions 1 and 2 on page 13 of [@P], we obtain the following proposition which makes these conditions clear.
\[smoothdoublewarp\] [[(Page 13, [@P])]{}]{} Let $u,v:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ be smooth functions with $u(b)=0$ and $v(0)=0$. Then the metric $dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ on $(0,b)\times{S^{p}}\times{S^{q}}$ is a smooth metric on $S^{n}$ if and only if the following conditions hold. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqns;usmooth}
&u(0)>0,\qquad
u^{(odd)}(0)=0,\qquad
\dot{u}(b)=-1,\qquad
u^{(even)}(b)=0.\\
\label{eqns;vsmooth}
&v(b)>0,\qquad
v^{(odd)}(b)=0,\qquad
\dot{v}(0)=1,\qquad
v^{(even)}(0)=0.
$$
Let $\U(0,b)$ denote the space of all functions $u:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ which satisfy (\[eqns;usmooth\]) above and the condition that $\ddot{u}\leq 0$ with $\ddot{u}(t)<0$ when $t$ is near but not at $b$ and $\dddot{u}(b)>0$.
Similarly $\V(0,b)$ will denote the space of all functions $v:(0,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ which satisfy (\[eqns;vsmooth\]) and for which $\ddot{v}\leq 0$ with $\ddot{v}(t)<0$ when $t$ is near but not at $0$ and $\dddot{v}(0)<0$.
Each pair $u,v$ from the space $\U(0,b)\times\V(0,b)$ gives rise to a metric $dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ on $S^{n}$. We denote the space of such metrics $$\begin{array}{c}
\hat{\W}^{p,q}(0,b)=\{dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}:(u,v)\in\U(0,b)\times\V(0,b)\}.
\end{array}$$ We now obtain the following lemma.
\[lem:markslemm1.5\] Let $n\geq 3$ and let $p$ and $q$ be any pair of non-negative integers satisfying $p+q+1=n$. Then the space $\hat{\W}^{p,q}(0,b)$ is a path-connected subspace of $\Riem^{+}{S^{n}}$.
Let $g=dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ be an element of $\hat{\W}^{p,q}(0,b)$. Smoothness of this metric on $S^{n}$ follows from Proposition \[smoothdoublewarp\]. We will first show that $g$ has positive scalar curvature when $0<t<b$. Recall that $u$ and $v$ are both concave downward, that is $\ddot{u}, \ddot{v}< 0$. This means that the first 2 terms in (\[eqn;scaldoublewarp\]) are at worst non-negative. Downward concavity and the fact that $\dot{u}(0)=0$ and $\dot{u}(b)=-1$ imply that $-1<\dot{u}\leq 0$. A similar argument gives that $0\leq\dot{v}<1$. This means that the fifth term in (\[eqn;scaldoublewarp\]) is also non-negative and at least one of the third and fourth terms in (\[eqn;scaldoublewarp\]) is strictly positive (the other may be $0$ for dimensional reasons).
When $t=0$ and $t=b$, some elementary limit computations using l’Hospital’s rule show that the scalar curvature is positive. Thus $\hat{\W}(0,b)^{p,q}\subset {\Riem}^{+}(S^{n})$.
Finally, path connectivity follows immediately from the convexity of the space $\U(0,b)\times\V(0,b)$.
As before, it is convenient to allow $b$ to vary. Thus, we define $\U\times\V=\bigcup_{b\in(0,\infty)}\U(0,b)\times\V(0,b)$ and $\hat{\W}^{p,q}=\bigcup_{b\in(0,\infty)}\hat{\W}^{p,q}(0,b)$. Finally we let $\hat{\W}=\bigcup_{p+q+1=n}\hat{\W}^{p,q}$ where $0\leq p,q\leq n+1$.
Let $n\geq 3$. The space $\hat{\W}$ is a path-connected subspace of $\Riem^{+}{S^{n}}.$\[mixedtorpedopsc\]
The proof that $\hat{W}^{p,q}$ is path connected is almost identical to that of Proposition \[doubletorpedopsc\]. The rest follows from the fact that each $\hat{\W}^{p,q}$ contains the round metric $ds_{n}^{2}=dt^{2}+\cos^{2}{t}ds_{p}^{2}+\sin^{2}{t}ds_{q}^{2}$.
At the beginning of this section we demonstrated that $S^{n}$ could be decomposed into a union of $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$ and $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$. This can be seen explicitly by appropriate restriction of the embedding in(\[map;doublewarpembedding\]). Thus, provided $t$ is near $0$, the metric $dt^{2}+u(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+v(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$, with $u,v\in \U(0,b)\times\V(0,b)$, is a metric on $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$. When $t$ is near $b$ we obtain a metric on $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$. We can now construct a mixed torpedo metric on $S^{n}$, as follows. Let $f_{\epsilon}(t)$ and $f_{\delta}(t)$ be the torpedo functions on $(0,b)$ defined in section \[torpedofunc\] with $b>\max\{\epsilon\pi,\delta\pi\}$. Then the metric $$\begin{array}{c}
g_{Mtor}^{p,q}=dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(b-t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+f_{\delta}(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}
\end{array}$$ is a mixed torpedo metric on $S^{n}$, see Fig. \[fig:mixed torpedo\].\
![The mixed torpedo metrics $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$ and $g_{Mtor}^{p+1,q-1}$[]{data-label="fig:mixed torpedo"}](mtorpedo55.eps){height="30mm"}
\[toriso\] Let $n\geq 3$. For any non-negative integers $p$ and $q$ with $p+q+1=n$, the metric $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$ is isotopic to $ds_{n}^{2}$.
An elementary calculation shows that the functions $f_{\epsilon}(b-t)$ and $f_{\delta}(t)$ lie in $\U(0,b)$and $\V(0,b)$ respectively. Thus $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}\in\hat{\W}^{p,q}(0,b)$. As the standard round metric lies in $\hat{\W}^{p,q}(0,b)$, the proof follows from Proposition \[mixedtorpedopsc\].
(0,0)![The plane $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ equipped with the metric $h$[]{data-label="h"}](foldedplane6.eps "fig:"){height="60mm"}
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(1968,2757)(2374,-5278) (3226,-2836)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2189,-4411)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Inducing a mixed torpedo metric with an embedding {#embedmixedtorp}
-------------------------------------------------
We close this section with a rather technical observation which will be of use later on. It is of course possible to realise mixed torpedo metrics on the sphere as the induced metrics of some embedding. Let $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ where of course $p+q+1=n$. Let $(\rho, \phi)$ and $(r,\theta)$ denote standard spherical coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ where $\rho$ and $r$ are the respective Euclidean distance functions and $\phi\in S^{p}$ and $\theta\in S^{q}$. Then equip $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ with the metric $h=h^{p,q}$ defined $$\begin{array}{c}
h^{p,q}=d\rho^{2}+f_\epsilon(\rho)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+dr^{2}+f_\delta(r)^{2}ds_{q}^{2},
\end{array}$$ shown in Fig. \[h\], where $f_\epsilon, f_\delta:(0,\infty)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ are the torpedo functions defined in section \[torpedofunc\].
(0,0)![The curve $\alpha$[]{data-label="fig:xandy"}](xandy.eps "fig:"){height="40mm"}
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2677,2516)(2399,-4690) (3826,-4549)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2414,-3236)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2576,-3999)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3251,-4624)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
We will now parameterise an embedded sphere $S^{n}$ in $(\mathbb{R}^{n+1},h)$, the induced metric on which will be precisely the mixed torpedo metric described earlier. Let $c_1$ and $c_2$ be constants satisfying $c_1>\epsilon\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $c_2>\delta\frac{\pi}{2}$. Let $a=(a_1, a_2)$ denote a smooth unit speed curve in the first quadrant of $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ which begins at $(c_1,0)$ follows a vertical trajectory, bends by an angle of $\frac{\pi}{2}$ towards the vertical axis and continues as a horizontal line to end at $(0,c_2)$. We will assume that the bending takes place above the horizontal line through line $(0,\delta\frac{\pi}{2})$, see Fig. \[fig:xandy\]. We also assume that $a_1\in\U(0,b)$ and $a_2\in\V(0,b)$ for sufficiently large $b>0$.
![The map $J$ gives a parameterisation for $S^{n}$[]{data-label="Fig.:J"}](embsphere7.eps){height="50mm"}
We will now specify an embedding of the $n-$sphere into $(\mathbb{R}^{n+1}, h)$ which induces the mixed torpedo metric $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$ described above. Let $J$ be the embedding defined as follows
$$\begin{split}
J:(0,b)\times{S^{p}}\times{S^{q}}&\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q+1},\\
(t,\theta,\phi)&\longmapsto((a_1(t),\phi),(a_2(t),\theta)),
\end{split}$$
see Fig. \[Fig.:J\]. Provided that $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ are chosen sufficiently small, this embedding induces the mixed torpedo metric $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$ on $S^{n}$. Indeed, we have
$$\label{mixedtorembcalc}
\begin{array}{cl}
J^{*}h&=J^{*}(d\rho^{2}+f_\epsilon(\rho)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+dr^{2}+f_\delta(r)^{2}ds_{q}^{2})\\
&= dt^{2}+f_\epsilon(\alpha_1(t))^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+f_\delta(\alpha_2(t))^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&= dt^{2}+f_\epsilon(b-t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+f_\delta(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&=g_{Mtor}^{p,q}.
\end{array}$$
The second equality follows from the fact that $\alpha$ is a unit speed curve and the third equality from the fact that $f_\epsilon(s)$ and $f_\delta(s)$ are both constant when $s>\max\{\epsilon\frac{\pi}{2},\delta\frac{\pi}{2}\}$.
Revisiting the Surgery Theorem {#surgerysection}
==============================
Over the the next two sections we will provide a proof of Theorem \[GLcob\]. The proof involves the construction of a psc-metric on a compact cobordism $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ which extends a psc-metric $g_0$ from $X_0$ and is a product near $\p{W}$. A specific case of this is Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] (stated below) which we prove in this section. It can be thought of as a building block for the more general case of the proof of Theorem \[GLcob\] which will be completed in section \[GLcobordsection\]. Before stating Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\], it is worth briefly reviewing some basic notions about surgery and cobordism.
Surgery and cobordism
---------------------
A [*surgery*]{} on a smooth manifold $X$ of dimension $n$, is the construction of a new $n$-dimensional manfiold $X'$ by removing an embedded sphere of dimension $p$ from $X$ and replacing it with a sphere of dimension $q$ where $p+q+1=n$. More precisely, suppose $i:S^{p}\hookrightarrow X$ is an embedding. Suppose also that the normal bundle of this embedded sphere is trivial. Then we can extend $i$ to an embedding $\bar{i}:S^{p}\times D^{q+1}\hookrightarrow X$. The map $\bar{i}$ is known as a [*framed embedding*]{} of $S^{p}$. By removing an open neighbourhood of $S^{p}$, we obtain a manifold $X-\bar{i}(S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}})$ with boundary $S^{p}\times S^{q}$. Here ${{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}}$ denotes the interior of the disk $D^{q+1}$. As the handle $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ has the same boundary, we can use the map $\bar{i}|_{S^{p}\times S^{q}}$, to glue the manifolds $X-\bar{i}(S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}})$ and $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ along their common boundary and obtain the manifold
$$X'=(X-\bar{i}(S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}}))\cup_{\bar{i}}D^{p+1}\times S^{q}.$$
The manifold $X'$ can be taken as being smooth (although some minor smoothing of corners is necessary where the attachment took place). Topologically, $X'$ is quite different from the manifold $X$. It is well known that the topology of $X'$ depends on the embedding $i$ and the choice of framing $\bar{i}$, see [@R] for details. In the case when $i$ embeds a sphere of dimension $p$ we will describe a surgery on this sphere as either a [*$p-$surgery*]{} or a [*surgery of codimenison $q+1$*]{}.
The [*trace*]{} of a $p-$surgery is a smooth $n+1$-dimensional manifold $W$ with boundary $\p{W}=X\sqcup X'$, see Fig. \[fig:trace\]. It is formed by attaching a solid handle $D^{p+1}\times D^{q+1}$ onto the cylinder $X\times I$, identifying the $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$ part of the boundary of $D^{p+1}\times D^{q+1}$ with the embedded $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$ in $X\times \{1\}$ via the framed embedding $\bar{i}$. The trace of a surgery is an example of a cobordism. In general, a [*cobordism*]{} between $n$-dimensional manifolds $X_0$ and $X_1$ is an $n+1$-dimensional manifold $W^{n+1}=\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ with boundary $\p {W}=X_0\sqcup X_1$. Cobordisms which arise as the trace of a surgery are known as [*elementary cobordisms*]{}. By taking appropriate unions of elementary cobordisms it is clear that more general cobordisms can be constructed. An important consequence of Morse theory is that the converse is also true, that is any compact cobordism $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ may be decomposed as a finite union of elementary cobordisms. This is a subject we will return to later on.
(0,0)![The trace of a $p$-surgery on $X$[]{data-label="fig:trace"}](surgerytrace.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3339,2281)(1665,-3492) (2226,-1849)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3076,-1386)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Surgery and positive scalar curvature
-------------------------------------
The Surgery Theorem of Gromov-Lawson and Schoen-Yau can now be stated as follows.\
[***Surgery Theorem.***]{} [([@GL1], [@SY])]{}\[SurgeryTheorem\] [*Let $(X,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold of positive scalar curvature. Let $X'$ be a manifold which has been obtained from $X$ by a surgery of codimension at least $3$. Then $X'$ admits a metric $g'$ which also has positive scalar curvature.*]{}
We will concentrate on the technique used by Gromov and Lawson, however, the proof of the Surgery Theorem by Schoen and Yau in [@SY] is rather different and involves conformal methods. There is in fact another approach to the problem of classifying manifolds of positive scalar curvature which involves conformal geometry, see for example the work of Akutagawa and Botvinnik in [@AB].
(0,0)![The metric $g'$, obtained by the Surgery Theorem[]{data-label="fig:GLmetric"}](surgerymetric.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7038,2154)(330,-2515) (726,-1548)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3451,-2248)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5414,-2174)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5426,-2449)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
In their proof, Gromov and Lawson provide a technique for constructing the metric $g'$, see Fig. \[fig:GLmetric\]. Their technique can be strengthened to yield the following theorem.
\[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] Let $(X,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold of positive scalar curvature. If $W^{n+1}$ is the trace of a surgery on $X$ in codimension at least $3$, then we can extend the metric $g$ to a metric $\bar{g}$ on $W$ which has positive scalar curvature and is a product near the boundary.
In fact, the restriction of the metric $\bar{g}$ to $X'$, the boundary component of $W$ which is the result of the surgery, is the metric $g'$ of the Surgery Theorem. Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] is sometimes referred to as the Improved Surgery Theorem and was originally proved by Gajer in [@Gajer]. We have two reasons for providing a proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\]. Firstly, there is an error in Gajer’s original proof. Secondly, this construction will be used as a “building block" for generating concordances. In turn, it will allow us to describe a space of concordances, see section \[introthree\] for a discussion of this.
(0,0)![The “surgery-ready" metric obtained by Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\][]{data-label="fig:IsotopyLemmametric"}](surgeryready.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(6820,2228)(618,-2077) (3451,-1749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5751,-1724)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5764,-2011)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1064,-1186)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] will dominate much of the rest of this section. We will first prove a theorem which strengthens the Surgery Theorem in a slightly different way. This is Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] below, which will play a vital role throughout our work.
\[IsotopyTheorem\] Let $(X,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold of positive scalar curvature with $dim X=n$ and let $g_p$ be any metric on the sphere $S^{p}$. Suppose $i:S^{p}\hookrightarrow X$ is an embedding of $S^{p}$, with trivial normal bundle. Suppose also that $p+q+1=n$ and that $q\geq 2$. Then, for some $\delta>0$ there is an isotopy of $g$, to a psc-metric $g_{std}$ on $X$, which has the form $g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ on a tubular neighbourhood of the embedded $S^{p}$ and is the original metric $g$ away from this neighbourhood.
\[GLconc\] There is a metric $\bar{g}$ on $X\times I$ satisfying\
(i) $\bar{g}$ has positive scalar curvature.\
(ii) $\bar{g}$ restricts to $g$ on $X\times{\{0\}}$, $g_{std}$ on $X\times{\{1\}}$ and is product near the boundary.\
$\bar{g}$ is therefore a concordance of $g$ and $g_{std}$.
This follows immediately from Lemma \[isoconc\].
The proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] is not made any simpler by choosing a particular metric for $g_p$. Indeed, the embedded sphere $S^{p}$ can be replaced by any closed codimension$\geq 3$ submanifold with trivial normal bundle, and the result still holds with an essentially identical proof. That said, we are really only interested in the case of an embedded sphere and moreover, the case when $g_p$ is the round metric $\epsilon^{2}ds_p^{2}.$
The proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] is long and technical. Contained in it is the proof of the original Surgery Theorem of Gromov and Lawson, see [@GL1]. Here the authors consider an embedded surgery sphere $S^{p}$ in a Riemannian manifold $(X^{n},g)$ where $n-p\geq 3$ and $g$ is a psc-metric. Their construction directly implies that the metric $g$ can be replaced by the psc-metric $g'$ described in the statement of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], where in this case $g_p=\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}$. Thus, Gromov and Lawson prepare the metric for surgery by making it standard near the surgery sphere. By performing the surgery entirely on the standard region, it is then possible to attach a handle $D^{p+1}\times S^{n-p-1}$ with a correponding standard metric, $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+\delta^{2}ds_{n-p-1}^{2}$ onto $X-\bar{i}(S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{n-p}$}}}}}}}})$, as in Fig. \[fig:GLmetric\].
Rather than attaching a handle metric, Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] states that the “surgery-ready" metric $g_{std}$ on $X$, see Fig. \[fig:IsotopyLemmametric\], is actually isotopic to the original metric $g$. Thus the concordance $\bar{g}$ on $X\times I$, which is described in Corollary \[GLconc\], can be built. The proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] then proceeds by attaching a solid handle $D^{p+1}\times D^{n-p}$ to $X\times I$, with an appropriate standard metric. After smoothing, this will result in a metric of positive scalar curvature on the trace of the surgery on $S^{p}$. The only remaining task in the proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] is to show that this metric can be adjusted to also carry a product structure near the boundary.
Outline of the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]
--------------------------------------------------
Although the result is known, Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] is based on a number of technical lemmas from a variety of sources, in particular [@GL1], [@RS]. For the most part, it is a reworking of Gromov and Lawson’s proof of the Surgery Theorem. To aid the reader we relegate many of the more technical proofs to the appendix. We begin with a brief summary.\
[**Part 1:**]{} Using the exponential map we can specify a tubular neighbourhood $N=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$, of the embedded sphere $S^{p}$. Henceforth, all of our work will take place in this neighbourhood. We construct a hypersurface $M$ in $N\times \mathbb{R}$ where $N\times\mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the metric $g+dt^{2}$. Letting $r$ denote the radial distance from $S^{p}\times\{0\}$ in $N$, this hypersurface is obtained by pushing out bundles of geodesic spheres of radius $r$ in $N$ along the $t$-axis with respect to some smooth curve $\gamma$ of the type depicted in Fig. \[gamma\]. In Lemmas \[principalM\] and \[scalM\], we compute the scalar curvature of the metric $g_\gamma$ which is induced on the hypersurface $M$.
[**Part 2:**]{} We recall the fact that $\gamma$ can be chosen so that the metric $g_\gamma$ has positive scalar curvature. This fact was originally proved in [@GL1] although later, in [@RS], an error in the original proof was corrected. We will employ the method used by Rosenberg and Stolz in [@RS] to construct such a curve $\gamma$ and we will then demonstrate that $\gamma$ can be homotopied through appropriate curves back to the vertical axis inducing an isotopy from the psc-metric $g_\gamma$ back to the orginal psc-metric $g$. We will also comment on the error in the proof of the “Improved Surgery Theorem", Theorem 4 in [@Gajer], see Remark \[Gajercomment\].
[**Part 3:**]{} We will now make a further deformation to the metric $g_\gamma$ induced on $M$. Here we restrict our attention to the part of $M$ arising from the torpedo part of $\gamma$. Lemma \[GLlemma1\] implies that $M$ can be chosen so that the metric induced on the fibre disks can be made arbitrarily close to the standard torpedo metric of radius $\delta$. It is therefore possible to isotopy the metric $g$, through psc-metrics, to one which near $S^{p}$ is a Riemannian submersion with base metric $g|_{S^{p}}$ and fibre metric $g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. Using the formulae of O’Neill, we will show that the positivity of the curvature on the disk factor allows us to isotopy through psc-submersion metrics near $S^{p}$ to obtain the desired metric $g_{std}=g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$.
Let $X^{n}$ be a manifold of dimension $n\geq 3$ and $g$ a metric of positive scalar curvature on $X$.\
Part 1 of the proof: Curvature formulae for the first deformation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let $i:S^{p}\hookrightarrow X$ be an embedding with trivial normal bundle, denoted by $\N$, and with $q\geq 2$ where $p+q+1=n$. By choosing an orthonormal frame for $\N$ over $i(S^{p})$, we specify a bundle isomorphism $\tilde{i}:S^{p}\times \mathbb{R}^{q+1}\rightarrow\mathcal{N}$. Points in $S^{p}\times \mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ will be denoted $(y,x)$. Let $r$ denote the standard Euclidean distance function in $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ and let $D^{q+1}(\bar{r})=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{q+1}:r(x)\leq\bar{r}\}$ denote the standard Euclidean disk of radius $\bar{r}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$. Provided $\bar{r}$ is sufficiently small, the composition $\exp\circ\tilde{i}|_{S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})}$, where $\exp$ denotes the exponential map with respect to the metric $g$, is an embedding. We will denote by $N=N(\bar{r})$, the image of this embedding and the coordinates $(y,x)$ will be used to denote points on $N$. Note that curves of the form $\{y\}\times l$, where $l$ is a ray in $D^{{q}}(\bar{r})$ emanating from $0$, are geodesics in $N$.
Before proceeding any further we state a lemma concerning the metric induced on a geodesic sphere of a Riemannian manifold. Fix $z\in X$ and let $D$ be a normal coordinate ball of radius $\bar{r}$ around $z$. Recall, this means first choosing an orthonormal basis $\{e_1,...,e_n\}$ for $T_z X$. This determines an isomorphism $E:(x_1,...,x_n)\mapsto x_1 e_1+\cdots +x_n e_n$ from $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ to $T_z X$. The composition $E^{-1}\circ \exp^{-1}$ is a coordinate map provided we restrict it to an appropriate neighbourhood of $z$. Thus we identify $D=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}:|x|\leq \bar{r}\}$. The quantity $r(x)=|x|$ is the radial distance from the point $z$, and $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:|x|=\epsilon\}$ will denote the geodesic sphere of radius $\epsilon$ around $z$.\
\[GLlemma1\] [[(Lemma 1, [@GL1])]{}]{}
\(a) The principal curvatures of the hypersurfaces $S^{n-1}{(\epsilon})$ in D are each of the form $\frac{-1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon)$ for $\epsilon$ small.
\(b) Furthermore, let $g_\epsilon$ be the induced metric on $S^{n-1}{(\epsilon})$ and let $g_{0,\epsilon}$ be the standard Euclidean metric of curvature $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}$. Then as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0, \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}{g_\epsilon}\rightarrow{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}g_{0,\epsilon}}=g_{0,1}$ in the $C^{2}$-topology.
Below we use the following notation. A function $f(r)$ is $O(r)$ as $r\rightarrow 0$ if $\frac{f(r)}{r}\rightarrow constant$ as $r\rightarrow 0$.
This lemma was originally proved in [@GL1]. In the appendix, we provide a complete proof, which includes details suppressed in the original, see Theorem \[GLlemma1app\]. In order to deform the metric on $N$ we will construct a hypersurface in $N\times\mathbb{R}$. Let $r$ denote the radial distance from $S^{p}\times \{0\}$ on $N$ and $t$ the coordinate on $\mathbb{R}$. Let $\gamma$ be a $C^{2}$ curve in the $t-r$ plane which satisfies the following conditions, see Fig. \[gamma\].
1\. For some $\bar{t}>0$, $\gamma$ lies entirely inside the rectangle $[0,\bar{r}]\times[0,{\bar{t}}]$, beginning at the point $(0,\bar{r})$ and ending at the point $(\bar{t},0)$. There are points $(0, r_1), (t_1', r_1'), (t_0,r_0)$ and $(t_\infty, r_\infty)$ on the interior of $\gamma$ with $0<r_\infty<r_0<\frac{r_1}{2}<r_1'<r_1<\bar{r}$ and $0<t_1'<t_0<t_\infty<\bar{t}$. We will assume that $\bar{t}-t_\infty$ is much larger than $r_\infty$.
2\. When $r\in[r_0,\bar{r}]$, $\gamma$ is the graph of a function $f_0$ with domain on the $r$-axis satisfying: $f_0(r)=0$ when $r\in[r_1,\bar{r}]$, $f_0(r)=t_1'-\tan{\theta_0}(r-r_1')$ for some $\theta_0\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ when $r\in[r_0, r_1']$ and with $\dot{f_0}\leq 0$ and $\ddot{f_0}\geq 0$.
3\. When $r\in[0,r_\infty]$, $\gamma$ is the graph of a function $f_\infty$ defined over the interval $[t_\infty, \bar{t}]$ of the $t$-axis. The function $f_\infty$ is given by the formula $f_{\infty}(t)=f_{r_\infty}(\bar{t}-t)$ where $f_{r_\infty}$ is an $r_\infty$-torpedo function of the type described at the beginning of section \[torpedofunc\].
4\. Inside the rectangle $[t_0, t_\infty]\times[r_\infty, r_0]$, $\gamma$ is the graph of a $C^{2}$ function $f$ with $f(t_0)=r_0$, $f(t_\infty)=r_\infty$, $\dot{f}\leq 0$ and $\ddot{f}\geq 0$.
(0,0)![The curve $\gamma$[]{data-label="gamma"}](glcurve.eps "fig:"){height="60mm"}
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3889,2884)(1374,-4954) (1180,-4690)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-4375)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-2825)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-3145)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-2553)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1700,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2294,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2414,-3938)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1800,-4375)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4159,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2294,-4640)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1430,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1500,-3145)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The curve $\gamma$ specifies a hypersurface in $N\times\mathbb{R}$ in the following way. Equip $N\times\mathbb{R}$ with the product metric $g+dt^{2}$. Define $M=M_{\gamma}$ to be the hypersurface, shown in Fig. \[hyperm\] and defined
$$M_{\gamma}=\{(y,x,t)\in S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})\times\mathbb{R}:(r(x),t)\in{\gamma}\}.$$
We will denote by $g_\gamma$, the metric induced on the hypersurface $M$. The fact that $\gamma$ is a vertical line near the point $(0,\bar{r})$ means that $g_\gamma=g$, near $\p{N}$. Thus, $\gamma$ specifies a metric on $X$ which is the orginal metric $g$ outside of $N$ and then transitions smoothly to the metric $g_\gamma$. Later we will show that such a curve can be constructed so that $g_\gamma$ has positive scalar curvature. In the meantime, we will derive an expression for the scalar curvature of $g_\gamma$, by computing principal curvatures for $M$ with respect to the outward unit normal vector field and then utilising the Gauss curvature equation, see Lemmas \[principalM\] and \[scalM\]. Details of these computations can be found in the appendix, see Lemmas \[principalMapp\] and \[scalarMapp\] respectively.
(0,0)![The hypersurface $M$ in $N\times\mathbb{R}$, the sphere $S^{p}$ is represented schematically as a pair of points[]{data-label="hyperm"}](hyperm.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4666,3733)(1218,-3861) (5869,-2318)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1716,-282)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2398,-386)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2512,-933)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1972,-933)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1365,-1367)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1417,-1088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[principalM\] The prinipal curvatures to $M$ with respect to the outward unit normal vector field have the form $$\begin{array}{cl}
\lambda_j =
\begin{cases}
k & \text{if $j=1$}\\
(-\frac{1}{r}+O(r))\sin{\theta} & \text{if $2\leq j\leq q+1$}\\
O(1)\sin{\theta} & \text{if $q+2\leq j\leq n$}.
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$ Here $k$ is the curvature of $\gamma$, $\theta$ is the angle between the outward normal vector $\eta$ and the horizontal (or the outward normal to the curve $\gamma$ and the $t$-axis) and the corresponding principle directions $e_j$ are tangent to the curve $\gamma$ when $j=1$, the fibre sphere $S^{q}$ when $2\leq j\leq q+1$ and $S^{p}$ when $q+2\leq j\leq n$.
See appendix, lemma \[principalMapp\].
\[scalM\] The scalar curvature of the metric induced on $M$ is given by $$\label{scalarMeqn}
\begin{split}
R^{M}&=R^{N}+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)-2k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +2q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}.
\end{split}
$$
See appendix, lemma \[scalarMapp\].
Part 2 of the proof: A continuous bending argument
--------------------------------------------------
In this section we will prove the following lemma.
\[Pushoutcurvehaspsc\] [*The curve $\gamma$ can be chosen so that the induced metric $g_\gamma$, on the hypersurface $M=M_{\gamma}$, has positive scalar curvature and is isotopic to the original metric $g$.*]{}
Before proving this lemma, it is worth simplifying some of our formulae. From formula (\[scalarMeqn\]) we see that to keep $R^{M}>0$ we must choose $\gamma$ so that
$$\begin{array}{c}
k\left[2q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}+qO(r)\sin{\theta}\right] < R^{N}+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)+2q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}.
\end{array}$$
This inequality can be simplified to
$$\begin{array}{c}
k[\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}+O(r)\sin{\theta}]<R_{0}+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)+(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}
\end{array}$$
where
$$\begin{array}{c}
R_0=\frac{1}{2q}[\inf_{N}(R^{N})]
\end{array}$$
and $\inf_{N}(R^{N})$ is the infimum of the function $R^{N}$ on the neighbourhood $N$. Simplifying further, we obtain
$$\begin{array}{c}
k[1+O(r)r]<R_{0}\frac{r}{\sin{\theta}}+r{\sin{\theta}}\cdot O(1)+(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}.
\end{array}$$
Replace $O(r)$ with $C'r$ for some constant $C'>0$ and replace $O(1)$ with $-C$ where $C>0$, assuming the worst case scenario that $O(1)$ is negative. Now we have
$$\label{cureqn}
\begin{array}{c}
k[1+C'r^{2}]<R_{0}\frac{r}{\sin{\theta}}+(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}-Cr{\sin{\theta}}.
\end{array}$$
The proof of Lemma \[Pushoutcurvehaspsc\] is quite complicated and so it is worth giving an overview. We denote by $\gamma^{0}$, the curve which in the $t-r$-plane runs vertically down the $r$-axis, beginning at $(0,\bar{r})$ and finishing at $(0,0)$. Now consider the curve $\gamma^{\theta_0}$, shown in Fig. \[fig:initialbend\]. This curve begins as $\gamma^{0}$ before smoothly bending upwards over some angle small angle $\theta_0\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ to proceed as a straight line segment before finally bending downwards to intersect the $t$-axis vertically. The corresponding hypersurface in $N\times\mathbb{R}$, constructed exactly as before, will be denoted by $M_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$ and the induced metric by $g_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$. The strict positivity of the scalar curvature of $g$ means that provided we choose $\theta_0$ to be sufficiently small, the scalar curvature of the metric $g_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$ will be strictly positive. It will then be a relatively straightforward exercise to construct a homotopy of $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ back to $\gamma^{0}$ which induces an isotopy of the metrics $g_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$ and $g$.
To obtain the curve $\gamma$, we must perform one final upward bending on $\gamma^{\theta_0}$. This will take place on the straight line piece below the first upward bend. This time we will bend the curve right around by an angle of $\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_0$ to proceed as a horizontal line segment, before bending downwards to intersect the $t$-axis vertically, see Fig. \[gamma\]. We must ensure throughout that inequality (\[cureqn\]) is satisfied. In this regard, we point out that the downward bending, provided we maintain downward concavity, causes us no difficulty as here $k\leq 0$. The difficulty lies in performing an upward bending, where this inequality is reversed.
Having constructed $\gamma$, our final task will be to demonstrate that it is possible to homotopy $\gamma$ back to $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ in such a way as to induce an isotopy between the metrics $g_\gamma$ and $g_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$. This, combined with the previously constructed isotopy of $g_{\gamma}$ and $g$, will complete the proof.
(0,0)![The curve $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ resulting from the initial bend[]{data-label="fig:initialbend"}](initialbend.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4365,2828)(1636,-3890) (4239,-3824)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1651,-2161)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2751,-1749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2594,-3474)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2021,-2649)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2021,-1326)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2021,-1586)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2021,-1886)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
[**The initial bending:**]{} For some $\theta_0>0$, $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ will denote the curve depicted in Fig. \[fig:initialbend\], parameterised by the arc length parameter $s$. Beginning at $(0,\bar{r})$, the curve $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ runs downward along the vertical axis to the point $(0,r_1)$ for some fixed $0<r_1<\bar{r}$. It then bends upwards by an angle of $\theta_0$, proceeding as a straight line segment with slope $m_0=\frac{-1}{\tan{\theta_0}}$, before finally bending downwards and with downward concavity to intersect the $t$-axis vertically. The curvature of $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ at the point $\gamma^{\theta_0}(s)$ is denoted by $k(s)$ and $\theta=\theta(s)$ will denote the angle made by the normal vector to $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ and the $t$-axis, at the point $\gamma^{\theta_0}(s)$.
The bending itself will be obtained by choosing a very small bump function for $k$, with support on an interval of length $\frac{r_1}{2}$, see Fig. \[fig:k(s)\]. This will ensure that the entire upward bending takes place over some interval $[r_1',r_1]$ which is contained entirely in $[\frac{r_1}{2},r_1]$. The downward bending will then begin at $r=r_\infty$, for some $r_\infty\in(0,\frac{r_1}{2})$.
We will first show that the parameters $\theta_0\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ and $r_1\in(0,\bar{r})$ can be chosen so that inequality (\[cureqn\]) holds for all $\theta\in[0,\theta_0]$ and all $r\in(0,r_1]$. Begin by choosing some $\theta_0\in(0,\arcsin{\sqrt{\frac{R_0}{C}}})$. This guarantees that the right hand side of (\[cureqn\]) remains positive for all $\theta\in[0,\theta_0]$. For now, the variable $\theta$ is assumed to lie in $[0,\theta_0]$. Provided $\theta$ is close to zero, the term $R_{0}\frac{r}{\sin{\theta}}$ is positively large and dominates. When $\theta=0$ the right hand side of (\[cureqn\]) is positively infinite. Once $\theta$ becomes greater than zero, the term $(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}$ can be made positively large by choosing $r$ small, and so can be made to dominate. Recall here that $q\geq 2$ by the assumption that the original surgery sphere had codimension at least three. It is therefore possible to choose $r_1>0$ so that inequality (\[cureqn\]) holds for all $\theta\in[0,\theta_0]$ and for all $r\in(0,r_1]$. Note also that without the assumption that the scalar curvature of the original metric $g$ is strictly positive, this argument fails.
(0,0)![The bump function $k$[]{data-label="fig:k(s)"}](bumpcurvature.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5490,2903)(811,-3977) (3726,-3711)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (826,-2286)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
We will now bend $\gamma^{0}$ to $\gamma^{\theta_0}$, smoothly increasing $\theta$ from $0$ to $\theta_0$. We do this by specifying a bump function $k$ which describes the curvature along $\gamma^{\theta_0}$, see Fig. \[fig:k(s)\]. This gives
$$\begin{array}{c}
\Delta\theta=\int kds\approx \frac{1}{2}r_1\cdot k_{max}.
\end{array}$$
This approximation can be made as close to equality as we wish. If necessary re-choose $\theta_0$ so that $\theta_0<\frac{1}{2}r_1\cdot k_{max}$. Note that $r_1$ has been chosen to make inequality (\[cureqn\]) hold for all $\theta\in[0,\theta_0]$ and so rechoosing a smaller $\theta_0$ does not affect the choice of $r_1$. We need to show that $k_{max}>0$ can be found so that
$$\begin{array}{c}
k_{max}[1+C'{r_1}^{2}]<R_{0}\frac{r_1}{\sin{\theta}}+(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r_1}-C{r_1}{\sin{\theta}},
\end{array}$$
for all $\theta\in[0,\theta_0]$. But from the earlier argument, $r_1$ and $\theta_0$ have been chosen so that the right-hand side of this inequality is positive for all $\theta\in[0,\theta_0]$. So some such $k_{max}>0$ exists. This completes the initial upward bending.
The curve $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ then proceeds as a straight line before bending downwards, with downward concavity, to vertically intersect the $t$-axis. This downward concavity ensures that $k\leq 0$ and so inequality (\[cureqn\]) is easily satisfied, completing the construction of $\gamma^{\theta_0}$.\
[**The initial isotopy:**]{} Next we will show that $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ can be homotopied back to $\gamma^{0}$ in such a way as to induce an isotopy between the metrics $g_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$ and $g$. Treating $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ as the graph of a smooth function $f_{0}$ over the interval $[0,\bar{r}]$, we can compute the curvature $k$, this time in terms of $r$, as
$$k=\frac{\ddot{f_{0}}}{(1+\dot{f_{0}}^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}.$$
By replacing $f_{0}$ with $\lambda f_{0}$ where $\lambda\in[0,1]$ we obtain a homotopy from $\gamma^{\theta_{0}}$ back to $\gamma^{0}$. To ensure that the induced metric has positive scalar curvature at each stage in this homotopy it is enough to show that on the interval $[\frac{r_1}{2}, r_1]$, $k^{\lambda}\leq k$ for all $\lambda\in[0,1]$, where $k^{\lambda}$ is the curvature of $\lambda f_{0}$. Note that away from this interval downward concavity means that $k^{\lambda}\leq 0$ for all $\lambda$ and so inequality (\[cureqn\]) is easily satisfied.
We wish to show that for all $\lambda\in[0,1]$,
$$\frac{\lambda\ddot{f_{0}}}{(1+\lambda^{2}\dot{f_{0}}^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}\leq\frac{\ddot{f_{0}}}{(1+\dot{f_{0}}^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}.
$$
A slight rearrangement of this inequality gives
$$\frac{\ddot{f_{0}}}{((\lambda^{\frac{-2}{3}})(1+\lambda^{2}\dot{f_{0}}^{2}))^{\frac{3}{2}}}\leq\frac{\ddot{f_{0}}}{(1+\dot{f_{0}}^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}},
$$
and hence it is enough to show that
$$\frac{1+\lambda^{2}\dot{f_{0}}^{2}}{1+\dot{f_{0}}^{2}}\geq\lambda^{\frac{2}{3}} \hspace{1cm}\text{for all $\lambda\in[0,1]$}.
$$
Replacing $\lambda^{\frac{2}{3}}$ with $\mu$ and $\dot{f_{0}}^{2}$ with $b$ we obtain the following inequality.
$$\label{polly}
\begin{array}{c}
{\mu}^{3}b-\mu b-\mu+1\geq0.
\end{array}$$
The left hand side of this inequality is zero when $\mu=1$ or when $\mu=\frac{-b^{2}\pm\sqrt{b^{2}+4b}}{2b^{2}}$. We may assume that $\theta_0$ has been chosen small enough so that $\tan^{2}(\theta_0)<\frac{1}{4}$. Thus $b=\dot{f_{0}}^{2}<\frac{1}{4}$. A simple computation then shows that the left hand side of (\[polly\]) is non-zero when $\mu$ (and thus $\lambda$) is in $[0,1]$, and so the inequality holds.\
[**The final bending:**]{} We will now construct the curve $\gamma$ so that the induced metric $g_\gamma$ has positive scalar curvature. From the description of $\gamma$ given in Part 1, we see that it is useful to regard $\gamma$ as consisting of three pieces. When $r>r_0$, $\gamma$ is just the curve $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ constructed above and when $r\in[0,r_\infty]$, $\gamma$ is the graph of the concave downward function $f_\infty$. In both of these cases, inequality (\[cureqn\]) is easily satisfied. The third piece is where the difficulty lies. In the rectangle $[t_0, t_\infty]\times[r_\infty, r_0]$ we must specify a curve which connects the previous two pieces to form a $C^{2}$ curve and satisfies inequality (\[cureqn\]). This will be done by constructing an appropriate $C^{2}$ function $f:[t_0, t_\infty]\longrightarrow[r_\infty, r_0]$. Before discussing the construction of $f$ we observe that inequality (\[cureqn\]) can be simplified even further.
Choose $r_0\in(0,\frac{r_1}{2})$ so that $0<r_0<min\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{4C}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2C'}}\}$. Now, when $r\in(0,r_0]$ and $\theta\geq\theta_0$, we have
$$\begin{array}{cl}
(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}-Cr{\sin{\theta}}& \geq\sin{\theta[\frac{q-1}{r}-Cr]}\\
&\geq\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}[1-Cr^{2}].
\end{array}$$
When $r<\frac{1}{\sqrt{4C}}$, $r^{2}<\frac{1}{4C}$. So $Cr^{2}<\frac{1}{4}$ and $1-Cr^{2}>\frac{3}{4}$. Thus
$$\begin{array}{c}
(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}-Cr{\sin{\theta}}\geq\frac{3}{4}\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}.
\end{array}$$
Also $r<\sqrt{\frac{1}{2C'}}$. So $r^{2}<\frac{1}{2C'}$ giving that $2C'r^{2}<1$. Thus, $1+C'r^{2}<\frac{3}{2}$. Hence from inequality (\[cureqn\]) we get
$$k<\frac{2}{3}.\frac{3}{4}\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}=\frac{\sin{\theta}}{2r}.
$$
So if we begin the second bend when $r\in [0,r_0]$, it suffices to maintain
$$\label{keqn}
k<\frac{\sin{\theta}}{2r}.
$$
It should be pointed out that the inequality (\[keqn\]) [**only holds when $\theta > \theta_0$ and does not hold for only $\theta>0$, no matter how small $r$ is chosen.**]{} The following argument demonstrates this. Assuming $\theta$ close to zero and using the fact that $k(s)=\frac{d\theta}{ds}$, we can assume (\[keqn\]) is
$$\frac{d\theta}{ds}<\frac{{\theta}}{2r}.
$$
But this is $$\frac{d\log(\theta)}{ds}<\frac{1}{2r},
$$ the left hand side of which is unbounded as $\theta$ approaches $0$. It is for this reason that the initial bend and hence the [**strict positivity**]{} of the scalar curvature of $g$ is so important.
\[Gajercomment\] From the above one can see that the inequality on page 190 of [@Gajer] breaks down when $\theta$ is near $0$. In this case the bending argument aims at maintaining non-negative mean curvature. Since apriori the mean curvature is not strictly positive, an analogous initial bend to move $\theta$ away from 0 is not possible.
We will now restrict our attention entirely to the rectangle $[t_0, t_\infty]\times[r_\infty, r_0]$. Here we regard $\gamma$ as the graph of a function $f$. Thus we obtain, $$\sin{\theta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\dot{f}^{2}}}
$$ and $$k=\frac{\ddot{f}}{(1+\dot{f}^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}.
$$ Hence, (\[keqn\]) gives rise to the following differential inequality $$\frac{\ddot{f}}{(1+\dot{f}^{2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}<\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\dot{f}^{2}}}\frac{1}{2f}.
$$
This simplifies to
$$\label{diffkeqn}
{\ddot{f}}<\frac{{1+\dot{f}^{2}}}{2f}.
$$
Of course to ensure that $\gamma$ is a $C^{2}$ curve we must insist that as well as satisfying (\[diffkeqn\]), $f$ must also satisfy conditions (\[cond1\]), (\[cond2\]) and (\[cond3\]) below.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond1}
&f(t_0)=r_0,\qquad
f(t_\infty)>0, \qquad\\
\label{cond2}
&\dot{f}(t_0)=m_0,\qquad
\dot{f}(t_\infty)=0,\qquad\\
\label{cond3}
&\ddot{f}(t_0)=0,\qquad
\ddot{f}(t_\infty)=0,\end{aligned}$$
where $m_0=\frac{-1}{\tan{\theta_0}}$. The fact that such a function can be constructed is the subject of the following lemma. Having constructed such a function, $r_\infty$ will then be set equal to $f(t_\infty)$ and the construction of $\gamma$ will be complete.
\[technical\] For some $t_\infty>t_0$, there is a $C^{2}$ function $f:[t_0,t_\infty]\longrightarrow[0,r_0]$ which satisfies inequality (\[diffkeqn\]) as well as conditions (\[cond1\]), (\[cond2\]) and (\[cond3\]).
The following formula describes a family of functions, all of which satisfy inequality (\[diffkeqn\]).
$$\begin{array}{c}
f(t)=c+\frac{C_1}{4}(t-C_2)^{2}, \hspace{1.0cm}\text{where $C_1,C_2>0\hspace{2mm}\text{and}\hspace{2mm}c\in(0,\frac{1}{C_1})$.}
\end{array}$$
Such a function $f$ has first and second derivatives
$$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{f}=\frac{C_1}{2}(t-C_2)\hspace{2mm}\text{and}\hspace{2mm} \ddot{f}=\frac{C_1}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
We will shortly see that $C_1$ and $C_2$ can be chosen so that on the interval $[t_0, C_2]$, $f(t_0)=r_0$, $\dot{f}(t_0)= m_0$, $\dot{f}(C_2)= 0$ and $f(C_2)=c>0$. The choice of $C_1$ needs to be very large which makes $\ddot{f}$ a large positive constant. Thus, some adjustment is required near the end points if such a function is to satisfy the requirements of the lemma. We will achieve this by restricting the function to some proper subinterval $[t_0', t_\infty']\subset [t_0, C_2]$ and pasting in appropriate transition functions on the intervals $[t_0, t_0']$ and $[t_\infty', t_\infty]$ (where $t_\infty$ is close to $C_2$).
More precisely, let $t_0'-t_0=\delta_0$, $t_\infty-t_\infty'=\delta_\infty$ and $C_2-t_\infty'=\frac{\delta_\infty}{2}$. We will now show that for appropriate choices of $C_1, C_2, \delta_0$ and $\delta_\infty$, the following function satisfies the conditions of the lemma. To aid the reader, we include the graph of the second derivative of this function, see Fig. \[secondderivoff\].
$$\label{pwf(t)}
\begin{array}{c}
f(t) =
\begin{cases}
r_0+m_0(t-t_0)+\frac{C_1}{12\delta_0}(t-t_0)^{3}, & \text{if $t\in[t_0, t_0']$}\\
c+\frac{C_1}{4}(t-C_2)^{2}, & \text{if $t\in[t_0',t_\infty']$}\\
c-\frac{C_1}{48}{\delta_\infty}^{2}-\frac{C_1}{12\delta_\infty}(t-t_\infty)^3, & \text{if $t\in[t_\infty', t_\infty]$}.
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$
(0,0)![The second derivative of $f$[]{data-label="secondderivoff"}](bumpcurvature2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5305,2770)(1086,-3740) (1101,-2249)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2864,-3661)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3239,-3674)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4026,-3674)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4451,-3674)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6376,-3424)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1489,-1124)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
A simple check shows that $f(t_0)=r_0$, $\dot{f}(t_0)=m_0$ and $\ddot{f}(t_0)=0$. Now we must show that $C_1$ can be chosen so that this function is $C^{2}$ at $t_0'$. We begin by solving, for $t_0'$, the equation
$$\begin{array}{c}
c+\frac{C_{1}}{4}(t_0'-C_2)^{2}=r_0+m_0(t_0'-t_0)+\frac{C_1}{12\delta_0}(t_0'-t_0)^{3}.
\end{array}$$
This results in the following formula for $t_0'$,
$$\begin{array}{c}
t_0'=C_2-\sqrt{\frac{4}{C_1}(r_0+m_0\delta_0+\frac{C_1}{12}\delta_0^{2}-c)}.
\end{array}$$
Equating the first derivatives of the first two components of (\[pwf(t)\]) at $t_0'$ and replacing $t_0'$ with the expression above results in the following equation. $$\label{firstderiveqn}
\begin{array}{c}
C_1(r_0-c)-m_0^{2}=-\frac{C_1}{2}\delta_0 m_0-\frac{C_1^{2}}{48}\delta_0^{2}.
\end{array}$$
The second derivatives of the first two components of (\[pwf(t)\]) agree at $t_0'$ and so provided $C_1$ and $\delta_0$ are chosen to satisfy (\[firstderiveqn\]), $f$ is $C^{2}$ at $t_0'$. It remains to show that $\delta_0$ can be chosen so that $f$ satisfies inequality (\[diffkeqn\]) on $[t_0, t_0']$. The parameter $C_1$ varies continuously with respect to $\delta_0$. Denoting by $\bar{C_1}$, the solution to the equation $\bar{C_1}(r_0-c)-m_0^{2}=0$, it follows from equation (\[firstderiveqn\]), that for small $\delta_0$, $C_1$ is given by a formula $C_1(\delta_0)=\bar{C_1}+\epsilon(\delta_0)$ for some continuous parameter $\epsilon$ with $\epsilon(0)=0$ and $\epsilon(\delta_0)>0$ when $\delta_0>0$. When $\delta_0=0$, we obtain the strict inequality
$$\bar{C_1}<\frac{1+m_0^{2}}{r_0}.
$$
Thus, there exists some sufficiently small $\delta_0$, so that for all $s\in[0,1]$,
$$C_1=\bar{C_1}+\epsilon(\delta_0)<\frac{1+(m_0+\frac{C_1}{4}\delta_0 s)^{2}}{r_0},
$$
while at the same time,
$$\begin{array}{c}
-r_0<m_0\delta_0s+\frac{C_1}{12}\delta_0^{2}s^{3}\leq 0.
\end{array}$$
Hence, $$\label{sineq}
C_1<\frac{1+(m_0+\frac{C_1}{4}\delta_0 s)^{2}}{r_0+m_0\delta_0 s+\frac{C_1}{12}\delta_0^{2}s^{3}}
$$
holds for all $s\in[0,1]$. Replacing $s$ with $\frac{t-t_0}{\delta_0}$ in (\[sineq\]) yields inequality (\[diffkeqn\]) for $t\in[t_0,t_0']$ and so $f$ satisfies (\[diffkeqn\]) at least on $[t_0,t_\infty']$.
Given $r_0$, the only choice we have made so far in the construction of $f$, is the choice of $\delta_0$. This choice determines uniquely, the choices of $C_1$ and $C_2$. Strictly speaking, we need to choose some $c$ in $(0,\frac{1}{C_1})$ but we can always regard this as given by the choice of $C_1$, by setting $c=\frac{1}{2C_1}$ say. There is one final choice to be made and that is the choice of $\delta_\infty$.
Some elementary calculations show that $f$ is $C^{2}$ at $t_\infty'$. The choice of $\delta_\infty$ is completely independent of any of the choices we have made so far and so can be made arbitrarily small. Thus, an almost identical argument to the one made when choosing $\delta_0$ shows that for a sufficiently small choice of $\delta_\infty$, inequality (\[diffkeqn\]) is satisfied when $t\in[t_\infty', t_\infty]$. Also, the independence of $\delta_0$ and $C_1$ means that $f(t_\infty)=c-\frac{C_1}{12}\delta_\infty^{2}$ can be kept strictly positive by ensuring $\delta_\infty$ is sufficiently small. The remaining conditions of the lemma are then trivial to verify.
[**The final isotopy:**]{} The final task in the proof of Lemma \[Pushoutcurvehaspsc\] is the construction of a homotopy between $\gamma$ and $\gamma^{\theta_0}$ which induces an isotopy between the metrics $g_\gamma$ and $g_{\gamma^{\theta_0}}$. We will begin by making a very slight adjustment to $\gamma$. Recall that the function $f$ has as its second derivative: a bump function with support on the interval $[t_0, t_\infty]$, see Fig. \[secondderivoff\]. By altering this bump function on the region $[t_\infty',t_\infty]$, we make adjustments to $f$. In particular, we will replace $f$ with the $C^{2}$ function which agrees with $f$ on $[t_0, t_\infty']$ but whose second derivative is the bump function shown in Fig. \[alterbump\], with support on $[t_0, t_\infty'']$, where $t_\infty''\in[C_2, t_\infty]$. We will denote this new function $f^{\infty}$.
(0,0)![The second derivative of the function $f^{\infty}$[]{data-label="alterbump"}](bumpcurvature3.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5305,2795)(1086,-3765) (1101,-2249)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2864,-3699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3239,-3699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6376,-3424)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1489,-1124)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4256,-3699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4476,-3699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4001,-3699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
When $t_\infty''=t_\infty$, no change has been made and $f^{\infty}=f$. When $t_\infty''<t_\infty$, the derivative of $f^{\infty}$ on the interval $[t_\infty'', t_\infty]$ is a negative constant, causing the formerly horizontal straight line piece of $\gamma$ to tilt downwards with negative slope. Thus, by continuously decreasing $t_\infty''$ from $t_\infty$ by some sufficiently small amount, we can homotopy $\gamma$ to a curve of the type shown in Fig. \[GLcurvebent\], where the second straight line piece now has small negative slope before bending downwards to intersect the $t$-axis vertically at $\bar{t}$. Note that the rectangle $[t_0, t_\infty]\times[r_\infty, r_0]$ is now replaced by the rectangle $[t_0, t_\infty'']\times[r_\infty'', r_0]$, where $f^{\infty}(t_\infty'')=r_\infty''$. It is easy to see how, on $[t_\infty'', \bar{t}]$, $\gamma$ can be homotopied through curves each of which is the graph of a $C^{2}$ function with non-positive second derivative, thus satisfying inequality (\[diffkeqn\]). We do need to verify however, that on $[t_\infty', t_\infty'']$, this inequality is valid. Recall, this means showing that
$$\ddot{f^{\infty}}<\frac{1+\dot{f^{\infty}}^{2}}{2f^{\infty}}.
$$
When $t_\infty''=t_\infty$, $f^{\infty}=f$ and so this inequality is already strict on the interval $[t_\infty', t_\infty'']$. Now suppose $t_\infty''$ is slightly less than $t_\infty$. Then, on $[t_\infty', t_\infty'']$, $\ddot{f^{\infty}}\leq \ddot{f}$, while the $2$-jets of $f$ and $f^{\infty}$ agree at $t_\infty'$. This means that $\dot{f^{\infty}}\leq\dot{f}$ and $f^{\infty}\leq f$ on $[t_\infty', t_\infty'']$. But $\dot{f}<0$ on this interval and so $\dot{f^{\infty}}^{2}\geq \dot{f}^{2}$. Also, provided $t_\infty''$ is sufficiently close to $t_\infty$, we can keep $f^{\infty}>0$ and sufficiently large on this interval so that the curve $\gamma$ can continue as the graph of a decreasing non-negative concave downward function all the way to the point $\bar{t}$. Thus, the inequality in (\[diffkeqn\]) actually grows as $t_\infty''$ decreases.
(0,0)![The effect of such an alteration on the curve $\gamma$[]{data-label="GLcurvebent"}](glcurvebent.eps "fig:"){height="60mm"}
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3889,2884)(1374,-4954) (1180,-4690)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-4375)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-2553)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1700,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2294,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2414,-3938)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4159,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1430,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
It remains to show that this slightly altered $\gamma$ can be homotopied back to $\gamma^{\theta_{0}}$ in such a way as to induce an isotopy of metrics. To ease the burden of notation we will refer to the function $f^{\infty}$ as simply $f$ and the rectangle $[t_0,t_\infty'']\times[r_\infty'', r_0]$ as simply $[t_0,t_\infty]\times[r_\infty, r_0]$. It is important to remember that $f$ differs from the function constructed in Lemma \[technical\] in that $m_0\leq\dot{f}<0$ on $[t_0, t_\infty]$. We wish to continuously deform the graph of $f$ to obtain the straight line of slope $m_0$ intersecting the point $(t_0, r_0)$. We will denote this straight line segment by $l$, given by the formula $l(r)=r_0+m_0(t-t_0)$. We will now construct a homotopy by considering the functions which are inverse to $f$ and $l$, see Fig. \[lastisotopy\]. Consider the linear homotopy $h^{-1}_s=(1-s)f^{-1}+sl^{-1}$, where $s\in[0,1]$. Let $h_s$ denote the corresponding homotopy from $f$ to $l$, where for each $s$, $h_s$ is inverse to $h^{-1}_s$. Note that the domain of $h_s$ is $[t_0,(1-s)t_\infty+sl^{-1}(r_\infty)]$. For each $r\in[r_\infty, r_0]$, $\dot{h^{-1}_s}(r)\leq\dot{f^{-1}}(r)$. This means that for any $s\in[0,1]$ and any $r\in[r_\infty, r_0]$, $\dot{h_s}(t_s)\geq\dot{f}(t)$, where $h_s(t_s)=f(t)=r$. As the second derivative of $h_s$ is bounded by $\ddot{f}$, this means that inequality (\[diffkeqn\]) is satisfied throughout the homotopy.
(0,0)![The graphs of the functions $f$ and $l$ and their inverses[]{data-label="lastisotopy"}](lastisotopy.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(6030,2783)(861,-3065) (1089,-2599)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1426,-2199)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
(3539,-2624)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (876,-749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (889,-2374)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1889,-1974)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5051,-2999)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6689,-2974)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6876,-2736)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6839,-436)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5151,-2541)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5289,-2049)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
This homotopy extends easily to the part of $\gamma$ on the region where $t\geq (1-s)t_\infty+sl^{-1}(r_\infty)$, which can easily be homotopied through curves, each the graph of a concave downward decreasing non-negative function. The result is a homtopy between $\gamma$ and $\gamma^{\theta_0}$, through curves which satisfy inequality (\[cureqn\]) at every stage. This, combined with the initial isotopy, induces an isotopy through metrics of positive scalar curvature between $g$ and $g_\gamma$, completing the proof of Lemma \[Pushoutcurvehaspsc\].
Part 3 of the proof: Isotopying to a standard product
-----------------------------------------------------
Having constructed the psc-metric $g_\gamma$ and having demonstrated that $g_\gamma$ is isotopic to the original metric $g$, one final task remains. We must show that the metric $g_\gamma$ can be isotopied to a psc-metric which, near the embedded sphere $S^{p}$, is the product $g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. Composing this with the isotopy from Part 2 yields the desired isotopy from $g$ to $g_{std}$ and proves Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\].
We denote by $\pi:\N \rightarrow S^{p}$, the normal bundle to the embedded $S^{p}$ in $X$. The Levi-Civita connection on $X$, with respect to the metric $g_{\gamma}$, gives rise to a normal connection on the total space of this normal bundle . This gives rise to a horizontal distribution $\mathcal{H}$ on the total space of $\N$. Now equip the fibres of the bundle $\N$ with the metric $g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. Equip $S^{p}$ with the metric $g_{\gamma}|_{S^{p}}$, the induced metric on $S^{p}$. The projection $\pi:(\N,\tilde{g})\rightarrow (S^{p},\check{g})$ is now a Riemannian submersion with base metric $\check{g}=g_{\gamma}|_{S^{p}}$ and fibre metric $\hat{g}=g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. The metric $\tilde{g}$ denotes the unique submersion metric arising from $\check{g},\hat{g}$ and $\mathcal{H}$.
Our focus will mostly be on the restriction of this Riemannian submersion to the disk bundle, $\pi:D\N(\epsilon)\rightarrow S^{p}$. We will retain $\tilde{g}$, $\hat{g}$ and $\check{g}$ to denote the relevant restrictions. Before saying anything more specific about this disk bundle, it is worth introducing some useful notation. For some $t_L\in(t_\infty, \bar{t}-r_\infty)$, we define the following submanifolds of $M$, $$\begin{array}{c}
M[t_L, \bar{t}]=\{(y,x,t)\in S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})\times\mathbb{R}:(r(x),t)\in{\gamma}\hspace{2mm} \text{and $t\geq t_L$}\}.
\end{array}$$ and $$\begin{array}{c}
M[t_\infty, t_L]=\{(y,x,t)\in S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})\times\mathbb{R}:(r(x),t)\in{\gamma}\hspace{2mm} \text{and $t_\infty \leq t \leq t_L$}\}.
\end{array}$$
(0,0)![The shaded piece denotes the region $M[t_L,\bar{t}]$[]{data-label="fig:torpedopiece"}](diskbundle.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4670,3467)(1214,-4082) (5869,-2318)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Note that $M[t_L, \bar{t}]$ is, for appropriately small $\epsilon$, the disk bundle $D\N(\epsilon)$ and $M[t_\infty, t_L]$ is a cylindrical region (diffeomorphic to $S^{p}\times S^{q}\times [t_\infty, t_L]$) which connects this disk bundle with the rest of $M$. We will make our primary adjustments on the disk bundle $D\N(\epsilon)$, where we will construct an isotopy from the metric $g_\gamma$ to a metric which is a product. The cylindrical piece will be then be used as a transition region.
On $D\N(\epsilon)$ we can use the exponential map to compare the metrics $g_\gamma$ and $\tilde{g}$. Replacing the term $r_\infty$ with $\delta$, we observe the following convergence.
\[C2convergence\] There is $C^{2}$ convergence of the metrics $g_\gamma$ and $\tilde{g}$ as $\delta\rightarrow 0$.
Treating $g_\gamma$ as a submersion metric (or at least the metric obtained by pulling back $g_\gamma$ via the exponential map), it suffices to show convergence of the fibre metrics. In the case of $g_\gamma$, the metric on each fibre $D^{q+1}(\epsilon)_{y}$, where $y\in S^{p}$, is of the form
$$\begin{array}{c}
\hat{g_\gamma}=dt^{2}+{g|_{S^{q}(f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t))}}_{y}.
\end{array}$$
Here $t\in[t_L, \bar{t}]$ and recall that ${S^{q}(f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t))}_{y}$ is the geodesic fibre sphere of radius $f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t)$ at the point $y\in S^{p}$. In the same coordinates, the fibre metric for $\tilde{g}$ is
$$\begin{array}{c}
\hat{g}=dt^{2}+f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}.
\end{array}$$
We know from Lemma \[GLlemma1\] that as $r\rightarrow 0$,\
$$\begin{array}{c}
{g|_{S^{q}(r)}}_{y}\longrightarrow r^{2}ds_{q}^{2}
\end{array}$$ in the $C^{2}$ topology. Now, $0<f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t)\leq \delta$ and so as $\delta\rightarrow 0$, we get that
$$\begin{array}{c}
{g|_{S^{q}(f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t))}}_{y}\longrightarrow f_{\delta}(\bar{t}-t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}.
\end{array}$$
Hence we can isotopy $g_{\gamma}$, through submersion metrics, to one which pulls back on $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\epsilon)$ to the submersion metric $\tilde{g}$. In fact, we can do this with arbitrarily small curvature effects and so maintain positive scalar curvature. Furthermore, the fact that there is $C^{2}$ convergence of ${g_{\gamma}|_{S^{q}(f(\bar{t}-t))}}_{x}$ to $f(\bar{t}-t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ means that we can ensure a smooth transition along the cylinder $M[t_\infty, t_L]$, although this may neccessitate making the cylindrical piece very long.
Now, by the formulae of O’Neill, we get that the scalar curvature of $\tilde{g}$ is
$$\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{R}=\check{R}\circ\pi+\hat{R}-|A|^{2}-|T|^{2}-|\bar{n}|^{2}-2\check{\delta}(\bar{n}).
\end{array}$$
where $\tilde{R}, \check{R}$ and $\hat{R}$ are the scalar curvatures of $\tilde{g}, \check{g}$ and $\hat{g}$ respectively. For full definitions and formulae for $A,T,\bar{n}$ and $\check{\delta}$, see [@B]. Briefly, the terms $T$ and $A$ are the first and second tensorial invariants of the submersion. Here $T$ is the obstruction to the bundle having totally geodesic fibres and so by construction $T=0$, while $A$ is the obstruction to the integrability of the distribution. The $\bar{n}$ term is also $0$ as $\bar{n}$ is the mean curvature vector and vanishes when $T$ vanishes. We are left with
$$\label{O'Neill}
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{R}=\check{R}\circ\pi+\hat{R}-|A|^{2}.
\end{array}$$
We wish to deform $\tilde{g}$ through Riemannian submersions to one which has base metric $g_p$, preserving positive scalar curvature throughout the deformation. We can make $\hat{R}$ arbitrarily positively large by choosing small $\delta$. As the deformation takes place over a compact interval, curvature arising from the base metric is bounded. We must ensure, however, as we shrink the fibre metric, that $|A|^{2}$ is not affected in a significant way.
Letting $\tau=\bar{t}-t$, the metric on the fibre is
$$\begin{array}{cl}
g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)&=d{\tau}^{2}+f_{\delta}(\tau)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&=\delta^{2}d(\frac{\tau}{\delta})^{2}+\delta^{2}f_{1}(\frac{\tau}{\delta})^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&=\delta^{2}g_{tor}^{q+1}(1).
\end{array}$$
The canonical variation formula, [@B], now gives that
$$\begin{array}{c}
\tilde R=R_{\delta^{2}}=\frac{1}{\delta^{2}}\hat{R}+\check{R}\circ\pi-\delta^{2}|A|^{2}
\end{array}$$
Thus, far from the $|A|^{2}$ term becoming more significant as we shrink $\delta$, it actually diminishes.
Having isotopied $\tilde{g}$ through positive scalar curvature Riemannian submersions to obtain a submersion metric with base metric $\check{g}=g_p$ and fibre metric $\hat{g}=g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$, we finish by isotopying through Riemannian submersions to the product metric $g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. This involves a linear homotopy of the distribution to one which is flat i.e. where $A$ vanishes. As $|A|^{2}$ is bounded throughout, we can again shrink $\delta$ if necessary to ensure positivity of the scalar curvature.
At this point we have constructed an isotopy between $\tilde{g}=g_{std}|_{D\N(\epsilon)}$ and $g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. In the original Gromov-Lawson construction, this isotopy is performed only on the sphere bundle $S\N(\epsilon)$ and so the resulting metric is the product $g_p+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ (in this case $g_p=ds_{p}^{2}$). In fact, the restriction of the above isotopy to the boundary of the disk bundle $D\N(\epsilon)$ is precisely this Gromov-Lawson isotopy. Thus, as the metric on $D\N(\epsilon)$ is being isotopied from $g_\gamma$ to $g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$, we can continuously transition along the cylinder $M[t_\infty, t_L]$ from this metric to the orginal metric $g_\gamma$. Again, this may require a considerable lengthenning of the cylindrical piece. This completes the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\].
Applying Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] over a compact family of psc-metrics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before proceeding with the proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\] we make an important observation. Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] can be extended to work for a compact family of positive scalar curvature metrics on $X$ as well as a compact family of embedded surgery spheres. A compact family of psc-metrics on $X$ will be specified with a continuous map from some compact indexing space $B$ into the space $\Riem^{+}(X)$. In the case of a compact family of embedded surgery spheres, we need to introduce some notation. The set of smooth maps $C^{\infty}(W, Y)$ between the compact manifolds $W$ and $Y$ can be equipped with a standard $C^{\infty}$ topology, see chapter 2 of [@Hirsch]. Note that as $W$ is compact there is no difference between the so called “weak" and “strong" topologies on this space. Contained in $C^{\infty}(W, Y)$, as an open subspace, is the space $Emb(W, Y)$ of smooth embeddings. We can now specify a compact family of embedded surgery spheres on a compact manifold $X$, with a continuous map from some compact indexing space $C$ into $Emb(S^{p}, X)$.
\[GLcompact\] Let $X$ be a smooth compact manifold of dimension $n$ and $B$ and $C$ a pair of compact spaces. Let $\mathcal{B}=\{g_{b}\in\Riem^{+}(X):{b\in B}\}$ be a continuous family of psc-metrics on $X$ and $\mathcal{C}=\{{i_c}\in Emb(S^{p}, X):{c\in C}\}$, a continuous family of embeddings, with $p+q+1=n$ and $q\geq 2$. Finally, let $g_p$ be any metric on $S^{p}$. Then, for some $\delta>0$, there is a continuous map
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{B}\times \mathcal{C}&\longrightarrow \Riem^{+}(X)\\
(g_b,i_c)&\longmapsto g_{std}^{b,c}
\end{split}$$
satisfying
\(i) Each metric $g_{std}^{b,c}$ has the form $g_p+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ on a tubular neighbourhood of $i_c (S^{p})$ and is the original metric $g_b$ away from this neighbourhood.
\(ii) For each $c\in C$, the restriction of this map to $\mathcal{B}\times\{ i_c \}$ is homotopy equivalent to the inclusion $\mathcal{B}\hookrightarrow \Riem^{+}(X)$.
For each pair $b,c$, the exponential map $\exp_b$ of the metric $g_b$ can be used to specify a tubular neighbourhood $N_{b,c}(\bar{r})$ of the embedded sphere $i_c(S^{p})$, exactly as in Part 1 of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]. Compactness gives that the infimum of injectivity radii over all metrics $g_b$ on $X$ is some positive constant and so a single choice $\bar{r}>0$ can be found, giving rise to a continuous family of such tubular neighbourhoods $\{N_{b,c}=N_{b,c}(\bar{r}):b,c\in B\times C\}$. Each metric $g_{b}$ may be adjusted in $N_{b,c}$ by specifying a hypersurface $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}\subset N_{b,c}\times\mathbb{R}$ constructed with respect to a curve $\gamma$, exactly as described in the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]. Equipping each $N_{b,c}\times\mathbb{R}$ with the metric $g_b|_{N{b,c}}+dt^{2}$ induces a continuous family of metrics $g_{\gamma}^{b,c}$ on the respective hypersurfaces $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}$.
We will first show that a single curve $\gamma$ can be chosen so that the resulting metrics $g_\gamma^{b,c}$ have positive scalar curvature for all $b$ and $c$. The homotopy of $\gamma$ to the vertical line segment in Part 2 of the proof Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] can be applied exactly as before, inducing an isotopy between $g_\gamma^{b,c}$ and $g_b$ which varies continuously with respect to $b$ and $c$. Finally, Part 3 of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] can be generalised to give rise to an isotopy between $g_\gamma^{b,c}$ and $g_{std}^{b,c}$, which again varies continuously with respect to $b$ and $c$.
Recall from the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] that for any curve $\gamma$, the scalar curvature on the hypersurface $M=M_\gamma$ is given by:
$$\begin{array}{cl}
R^{M}&=R^{N}+\sin^{2}{\theta}.O(1)-2k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +2q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}.
\end{array}$$
The $O(1)$ term comes from the principal curvatures on the embedded surgery sphere $S^{p}$ and the Ricci curvature on $N$, both of which are bounded. Over a compact family of psc-metrics $g_b, b\in B$ and and a compact family of embeddings $i_c, c\in C$, these curvatures remain bounded and so the $O(1)$ term is unchanged. Here, the tubular neighbourhood $N$ is replaced with the continuous family of tubular neighbourhoods $N_{b,c}$ described above. Recall that we can specify all of these neighbourhoods with a single choice of radial distance $\bar{r}$. The $O(r)$ term comes from the principal curvatures on the geodesic spheres $S^{q-1}(r)$, which were computed in Lemma \[GLlemma1\]. This computation works exactly the same for a compact family of metrics and so this $O(r)$ term is unchanged. The expression now becomes
$$\begin{array}{cl}
R^{M_{b,c}}&=R^{N_{b,c}}+\sin^{2}{\theta}.O(1)-2k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +2q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}.
\end{array}$$
Inequality (\[cureqn\]) can be obtained as before as
$$\begin{array}{c}
k[1+C'r^{2}]<R_{0}\frac{r}{\sin{\theta}}+(q-1)\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}-Cr{\sin{\theta}},
\end{array}$$
where in this case $R_0=\frac{1}{2q}[\inf(R^{N_{b,c}})]$, taken over all pairs $b,c$. The important thing is that $R_0$ is still positive. The construction of a curve $\gamma$ which satisfies this inequality then proceeds exactly as in Part 2 of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]. The resulting curve $\gamma$ specifies a family of hypersurfaces $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}\subset N_{b,c}\times\mathbb{R}$. For each $(b,c)$, the induced metric on $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}$ has positive scalar curvature. The curve $\gamma$ can then be homotopied back to the vertical line, exactly as in Part 2 of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], inducing a continuous deformation of the family $\{g_{\gamma}^{b,c}\}$ to the family $\{g_b\}$.
Part 3 of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], can be applied almost exactly as before. The bundle $\mathcal{N}$ and distribution $\mathcal{H}$ are now replaced with continuous families $\mathcal{N}_{b,c}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{b,c}$, giving rise to a continuous family of Riemannian submersions $\pi_{b,c}:(\mathcal{N}_{b,c},\tilde{g}_{b,c})\rightarrow(i_{c}(S^{p}),\check{g}_{b,c})$ where the base metric $\check{g}_{b,c}=g_b|_{i_c(S^{p})}$, the fibre metric is $\hat{g}=g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ as before and $\tilde{g}_{b,c}$ is the respective submersion metric. By compactness, a single choice of $\epsilon$ gives rise to a family of disk bundles $D\N_{b,c}(\epsilon)$ all specifying appropriate submanifolds $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}[t_\infty, t_L]$ and $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}[t_L,\bar{t}]$ of $M_{\gamma}^{b,c}$ (see Part 3 of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] for details). Lemma \[C2convergence\] easily generalises to show that as $\delta\rightarrow 0$ there is uniform $C^{2}$ convergence $g_\gamma^{b,c}\rightarrow \tilde{g}_{b,c}$. Thus, there is a continuously varying family of isotopies over $b$ and $c$, through psc-submersion metrics, deforming each $g_\gamma^{b,c}$ into $\tilde{g}_{b,c}$.
Formula \[O’Neill\] now generalises to give the following formula for the scalar curvature of $\tilde{g}_{b,c}$, varying continuously over $b$ and $c$.
$$\label{O'Neillfamily}
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{R_{b,c}}=\check{R_{b,c}}\circ\pi_{b,c}+\hat{R}-|A_{b,c}|^{2}.
\end{array}$$
Here $\tilde{R_{b,c}}, \check{R_{b,c}}$ and $\hat{R}$ denote the scalar curvatures of $\tilde{g}_{b,c}, \check{g}_{b,c}$ and $\hat{g}$ respectively. The term $A_{b,c}$ satisfies all of the properties of $A$ in formula (\[O’Neill\]), namely $|A_{b,c}|$ is bounded and in fact diminishes uniformly as $\delta$ decreases. Thus there is a sufficiently small $\delta>0$, so that the family $\{\tilde{g}_{b,c}\}$ can be isotopied through families of psc-submersion metrics to the desired family $\{g_{std}^{b,c}\}$, as in the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\].
Note that Theorem \[GLcompact\] claims only the existence of such a map. To write down a well-defined function of this type means incorporating the various parameter choices made in the construction of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]. For our current purposes, in this paper, that is not necessary.
\[GLisotopy\] Let $g$ and $h$ be isotopic psc-metrics on $X$. Let $g'$ and $h'$ be respectively the metrics obtained by application of the Surgery Theorem on a codimension$\geq 3$ surgery. Then $g'$ and $h'$ are isotopic.
The proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\](The Improved Surgery Theorem)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that $g$ denotes a positive scalar curvature metric on the closed manifold $X^{n}$, $i:S^{p}\hookrightarrow X$ denotes an embedding of the sphere $S^{p}$ with trivial normal bundle and that $p+q+1=n$ with $q\geq 2$. Let $W$ denote the trace of a surgery on $X$ with respect to this embedded sphere. We wish to extend $g$ over $W$ to obtain a psc-metric which is product near the boundary.
Corollary \[GLconc\] implies the existence of a psc-metric $\bar{g}$ on the cylinder $X\times I$ so that near $X\times\{0\}$, $\bar{g}=g+ds^{2}$ and near $X\times\{1\}$, $\bar{g}=g_{std}+ds^{2}$ where $g_{std}$ is the metric obtained in Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]. Thus, by choosing $g_p=\epsilon^{2}ds_p^{2}$, near $S^{p}$ the metric $g_{std}$ has the form $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ for some sufficiently small $\delta>0$. Using the exponential map for $g_{std}$ we can specify a tubular neighbourhood of $S^{p}$ , $N=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$, so that the restriction of $g_{std}$ on $N$ is precisely the metric $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. As before, $N$ is equipped with the coordinates $(y,x)$ where $y\in S^{p}$, $x\in D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$ and $D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$ is the Euclidean disk of radius $\bar{r}$. The quantity $r$ will denote the Euclidean radial distance on $D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$. Moreover, we may assume that $\delta$ is arbitrarily small and that the tube part of $g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ is arbitrarily long, thus the quantity $\bar{r}-\delta$ can be made as large as we like.
We will now attach a handle $D^{p+1}\times D^{q+1}$ to the cylinder $X\times I$. Recall that in section \[prelim\], we equipped the plane $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ with a metric $h=g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. By equipping $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ with standard spherical coordinates $(\rho, \phi)$ and $(r,\theta)$, we realised the metric $h$ as $$\begin{array}{c}
h=d\rho^{2}+f_\epsilon(\rho)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+dr^{2}+f_\delta(r)^{2}ds_{q}^{2},
\end{array}$$ where $f_\epsilon, f_\delta:(0,\infty)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ are the torpedo curves defined in section \[prelim\]. The restriction of $h$ to the disk product $D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho})\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$ is the desired handle metric, where $\bar{\rho}$ is as large as we like. We can then glue the boundary component $\p({D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho})})\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$ to $N$ with the isometry
$$\begin{split}
S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})&\longrightarrow N\\
(y,x)&\longmapsto(i(y),L_y(x)),
\end{split}$$
where $L_y\in \rm{O}(q+1)$ for all $y\in S^{p}$. Different choices of map $y\mapsto L_y\in \rm{O}(q+1)$ give rise to different framings of the embedded surgery sphere $S^{p}$ in $X$. The resulting manifold (which is not yet smooth) is represented in Fig. \[Gajercorrectionmetric\]. Recall that $\bar{\rho}$ and $\bar{r}$ are radial distances with respect to the Euclidean metric on $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ respectively. By choosing $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ sufficiently small and the corresponding tubes long enough, we can ensure that $\frac{\pi}{2}\epsilon<\bar{\rho}$ and $\frac{\pi}{2}\delta<\bar{r}$.
(0,0)![The metric $(X\times I,\bar{g})\cup (D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho})\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r}),h)$ and the smooth handle represented by the dashed curve[]{data-label="Gajercorrectionmetric"}](xtimesi4.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7569,4395)(1529,-4390) (4489,-1161)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5001,-149)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1639,-4299)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3226,-4324)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4826,-3749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6501,-2524)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5376,-1661)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Two tasks remain. Firstly, we need to make this attaching smooth near the corners. This will be done in the obvious way by specifying a smooth hypersurface inside $D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho})\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$ which meets $N$ smoothly near its boundary, as shown by the dashed curve in Fig. \[Gajercorrectionmetric\]. This is similar to the hypersurface $M$ constructed in the original Gromov-Lawson construction. Again we must ensure that the metric induced on this hypersurface has positive scalar curvature. This is considerably easier than in the case of $M$, given the ambient metric we are now working with. We will in fact show that the metric induced on this hypersurface is precisely the metric obtained by the Gromov-Lawson construction. The second task is to show that this metric can be adjusted to have a product structure near the boundary.
The spherical coordinates $(\rho, \phi, r, \theta)$ on the handle $D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho})\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$ can be extended to overlap with $X\times I$ on $N(\bar{r})\times [1-\epsilon_1, 1]$, where $\epsilon_1$ is chosen so that $\bar{g}|_{X\times[1-\epsilon_1, 1]}=g_{std}+dt^{2}$. We denote this region $D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho})\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$. Let $E$ be the embedding
$$\label{map;Gajercorrection}
\begin{split}
E:[0,\epsilon_1]\times[0,\infty)&\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\\
(s,t)&\longmapsto(a_1(s,t),a_2(s,t))
\end{split}$$
shown in Fig. \[fig:embE\].
(0,0)![The embedding $E$[]{data-label="fig:embE"}](smoothing.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3277,3033)(1124,-3140) (1739,-3049)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1189,-2724)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1139,-2024)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2664,-261)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4064,-2699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1714,-586)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1626,-1711)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1639,-2286)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3151,-2361)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2651,-2974)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1439,-1286)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The map $E$ will satisfy the following conditions.
\(1) For each $s_0\in[0,\epsilon_1]$, $E(s_0,t)$ is the curve $(t,c_2(s_0))$ when $t\in[0,\frac{\epsilon\pi}{2}]$, and ends as the unit speed vertical line $(c_1(s_0),t)$. Here $c_1$ and $c_2$ are functions on $[0,\epsilon_1]$ defined as follows. For each $s$, $c_1(s)=\bar{\rho}+s$ and $c_2(s)=c_2(0)-s$, where $c_1(0)-\epsilon_1>\frac{\pi}{2}\epsilon$ and $c_2(s)>\frac{\pi}{2}\delta$.
\(2) For each $t_0\in[0,\infty)$, the path $E(s,t_0)$ runs orthogonally to the levels $E(s_0,t)$ for each $s_0\in[0,\epsilon_1]$. That is, for each $(s_0,t_0)$, $\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}(s_0,t_0).\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}(s_0,t_0)=0$.
Provided $\epsilon_1$ is chosen sufficiently small, the map $$\begin{split}
Z:[0,\epsilon_1]\times(0,\infty)\times{S^{p}}\times S^{q}&\rightarrow{D}^{p+1}(\bar{\rho}+\epsilon_1)\times{D}^{q+1}(\bar{r})\\
(s,t,\phi,\theta)&\mapsto(a_1(s,t),\phi,a_2(s,t),\theta)
\end{split}$$
parameterises a region in $D^{p+1}(\bar{\rho}+\epsilon_1)\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})$. Consider the hypersurface parameterised by the $Z(s=0,\phi,t,\theta)$. The metric induced on the region bounded by this hypersurface extends $\bar{g}$ as a psc-metric over the trace of the surgery. Now we need to show that this metric can be deformed to one which is a product near the boundary while maintaining positive scalar curvature.
We begin by computing the metric near the boundary with respect to the parameterisation $Z$. Letting
$$\begin{array}{c}
Y_s={\frac{\partial a_1}{\partial s}}^{2}+ {\frac{\partial a_2}{\partial s}}^{2}
\qquad \text{and}\qquad Y_t={{\frac{\partial a_1}{\partial t}}^{2}+{\frac{\partial a_2}{\partial t}}^{2}},
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cl}
Z^{*}(d\rho^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(\rho)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+dr^{2}+f_{\delta}(r)^{2}ds_{q}^{2})&=d{a_1}^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(a_1)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+d{a_2}^{2}+f_{\delta}(a_2)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&=Y_s(s,t)d{s}^{2}+Y_{t}(s,t)dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(a_1)^{2}ds_{p}^{2} +f_{\delta}(a_2)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}.
\end{array}$$
Now on the straight pieces of our neighbourhood, it is clear that $Y_s=1$ and $Y_t=1$. Thus on the straight region running parallel to the horizontal axis, the metric is
$$\begin{array}{cl}
d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(a_1)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+f_{\delta}(a_2)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}&=d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2} +f_{\delta}(c_2(s))^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&=d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2},\hspace{0.4cm}\text{since $c_2>\frac{\pi}{2}\delta$.}
\end{array}$$
On the straight region running parallel to the vertical axis, the metric is
$$\begin{array}{clc}
d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(a_1)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+f_{\delta}(a_2)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}&=d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(c_1(s))^{2}ds_{p}^{2} +f_{\delta}(t)^{2}ds_{q}^{2}\\
&=d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+{\delta}^{2}ds_{q}^{2},\\
&=d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+{\delta}^{2}ds_{q}^{2},\\
\end{array}$$
The second equality holds because $c_1>\frac{\pi}{2}\epsilon$ and $t>\frac{\pi}{2}\delta$. The last equality follows from the fact that $t>c_1>\frac{\pi}{2}\epsilon$ and $t>\frac{\pi}{2}\delta$. As we do not have unit speed curves in $s$ and $t$, the best we can say about the remaining “bending" region is that the metric is of the form
$$\begin{array}{c}
Y_sd{s}^{2}+Y_{t}dt^{2}+\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^2+{\delta}^2 ds_{q}^{2}.
\end{array}$$
(0,0)![Adjusting $Y_s$ and $Y_t$[]{data-label="fig:XsYt"}](prodadjust.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(8539,1620)(749,-2215) (2564,-2149)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1289,-1036)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (764,-1624)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4664,-1100)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6451,-1874)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2589,-749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The graphs of $Y_s$ and $Y_t$ are surfaces, shown schematically in Fig. \[fig:XsYt\]. Outside of a compact region, $Y_s=1$ and $Y_t=1$. We can replace $Y_s$ and $Y_t$ with smooth functions $Y_s'$ and $Y_t'$, so that on $[\epsilon_2,\epsilon_1]\times(0,\infty))$, $Y_s=Y_s'$ and $Y_t=Y_t'$ and so that on $[0,\epsilon_3]\times(0,\infty)$, $Y_s'=Y_t'=1$ for some $\epsilon_1>\epsilon_2>\epsilon_3>0$. Moreover, this can be done so that $Y_s-Y_s'$ and $Y_t-Y_t'$ have support in a compact region. Any curvature resulting from these changes is bounded and completely independent of the metric on the sphere factors. Thus we can always choose $\delta$ sufficiently small to guarantee the positive scalar curvature of the resulting metric
$$\begin{array}{c}
Y_{s}'d{s}^{2}+Y_{t}'dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+{\delta}^{2}ds_{q}^{2}
\end{array}$$
which, when $s\in[0,\epsilon_3]$, is the metric $$\begin{array}{c}
d{s}^{2}+dt^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(t)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+{\delta}^{2}ds_{n}^{2}.
\end{array}$$
This is of course the metric $ds^{2}+g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$, completing the proof of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\].
Constructing Gromov-Lawson cobordisms {#GLcobordsection}
=====================================
In section \[surgerysection\] we showed that a psc-metric $g$ on $X$ can be extended over the trace of a codimension$\geq 3$ surgery to a psc-metric with product structure near the boundary. Our goal in section \[GLcobordsection\] is to generalise this result in the form of Theorem \[GLcob\]. Here $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ denotes a smooth compact cobordism and $g_0$ is a psc-metric on $X_0$. If $W$ can be decomposed into a union of elementary cobordisms, each the trace of a codimension$\geq 3$ surgery, then we should be able to extend $g_0$ to a psc-metric on $W$, which is product near the boundary, by repeated application of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\]. Two questions now arise. Assuming $W$ admits such a decomposition, how do we realise it? Secondly, how many such decompositions can we realise? In order to answer these questions it is worth briefly reviewing some basic Morse Theory. For a more thorough account of this see [@Smale] and [@Hatcher].
Morse Theory and admissible Morse functions
-------------------------------------------
Let $\F=\F(W)$ denote the space of smooth functions $f:W\rightarrow I$ on the cobordism $\{W;X_0,X_1\}$ with the property that $f^{-1}(0)=X_0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=X_1$, and having no critical points near $\p {W}$. The space $\F$ is a subspace of the space of smooth functions on $W$ with its standard $C^{\infty}$ topology, see chapter 2 of [@Hirsch] for the full definition. A function $f\in \F$ is a Morse function if whenever $w$ is a critical point of $f$, $det(D^{2}f(w))\neq 0$. Here $D^{2}f(w)$ denotes the Hessian of $f$ at $w$. The Morse index of the critical point $w$ is the number of negative eigenvalues of $D^{2}f(w)$. The well known Morse Lemma, Lemma 2.2 of [@Smale], then says that there is a coordinate chart $\{x=(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_{n+1})\}$ near $w$, with $w$ identified with $(0,\cdots,0)$, so that in these coordinates, $$\label{Morsequadratic}
f(x)=c-x_1^{2}-\cdots-x_{p+1}^{2}+x_{p+2}^{2}+\cdots+x_{n+1}^{2},$$ where $c=f(w)$. Here $p+1$ is the Morse index of $w$ and this coordinate chart is known as a [*Morse coordinate chart*]{}.
(0,0)![Morse coordinates around a critical point[]{data-label="morsecoords"}](morsecoords.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3317,3445)(2874,-6927) (4351,-6861)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6176,-5074)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2864,-4436)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3614,-3874)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2889,-3636)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Inside of this coordinate chart it is clear that level sets below the critical level are diffeomorphic to $S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$ and that level sets above the critical level are diffeomorphic to $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ where $p+q+1=n$, see Fig. \[morsecoords\]. In the case where $f$ has exactly one critical point $w$ of index $p+1$, the cobordism $W$ is diffeomorphic to the trace of a $p$-surgery on $X_0$. If $W$ admits a Morse function $f$ with no critical points then by theorem 3.4 of [@Smale], $W$ is diffeomorphic to the cylinder $X_0\times I$ (and consequently $X_0$ is diffeomorphic to $X_1$).
The critical points of a Morse function are isolated and as $W$ is compact, $f$ will have only finitely many. Denote the critical points of $f$ as $w_0, w_1, \cdots, w_k$ where each $w_i$ has Morse index $p_i+1$. We will assume that $0<f(w_0)=c_0\leq f(w_1)=c_1\leq\cdots f(w_k)=c_k<1$.
[The Morse function $f$ is [*well-indexed*]{} if critical points on the same level set have the same index and for all $i$, $p_i\leq p_{i+1}$.]{}
In the case when the above inequalities are all strict, $f$ decomposes $W$ into a union of elementary cobordisms $C_0 \cup C_1 \cup \cdots \cup C_k$. Here each $C_i=f^{-1}([c_{i-1}+\tau, c_{i}+\tau])$ when $0<i<k$, and $C_0=f^{-1}([0,c_0+\tau])$ and $C_{k}=f^{-1}([c_{k-1}+\tau,1])$, for some appropriately small $\tau>0$. Each $C_i$ is the trace of a $p_i$-surgery. When these inequalities are not strict, in other words $f$ has level sets with more than one critical point, then $W$ is decomposed into a union of cobordisms $C_0'\cup C_1'\cup\cdots \cup C_l'$ where $l<k$. A cobordism $C_i'$ which is not elementary, is the trace of several distinct surgeries. It is of course possible, with a minor adjustment of $f$, to make the above inequalities strict.
By equipping $W$ with a Riemannian metric $m$, we can define ${grad}_{m}f$ the gradient vector field for $f$. This metric is called a [*background metric*]{} for $f$ and has no relation to any of the other metrics mentioned here. In particular, no assumptions are made about its curvature. More generally, we define [*gradient-like*]{} vector fields on $W$ with respect to $f$ and $m$, as follows.
A [*gradient-like*]{} vector field with respect to $f$ and $m$ is a vector field $V$ on $W$ satisfying the following properties.
\(1) $df_{x}(V_x)>0$ for all $x$ in $W$.
\(2) Each critical point $w$ of $f$, lies in a neighbouhood $U$ so that for all $x\in U$, $V_x={grad}_{m}f(x)$.
We point out that the space of background metrics for a particular Morse function $f:W\rightarrow I$ is a convex space. So too, is the space of gradient-like vector fields associated with any particular pair $(f,m)$, see chapter 2, section 2 of [@Hatcher]. We can now define an admissible Morse function on $W$.
[ An [*admissible Morse function*]{} $f$ on a compact cobordism $\{W;X_0,X_1\}$ is a triple $f=(f,m,V)$ where $f:W\rightarrow I$ is a Morse function, $m$ is a background metric for $f$, $V$ is a gradient like vector field with respect to $f$ and $m$, and finally, any critical point of $f$ has Morse index less than or equal to $n-2$ ]{}
We emphasise the fact that an admissible Morse function is actually a triple consisting of a Morse function, a Riemannian metric and a gradient-like vector field. However, to ease the burden of notation, an admissible Morse function $(f, m, V)$ will be denoted as simply $f$.
(0,0)![Trajectory spheres for a critical point $w$ on an elementary cobordism[]{data-label="trajflow"}](cobtraj.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2177,2814)(1974,-3771) (3076,-2136)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2164,-1836)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3314,-2924)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3039,-3611)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2851,-1111)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Associated to each critical point $w$ of index $p+1$ is a pair of trajectory spheres $S_{-}^{p}(w)$ and $S_{+}^{q}(w)$, respectively converging towards and emerging from $w$, see Fig. \[trajflow\]. As usual $p+q+1=n$. Let us assume for simplicity that $f$ has exactly one critical point $w$ and that $w$ has Morse index $p+1$. Then associated to $w$ is an embedded sphere $S^{p}=S_{-}^{p}(w)$ in $X_0$ which follows a trajectory towards $w$. The trajectory itself consists of the union of segments of integral curves of the gradient vector field beginning at the embedded $S^{p}\subset X_0$ and ending at $w$. It is topologically a $(p+1)$-dimensional disk $D^{p+1}$. We denote it $K_{-}^{p+1}(w)$. Similarly, there is an embedded sphere $S^{q}=S_{+}^{q}\subset X_1$ which bounds a trajectory $K_{+}^{q}(w)$ (homeomorphic to a disk $D^{q}$) emerging from $w$. Both spheres are embedded with trivial normal bundle and the elementary cobordism $W$ is in fact diffeomorphic to the trace of a surgery on $X_0$ with respect to $S^{p}$.
We are now in a position to prove Theorem \[GLcob\]. This is the construction, given a positive scalar curvature metric $g_0$ on $X_0$ and an admissible Morse function $f$ on $W$, of a psc-metric $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ on $W$ which extends $g_0$ and is a product near the boundary. As pointed out in the introduction, the metric $\bar{g}$ is known as a [*Gromov-Lawson cobordism with respect to $g_0$ and $f$*]{}. The resulting metric induced on $X_1$, $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X_1}$, is said to be [*Gromov-Lawson cobordant*]{} to $g_0$.\
[**Theorem \[GLcob\].**]{} [*Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism. Suppose $g_0$ is a metric of positive scalar curvature on $X_0$ and $f:W\rightarrow I$ is an admissible Morse function. Then there is a psc-metric $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ on $W$ which extends $g_0$ and has a product structure near the boundary.*]{}
Let $f$ be an admissible Morse function on $W$. Let $m$ be the background metric on $W$, as described above. Around each critical point $w_i$ of $f$ we choose mutually disjoint Morse coordinate balls $B(w_i)=B_{m}(w_i,\bar{\epsilon})$ where $\bar{\epsilon}>0$ is some sufficiently small constant. For the moment, we may assume that $f$ has only one critical point $w$ of Morse index $p+1$ where as usual $p+q+1=n$ and $q\geq 2$. Let $c=f(w)\in(0,1)$. Associated to $w$ are the trajectory spheres $S^{p}=S_{-}^{p}(w)$ and $S_{+}^{q}(w)$, defined earlier in this section. Let $N=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})\subset X_0$ denote the tubular neighbourhood defined in the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], constructed using the exponential map for the metric $g_0$. The [*normalised*]{} gradient-like flow of $f$ (obtained by replacing $V$ with $\frac{V}{m(V,V)}$ away from critical points and smoothing with an appropriate bump function) gives rise to a diffeomorphism from $f^{-1}([0,\epsilon_0])$ to $f^{-1}([0,c-\tau])$ where $0<\epsilon_0<c-\tau<c$. In particular, normalisation means that it maps $f^{-1}([0,\epsilon_0])$ diffeomorphically onto $f^{-1}([c-\tau-\epsilon_0, c-\tau])$. For sufficiently small $\bar{r}$, $\epsilon_0$ and $\tau$, the level set $f^{-1}(c-\tau)$ may be chosen to intersect with $B(w)$ so as to contain the image of $N\times [0,\epsilon_0]$ under this diffeomorphism, see Fig. \[actionofflow\].
(0,0)![The action of the gradient-like flow on $N\times [0,\epsilon_0]$[]{data-label="actionofflow"}](gradaction.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2217,3032)(1974,-4223) (2409,-2761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2776,-4001)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4176,-4086)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4139,-2486)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3014,-2186)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
(0,0)![A diffeomorphism on the handle.[]{data-label="coordchange"}](coordchange2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7475,3217)(1364,-4095)
In fact, we can use the normalised gradient-like flow to construct a diffeomorphism between $X_0\times [0,c-\tau]$ and $f^{-1}([0,c-\tau])$ which for each $s\in[0,c-\tau]$, maps $X\times\{s\}$ diffeomorphically onto $f^{-1}(s)$. Corollary \[GLconc\] then allows us to extend the metric $g_0$ from $X_0$ as a psc-metric over $f^{-1}([0,c-\tau])$ which is product near the boundary. Moreover this extension can be constructed so that the resulting metric $\bar{g_0}$, is the product $g_0+dt^{2}$ outside of $B(w)$ and on $f^{-1}([c-\tau-\epsilon_0, c-\tau])$ is the metric $(g_0)_{std}+dt^{2}$ where $(g_0)_{std}$ is the metric constructed in Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] with respect to $N$. Recall that on $X_0$, the metric $(g_0)_{std}$ is the original metric $g_0$ outside of $N$ but that near $S^{p}$, $(g_0)_{std}=\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. Choose $r_0\in(0,\bar{r})$, so that on the neighbourhood $N(r_0)=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(r_0)\subset N$, $(g_0)_{std}=\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$. Observe that the trajectory of $X_0\setminus N(r_0)$ does not pass any critical points. Thus it is possible to extend $\bar{g_0}$ as $(g_0)_{std}+dt^2$ along this trajectory up to the level set $f^{-1}(c+\tau)$. To extend this metric over the rest of $f^{-1}[0,c+\tau]$ we use a diffeomorphism of the type described in Fig. \[coordchange\] to adjust coordinates near $w$. Thus, away from the origin, the level sets and flow lines of $f$ are the vertical and horizontal lines of the the standard Cartesian plane and the extension along the trajectory of $X_0\setminus N(r_0)$ is assumed to take place on this region, see Fig. \[extension\]. Over the rest of $f^{-1}(c+\tau)$, the metric $\bar{g_0}$ can be extended extended as the metric constructed in Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\].
(0,0)![Extending $\bar{g_0}$ along the trajectory of $X_0\setminus N(r_0)$ to the level set $f^{-1}(c+\tau)$.[]{data-label="extension"}](extension4.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3074,3261)(2202,-4567)
At this stage we have constructed a psc-metric on $f^{-1}(c+\tau)$, which extends the original metric $g_0$ on $X_0$ and is product near the boundary. As $f^{-1}([c+\tau,1])$ is diffeomorphic to the cylinder $X_1\times[c+\tau,1]$, this metric can then be extended as a product metric over the rest of $W$. This construction is easily generalised to the case where $f$ has more than one critical point on the level set $f^{-1}(c)$. In the case where $f$ has more than one critical level, and thus decomposes $W$ into cobordisms $C_0'\cup C_1'\cup\cdots \cup C_l'$ as described above, repeated application of this construction over each cobordism results in the desired metric $\bar{g}(g_0,f)$.
A reverse Gromov-Lawson cobordism
---------------------------------
Given a Morse triple $f=(f,m,V)$ on a smooth compact cobordism $\{W;X_0,X_1\}$, with $f^{-1}(0)=X_0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=X_1$, we denote by $1-f$, the Morse triple $(1-f, m, -V)$ which has the gradient-like flow of $f$, but running in the opposite direction. In particular, $(1-f)^{-1}(0)=X_1$ and $(1-f)^{-1}(1)=X_0$ and so it is easier to think of this as simply “turning the cobordism $W$ upside down". Although $1-f$ has the same critical points as $f$, there is a change in the indices. Each critical point of $f$ with index $p+1$ is a critical point of $1-f$ with index $q+1$, where $p+q+1=n$ and $\dim W=n+1$. Just as $f$ describes a sequence of surgeries which turns $X_0$ into $X_1$, $1-f$ describes a sequence of complementary surgeries which reverses this process and turns $X_1$ back into $X_0$.
Given an admissible Morse function $f$ on a cobordism $\{W; X_0, X_1\}$, Theorem \[GLcob\] allows us to construct, from a psc-metric $g_0$ on $X_0$, a new psc-metric $g_1$ on $X_1$. Suppose now that $1-f$ is also an admissible Morse function. The following theorem describes what happens if we reapply the construction of Theorem \[GLcob\] on the metric $g_1$ with respect to the function $1-f$.\
[**Theorem \[Reversemorse\].**]{} [*Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism, $g_0$ a psc-metric on $X_0$ and $f:W\rightarrow I$, an admissible Morse function. Suppose that $1-f$ is also an admissible Morse function. Let $g_1=\bar{g}(g_0,f)|_{X_1}$ denote the restriction of the Gromov-Lawson cobordism $\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ to $X_1$. Let $\bar{g}(g_1,1-f)$ be a Gromov-Lawson cobordism with respect to $g_1$ and $1-f$ and let $g_0'=\bar{g}(g_1, 1-f)|_{X_0}$ denote the restriction of this metric to $X_0$. Then $g_0$ and $g_0'$ are canonically isotopic metrics in $\Riem^{+}(X_0)$.*]{}
It is enough to consider the case where $f$ has a single critical point $w$ of index $p+1$. The metric $g_1$ is the restriction of the metric $\bar{g}(g_0, f)$, constructed in Theorem \[GLcob\], to $X_1$. In constructing the metric $g_0'$ we apply the Gromov-Lawson construction to this metric with respect to surgery on an embedded sphere $S^{q}$. The admissible Morse function $1-f$ determines a neighbourhood $S^{q}\times D^{p+1}$ on which this surgery takes place. Recall that, by construction, the metric $g_1$ is already the standard metric $\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}+g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$ near this embedded sphere. Thus, $g_0'$ is precisely the metric obtained by applying the Gromov-Lawson construction on this standard piece. Removing a tubular neighbourhood of $S^{q}$ in this standard region results in a metric on $X_1\setminus{S^{q}\times D^{p+1}}$, which is the standard product $\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}+\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}$. The construction is completed by attaching the product $D^{q+1}\times S^{p}$ with the standard metric $g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)+\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}$. In Fig. \[reversemorse\] we represent this, using a dashed curve, as a hypersurface of the standard region. The resulting metric is isotopic to the metric $(g_0)_{std}$, the metric obtained from $g_0$ in Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], by a continuous rescaling of the tube length of the torpedo factor. In turn $(g_0)_{std}$ can then be isotopied back to $g_0$ by Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\].
(0,0)![The metric induced by $\bar{g}(g_1, -f)$ on a level set below the critical level[]{data-label="reversemorse"}](xtimesi5.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7569,3697)(1529,-4390) (1639,-4299)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3226,-4324)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4426,-1574)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4714,-3311)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Continuous families of Morse functions
--------------------------------------
The construction of Theorem \[GLcob\] easily generalises to the case of a compact family of admissible Morse functions. Before doing this we should briefly discuss the space $\M= \M(W)$ of Morse functions in $\F=\F(W)$. It is well known that $\M$ is an open dense subspace of $\F$, see theorem 2.7 of [@Smale]. Let $\tilde{\F}$ denote the space of triples $(f,m,V)$ so that $f\in \F$, $m$ is a backgound metric for $f$ and $V$ is a gradient-like vector field with respect to $f$ and $m$. The space $\tilde{\F}$ is then homotopy equivalent to the space ${\F}$. In fact, by equipping $W$ with a fixed background metric $\bar{m}$, the inclusion map $$f\longmapsto(f,\bar{m},{grad}_{\bar{m}}f)$$ forms part of a deformation retract of $\tilde{\F}$ down to $\F$, see chapter 2, section 2 of [@Hatcher] for details.
Denote by $\tilde{\M}=\tilde{\M}(W)$, the subspace of $\tilde{F}$, of triples $(f,m,V)$ where $f$ is a Morse function. Elements of $\tilde{\M}$ will be known as [*Morse triples*]{}. The above deformation retract then restricts to a deformation retract of $\tilde{\M}$ to $\M$. The subspace of $\tilde{\M}$ consisting of admissible Morse functions will be denoted $\tilde{\M}^{adm}=\tilde{\M}^{adm}(W)$. To economise in notation we will shorten $(f,m,V)$ to simply $f$. Let $f_0,f_1\in \tilde{\M}$.
[ The Morse triples $f_0$ and $f_1$ are [*isotopic*]{} if they lie in the same path component of $\tilde{\M}$. A path $f_t,t\in I$ connecting $f_0$ and $f_1$ is called an [*isotopy*]{} of Morse triples. ]{}
This dual use of the word isotopy is unfortunate, however, it should be clear from context which meaning we wish to employ.
In order for two Morse triples $f_0$ and $f_1$ to lie in the same path component of $\tilde{\M}$, it is necessary that both have the same number of index $p$ critical points for each $p\in\{0,1,\cdots n+1\}$. Thus if $f_0$ and $f_1$ are both admissible Morse functions, an isotopy of Morse triples connecting $f_0$ to $f_1$ is contained entirely in $\tilde{\M}^{adm}$. We now prove Theorem \[GLcobordismcompact\].\
[**Theorem \[GLcobordismcompact\].**]{}
*Let $\{W, X_0, X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism and let $B$ and $C$ be a pair of compact spaces. Let $\mathcal{B}=\{g_b\in \Riem^{+}(X_0):b\in B\}$ be a continuous family of psc-metrics on $X_0$ and let $\mathcal{C}=\{f_c\in\tilde{\M}^{adm}(W):c\in C\}$ be a continuous family of admissible Morse functions on $W$. Then there is a continuous map*
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{B}\times \mathcal{C}&\longrightarrow \Riem^{+}(W)\\
(g_b,f_c)&\longmapsto \bar{g}_{b,c}=\bar{g}(g_b, f_c)
\end{split}$$
so that for each pair $(b,c)$, the metric $\bar{g}_{b,c}$ is the metric constructed in Theorem \[GLcob\].
For each $c\in C$, $f_c$ will have the same number of critical points of the same index. The family $\{f_c\}$ can be thought of as a continuous rearrangement of the critical points. In turn this means a continuous rearrangement of embedded surgery spheres. The proof then follows directly Lemma \[GLcompact\].
\[GLmetricisotopy\] Let $f_t,t\in I$ be an isotopy in the space admissible Morse functions, $\tilde{\M}^{adm}(W)$. Then there is a continuous family of psc-metrics $\bar{g}_t$ on $W$ so that for each $t$, $\bar{g}_t=\bar{g}(g_0,f_t)$ is a Gromov-Lawson cobordism of the type constructed in Theorem \[GLcob\]. In particular, $\bar{g}_t|_{X_1}, t\in I$ is an isotopy of psc-metrics on $X_1$.
[ A Morse triple $(f,m,V)$ is [*well indexed*]{} if the Morse function $f$ is well indexed. ]{}
[@Smale]\[rearrangement\] Let $f\in\tilde{\M}$. Then there is a well-indexed Morse triple $\bar{f}$ which lies in the same path component of $\tilde{\M}$.
This is basically theorem 4.8 of [@Smale], which proves this fact for Morse functions. We only add that it holds for Morse triples also.
It is sufficient to consider the case where $f$ has exactly two critical points $w$ and $w'$ with $f(w)=c<\frac{1}{2}<f(w')=c'$. The proof of the more general case is exactly the same. Now suppose that $w$ has index $p+1$, $w'$ has index $p'+1$ and $p\geq p'$. Denote by $K_{w}$, the union of trajectories $K_{-}^{p+1}(w)$ and $K_{+}^{q+1}(w)$ associated with $w$. As always, $p+q+1=n$. Similarly $K_{w'}$ will denote the union of trajectories $K_{-}^{p'+1}(w')$ and $D_{+}^{q'+1}(w')$ associated with $w'$ where $p'+q'+1=n$.
(0,0)![Non-intersecting trajectories $K_{w}$ and $K_{w'}$[]{data-label="fig:nonintersectingtrajectories"}](trajnonint.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2065,1967)(1636,-2902) (1664,-2836)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1651,-1099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3389,-1749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2351,-1961)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
We begin with simpler case when $K_{w}$ and $K_{w'}$ do not intersect. For any $0<a'<a<1$, Theorem 4.1 of [@Smale] provides a construction for a well-indexed function $\bar{f}$ with critical points $w$ and $w'$ but with $f(w')=a'$ and $f(w)=a$. The construction can be applied continuously and so replacing $0<a'<a<1$ with a pair of continuous functions $0<a_t'<a_t<1$, with $a_0'=c$, $a_0=c'$, $a_1'=a'$, $a_1=a$ and $t\in I$ results in the desired isotopy.
(0,0)![Intersecting trajectories[]{data-label="trajectoryintersectory"}](trajint.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2077,1967)(1636,-2902) (1564,-1836)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1874,-2836)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1874,-1099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2864,-1524)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2326,-2386)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2501,-1764)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3114,-2034)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
In general, the trajectory spheres of two distinct Morse critical points may well intersect, see Fig. \[trajectoryintersectory\]. However, provided certain dimension restrictions are satisfied, it is possible to continuously move one trajectory sphere out of the way of the other trajectory sphere. This is theorem 4.4 of [@Smale]. We will not reprove it here, except to say that the main technical tool required in the proof is lemma 4.6 of [@Smale], which we state below.
[@Smale] Suppose $M$ and $N$ are two submanifolds of dimension $m$ and $n$ in a manifold $V$ of dimension $v$. If $M$ has a product neighbourhood in $V$, and $m+n<v$, then there exists a diffeomorphism $h$ of $V$ onto iteslf smoothly isotopic to the identity, such that $h(M)$ is disjoint from $N$.
The following observation then makes theorem 4.4 of [@Smale] possible. Let $S_{+}^{q}$ and $S_{-}^{p'}$ denote the respective intersections of $f^{-1}(\frac{1}{2})$ with $K_{+}^{q+1}(w)$ and $K_{-}^{p'+1}(w')$. Adding up dimensions, we see that
$$\begin{split}
q+p'&=n-p-1+p'\\
&\leq n-p'+1+p'\\
&\leq n-1.
\end{split}$$
We can now isotopy $f$ to have disjoint $K_{w}$ and $K_{w'}$ and then proceed as before.
\[rearrangementmetric\] Any Gromov-Lawson cobordism $\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ can be isotopied to a Gromov-Lawson cobordism $\bar{g}(g_0,\bar{f})$ which is obtained from a well-indexed admissible Morse function $\bar{f}$.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[rearrangement\] above and Corollary \[GLmetricisotopy\].
Constructing Gromov-Lawson concordances {#GLconcordsection}
=======================================
Replacing $X_0$ with $X$ and the metric $g_0$ with $g$, we now turn our attention to the case when the cobordism $\{W;X_0,X_1\}$ is the cylinder $X\times I$. By equipping $X\times I$ with an admissible Morse function $f$, we can use Theorem \[GLcob\] to extend the psc-metric $g$ over $X\times I$ as a Gromov-Lawson cobordism $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g,f)$. The resulting metric is known as a [*Gromov-Lawson concordance*]{} or more specifically, a [*Gromov-Lawson concordance of $g$ with respect to $f$*]{} and the metrics $g_0=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{0\}}$ and $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{1\}}$ are said to be [*Gromov-Lawson concordant*]{}.
Applying the Gromov-Lawson technique over a pair of cancelling surgeries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will construct a Gromov-Lawson concordance on the cylinder $S^{n}\times I$. It is possible to decompose this cylinder into the union of two elementary cobordisms, one the trace of a $p$-surgery, the other the trace of a $(p+1)$-surgery. The second surgery therefore undoes the topological effects of the first surgery. Later in the section, we will show how such a decomposition of the cylinder can be realised by a Morse function with two “cancelling" critical points. Assuming that $n-p\geq 4$, the standard round metric $ds_{n}^{2}$ can be extended over the union of these cobordisms by the technique of Theorem \[GLcob\], resulting in a Gromov-Lawson concordance. To understand this concordance we need to analyse the geometric effects of applying the Gromov-Lawson construction over the two cancelling surgeries.
\[sphereeg\]
Let $S^{n}$ represent the standard smooth $n-$sphere equipped with the round metric $g=ds_{n}^{2}$. We will perform two surgeries, the first a $p-$surgery on $S^{n}$ and the second, a $(p+1)-$surgery on the resulting manifold. The second surgery will have the effect of undoing the topological change made by the first surgery and restoring the original topology of $S^{n}$. Later we will see that the union of the resulting traces will in fact form a cylinder $S^{n}\times I$.
In section \[prelim\] we saw that $S^{n}$ can be decomposed as a union of sphere-disk products. Assuming that $p+q+1=n$ we obtain, $$\begin{split}
S^{n} &= \p D^{n+1},\\
&=\p (D^{p+1}\times D^{q+1}),\\
&=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}\cup_{S^{p}\times S^{q}} D^{p+1}\times S^{q}.
\end{split}$$ Here we are are assuming that $q\geq 3$. Let $S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}}\hookrightarrow S^{n}$ be the embedding obtained by the inclusion $$S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}}\hookrightarrow S^{p}\times D^{q+1}\cup_{S^{p}\times S^{q}} D^{p+1}\times S^{q}.$$ We will now perform a surgery on this embedded $p-$sphere. This involves first removing the embedded $S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}}$ to obtain $S^{n}\setminus(S^{p}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q+1}$}}}}}}}})=D_{-}^{p+1}\times S^{q}$, and then attaching $(D_{+}^{p+1}\times S^{q})$ along the common boundary $S^{p}\times S^{q}$. The attaching map here is given by restriction of the orginal embedding to the boundary. The resulting manifold is of course the sphere product $S^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ where the disks $D_{-}^{p+1}$ and ${D_{+}}^{p+1}$ are hemi-spheres of the $S^{p+1}$ factor.
By performing a surgery on an embedded $p-$sphere in $S^{n}$ we have obtained a manifold which is diffeomorphic to $S^{p+1}\times S^{q}$. By applying the Gromov-Lawson construction to the metric $g$ we obtain a positive scalar curvature metric $g'$ on $S^{p+1}\times S^{q}$, see Fig. \[GLsphere1\]. This metric is the original round metric on an $S^{n}\setminus(S^{p}\times D^{q+1})$ piece and is $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)\times \delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ on a $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ piece for some small $\delta>0$. There is also a piece diffeomorphic to $S^{p}\times S^{q}\times I$ where the metric smoothly transitions between the two forms, the construction of which took up much section \[surgerysection\].
(0,0)![The geometric effect of the first surgery[]{data-label="GLsphere1"}](spheresurg1.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5706,1606)(217,-2927) (1851,-2824)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4626,-2199)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4626,-2511)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (414,-1999)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (501,-2224)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
We will now perform a second surgery, this time on the manifold $(S^{p+1}\times S^{q}, g')$. We wish to obtain a manifold which is diffeomorphic to the orginal $S^{n}$, that is, we wish to undo the $p-$surgery we have just performed. Consider the following decomposition of $S^{p+1}\times S^{q}$.
$$\begin{split}
S^{p+1}\times S^{q} &= S^{p+1}\times (D_{-}^{q}\cup D_{+}^{q})\\
&=(S^{p+1}\times D_{-}^{q})\cup (S^{p+1}\times D_{+}^{q}).
\end{split}$$
Again, the inclusion map gives us an embedding of $S^{p+1}\times {{D}_{-}^{q}}$. Removing $S^{p+1}\times {{ \!{\buildrel \circ
\over D}_{-}^{_{_{_{\mbox{{\small $_{q}$}}}}}}}}$ and attaching $D^{p+2}\times S^{q-1}$ along the boundary gives
$$\begin{split}
D^{p+2}\times S^{q-1}\cup S^{p+1}\times D_{+}^{q}
&=\p (D^{p+2}\times D^{q})\\
&=\p (D^{n+1})\\
&=S^{n}.
\end{split}$$
(0,0)![The geometric effect of the second surgery: a different metric on $S^{n}$[]{data-label="fig:GLsphere"}](spheresurg3.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5354,3856)(3287,-6901) (3401,-6074)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3438,-6349)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5226,-5649)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6601,-6699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4014,-3649)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4014,-3961)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Applying the Gromov-Lawson construction to the metric $g'$ with respect to this second surgery produces a metric which looks very different to the orginal round metric on $S^{n}$, see Fig. \[fig:GLsphere\]. Roughly speaking, $g''$ can be thought of as consisting of four pieces: the original piece where $g''=g$ and which is diffeomorphic to a disk $D^{n}$, the new standard piece where $g''=g_{tor}^{p+2}(\epsilon)+{\delta'}^{2}ds_{q-1}^{2}$ and which is diffeomorphic to $D^{p+2}\times S^{q-1}$, the old standard piece where $g''= g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon')+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$, this time only on a region diffeomorphic to $D^{p+1}\times D^{q}$ and finally, a transition metric which connects these pieces. Later on we will need to describe this metric in more detail.
Cancelling Morse critical points: The weak and strong cancellation theorems
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will now show that the cylinder $S^{n}\times I$ can be decomposed into a union of two elementary cobordisms which are the traces of the surgeries described above. This decomposition is obtained from a Morse function $f:S^{n}\times I\rightarrow I$ which satisfies certain properties. The following theorem, known as the [*weak cancellation theorem*]{} is proved in chapter 5 of [@Smale]. It is also discussed, in much greater generality, in chapter 5, section 1 of [@Hatcher].
[@Smale]\[cancelthm\] Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism and $f:W\rightarrow I$ be a Morse triple on $W$. Letting $p+q+1=n$, suppose that $f$ satisfies the following conditions.
\(a) The function $f$ has exactly $2$ critical points $w$ and $z$ and $0<f(w)<c<f(z)<1$.
\(b) The points $w$ and $z$ have Morse index $p+1$ and $p+2$ respectively.
\(c) On $f^{-1}(c)$, the trajectory spheres $S_{+}^{p}(w)$ and $S_{-}^{q}(z)$, respectively emerging from the critical point $w$ and converging toward the critical point $z$, intersect transversely as a single point.
Then the critical points $w$ and $z$ cancel and $W$ is diffeomorphic to $X_0\times I$.
The proof of \[cancelthm\] in [@Smale] is attributed to Morse. The fact that $S_{+}^{p}(w)$ and $S_{-}^{q}(z)$ intersect transversely as a point means that there is a single [*trajectory arc*]{} connecting $w$ and $z$. It is possible to alter the vector field $V$ on an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of this arc to obtain a nowhere zero gradient-like vector field $V'$ which agrees with $V$ outside of this neighbourhood. This in turn gives rise to a Morse function $f'$ with gradient-like vector field $V'$, which agrees with $f$ outside this neighbourhood and has [**no**]{} critical points, see Fig. \[trajectoryarc\].
(0,0)![Altering the gradient-like vector field along the trajectory arc[]{data-label="trajectoryarc"}](nonzerovec2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3471,3117)(1411,-5749) (1426,-3661)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2489,-2786)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The desired decomposition of $S^{n}\times I$ can now be realised by a Morse function $f:S^{n}\times I\rightarrow I$ which satisfies (a), (b) and (c) above as well as the condition that $n-p\geq 4$. Application of Theorem \[GLcob\] with respect to an admissible Morse function $f$ which satisfies (a), (b) and (c) will result in a Gromov-Lawson concordance on $S^{n}\times I$ between $g=ds_{n}^{2}$ and the metric $g''$ described above. Equivalently, one can think of this as obtained by two applications of Theorem \[ImprovedsurgeryTheorem\], one for each of the elementary cobordisms specified by $f$.
A strengthening of Theorem \[cancelthm\]
----------------------------------------
There is a strengthening of theorem \[cancelthm\] in the case where $W,X_0$ and $X_1$ are simply connected. Before stating it, we should recall what is meant by the intersection number of two manifolds. Let $M$ and $M'$ be two smooth submanifolds of dimensions $r$ and $s$ in a smooth manifold $N$ of dimension $r+s$ and suppose that $M$ and $M'$ intersect transversely as the set of points $\{n_1,n_2,\cdots,n_l\}$ in $N$. Suppose also that $M$ is oriented and that the normal bundle $\N(M')$ of $M'$ in $N$ is oriented. At $n_i$, choose a positively oriented $r-$frame $v_1,\cdots ,v_r$ of linearly independent vectors which span the tangent space $T_{n_i}M$. Since the intersection at $n_i$ is transverse, this frame is a basis for the normal fibre $\N_{n_i}(M')$.
[The [*intersection number of $M$ and $M'$ at $n_i$*]{} is defined to be $+1$ or $-1$ according as the vectors $v_1,\cdots,v_r$ represent a positively or negatively oriented basis for the fibre $\N_{n_i}(M')$. The [*intersection number $M'.M$ of $M$ and $M'$*]{} is the sum of intersection numbers over all points $n_i$.]{}
In the expression $M'.M$, we adopt the convention that the manifold with oriented normal bundle is written first.
We now state the [*strong cancellation theorem*]{}. This is theorem 6.4 of [@Smale].
[@Smale]\[cancelthm2\] Let $\{W^{n+1};X_0,X_1\}$ be a smooth compact cobordism where $W,X_0$ and $X_1$ are simply connected manifolds. Let $f:W\rightarrow I$ be a Morse triple on $W$. Letting $p+q+1=n$, suppose that $f$ satisfies the following conditions.
(a’) The function $f$ has exactly $2$ critical points $w$ and $z$ and $0<f(w)<c<f(z)<1$.
(b’) The points $w$ and $z$ have Morse index $p+1$ and $p+2$ respectively and $1\leq p\leq n-4$.
(c’) On $f^{-1}(c)$, the trajectory spheres $S_{+}^{p}(w)$ and $S_{-}^{q}(z)$ have intersection number $S_{+}^{p}(w).S_{-}^{q}(z)=1$ or $-1$.
Then the critical points $w$ and $z$ cancel and $W$ is diffeomorphic to $X_0\times I$. In fact, $f$ can be altered near $f^{-1}(c)$ so that the trajectory spheres intersect transversely at a single point and the conclusions of theorem \[cancelthm\] then apply.
Simple connectivity plays an important role in the proof. It of course guarantees the orientability conditions we need but more importantly it is used to simplify the intersection of the trajectory spheres. Roughly speaking, if $n_1$ and $n_2$ are two intersection points with opposite intersection, there are arcs connecting these points in each of the trajectory spheres, whose union forms a loop contractible in $f^{-1}(c)$ which misses all other intersection points. An isotopy can be constructed (which involves contracting this loop) to move the trajectory spheres to a position where the intersection set contains no new elements but now excludes $n_1$ and $n_2$.
The hypothesis that critical points of $f$ have index at least 2 is necessary, as the presence of index $1$ critical points would spoil the assumption of simple connectivity.
Standardising the embedding of the second surgery sphere {#stanemb}
--------------------------------------------------------
In Example \[sphereeg\], the second surgery sphere $S^{p+1}$ was regarded as the union of two hemi-spheres $D_{-}^{p+1}$ and $D_{+}^{p+1}$, the latter hemi-sphere coming from the handle attachment. It was assumed in the construction of the metric $g''$, that the disk $D_{+}^{p+1}$ was embedded so that the metric induced by $g'$ was precisely the $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$ factor of the handle metric. Now let $f$ be an admissible Morse function on $X\times I$ which satisfies conditions (a), (b) and (c) above. This specifies two trajectory spheres $S_{-}^{p}$ and $S_{-}^{p+1}$ corresponding to the critical points $w$ and $z$ respectively. On the level set $f^{-1}(c)$, the spheres $S_{+}^{q}$ and $S_{-}^{p+1}$ intersect transversely at a single point $\alpha$. Now suppose we extend a psc-metric $g$ on $X$ over $f^{-1}[0,c]$ in the manner of Theorem \[GLcob\], denoting by $g'$ the induced metric on $f^{-1}(c)$. In general, the metric induced by $g'$ on $S_{-}^{p+1}$ near $\alpha$ will not be $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$. We will now show that such a metric can be obtained with a minor adjustment of the Morse function $f$.
Let $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times \mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ denote the Morse coordinate neighbourhood near $w$. Here $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ denote the respective inward and outward trajectories at $w$. Let $\mathbb{R}$ denote the $1$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{q+1}$ spanned by the vector based at zero and ending at $\alpha$. Finally, let $D^{p+1}$ denote the intersection of $f^{-1}(c)$ with the plane $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$. The metric induced by $g'$ on $D^{p+1}$ is precisely the $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$ factor of the handle metric.
(0,0)![Isotopying $S_{-}^{p+1}$ near $\alpha$ to coincide with $D^{p+1}$.[]{data-label="adjustsphere"}](adjustsphere.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5820,2460)(1561,-3605) (2239,-1556)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2039,-2611)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4509,-3141)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2164,-2911)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2976,-1299)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3939,-3361)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1351,-2211)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[neatembedding\] It is possible to isotopy the trajectory sphere $S_{-}^{p+1}(z)$, so that on $f^{-1}(c)$ it agrees, near $\alpha$, with the disk $D^{p+1}$.
Choose a coordinate chart $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ in $f^{-1}(c)$ around $\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is identified with $0$ and $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ decomposes as $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times \mathbb{R}^{q}$. The intersection of $S_{-}^{p+1}(z)$ with this chart is a $(p+1)$-dimensional disk in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ which intersects with $\mathbb{R}^{q}$ transversely at the orgin. Thus, near the orgin, $S_{-}^{p+1}(z)$ is the graph of a function over $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and so we can isotopy it to an embedding which is the plane $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ on some neighbourhood of $0$, and the original $S_{-}^{p+1}(z)$ away from this neighbourhood.
Thus, the Morse function $f$ can be isotopied to a Morse function where the standard part of the metric $g'$ induces the $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$ factor of the handle metric on $S_{-}^{p+1}(\alpha)$, see Fig. \[geomissue\].
(0,0)![The embedded sphere $S_{-}^{p+1}(z)$ after adjustment[]{data-label="geomissue"}](geomissue.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5767,1895)(156,-3240) (1851,-2824)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4626,-2511)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4626,-2199)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (401,-3174)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1076,-1749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Gromov-Lawson concordance implies isotopy in the case of two cancelling surgeries {#doublesurgsection}
=================================================================================
We continue to employ the notation of the previous section in stating the following theorem.
\[concisodoublesurgery\] Let $f:X\times I\rightarrow I$ be an admissible Morse function on $X$ which satisfies conditions (a),(b) and (c) of Theorem \[cancelthm\] above. Let $g$ be a metric of positive scalar curvature on $X$ and $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g,f)$, a Gromov-Lawson concordance with respect to $f$ and $g$ on $X\times I$. Then the metric $g''=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{1\}}$ on $X$ is isotopic to the original metric $g$.
We will postpone the proof of Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\] for now. Later we will show that this theorem contains the main geometric argument needed to prove that any metrics which are Gromov-Lawson concordant are actually isotopic. Before doing this, we need to introduce some more terminology.
Connected sums of psc-metrics
-----------------------------
Suppose $(X,g_X)$ and $(Y, g_Y)$ are Riemannian manifolds of positive scalar curvature with dim X=dim Y$\geq 3$. A [*psc-metric connected sum*]{} of $g_X$ and $g_Y$ is a positive scalar curvature metric on the connected sum $X \# Y$, obtained using the Gromov-Lawson technique for connected sums on $g_X$ and $g_Y$. Recall that on $X$, the Gromov-Lawson technique involves modifying the metric on a disk $D=D^{n}$ around some point $w\in X$, by pushing out geodesic spheres around $w$ to form a tube. It is possible to construct this tube so that the metric on it has positive scalar curvature and so that it ends as a Riemannian cylinder $S^{n-1}\times I$. Furthermore the metric induced on the $S^{n-1}$ factor can be chosen to be arbitrarily close to the standard round metric and so we can isotopy this metric to the round one. By Lemma \[isotopyimpliesconc\], we obtain a metric on $X\setminus D^{n}$ which has positive scalar curvature and which near the boundary is the standard product $\delta^{2}ds_{n-1}^{2}+dt^{2}$ for some (possibly very small) $\delta$. Repeating this procedure on $Y$ allows us to form a psc-metric connected sum of $(X,g_X)$ and $(Y, g_{Y})$ which we denote
$$(X,g_X)\#(Y, g_{Y}).$$
An analysis of the metric $g''$, obtained from the second surgery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that $f$ specifies a pair of cancelling surgeries. The first surgery is on an embedded sphere $S^{p}$ and we denote the resulting surgery manifold by $X'$. Applying the Gromov-Lawson construction results in a metric $g'$ on $X'$, which is the orginal metric $g$ away from $S^{p}$ and transitions on a region diffeomorphic to $S^{p}\times S^{q}\times I$ to a metric which is the standard product $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)\times \delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$ on the handle $D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$. The second surgery sphere, embedded in $X'$, is denoted $S^{p+1}$. In section \[stanemb\], we showed that it is reasonable to assume that on the standard region, the restriction of $g'$ to the sphere $S^{p+1}$ is precisely the $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$ factor of the standard metric $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+\delta^{2}ds_q^{2}$, see Fig. \[geomissue\]. Applying the Gromov-Lawson construction to $g'$ with respect to this second surgery, results in a metric $g''$ on $X$ which is concordant to $g$.\
(0,0)![The metric $g''$[]{data-label="adjg”"}](generalg10.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(6861,5036)(361,-6870) (1114,-6111)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4639,-6211)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5514,-4974)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5514,-4261)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1851,-2274)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2526,-6211)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5476,-5724)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1639,-2649)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (376,-4800)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1489,-6999)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3889,-6899)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
In Fig. \[adjg”\], we describe a metric which is obtained from $g''$ by a only a very minor adjustment. We will discuss the actual adjustment a little later but, as it can be obtained through an isotopy, to ease the burden of notation we will still denote the metric by $g''$. This metric agrees with $g$ outside of an $n$-dimensional disk $D$, see Fig. \[adjg”\]. The restriction of $g''$ to this disk can be thought of as consisting of several regions. Near the boundary of the disk, and represented schematically by two dashed curves, is a cylindrical region which is diffeomorphic to $S^{n-1}\times I$. This cylindrical region will be known as the [*connecting cylinder*]{}, see Fig. \[transgg\]. We will identify the sphere which bounds $X\setminus D$ with $S^{n-1}\times \{1\}$. This sphere is contained in a region where $g''=g$ and so we know very little about the induced metric on this sphere.
(0,0)![The connecting cylinder $S^{n-1}\times I$[]{data-label="transgg"}](transg5.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4617,3641)(349,-3490) (4151,-3004)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4951,-2217)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2313,-3167)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (551,-898)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2751,-1461)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1601,-298)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4101,-3398)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3764,-461)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (364,-2399)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The region $S^{n-1}\times[\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ is where most of the transitioning happens from the old metric $g$ to the standard form. This transition metric consists in part of the [*old transition metric*]{} from the first surgery and the [*new transition metric*]{} from the second surgery. The old transition metric is on a region which is diffeomorphic to $S^{p}\times D^{q}\times [\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ (schematically this is the region below the horizontal dashed lines near the bottom of Fig. \[transgg\]) while the new transition metric is on a region which is diffeomorphic to $D^{p+1}\times S^{q-1}\times [\frac{1}{2}, 1]$. On the second cylindrical piece $S^{n-1}\times [0, \frac{1}{2}]$, the metric $g''$ is much closer to being standard.
Turning our attention away from the connecting cylinder for a moment, it is clear that the metric $g''$ agrees with the standard part of the metric $g'$ on a region which is diffeomorphic to $D^{p+1}\times D^{q}$, see Fig. \[adjg”\]. Here $g''$ is the metric $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+\delta^{2}ds_{q}^{2}|_{D^{q}}$ and we call this piece the [*old standard metric*]{}. The old standard metric transitions through an [*easy transition metric*]{} on a region diffeomorphic to $I\times D^{p+1}\times S^{q}$ to take the form $ds^{2}+g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon')+{\delta'}^{2}ds_{q-1}^{2}$. This particular transition is known as the [*easy transition metric*]{} as it is far simpler than the previous transitions.
Returning now to the second cylindrical piece of the connecting cylinder, we see that there is a neighbourhood of $S^{n-1}\times [0,\frac{1}{2}]$, containing both the old standard and easy transition regions where the metric $g''$ takes the form of a product $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+dt^{2}+g_q$, where the metric $g_q$ is a metric on the disk $D^{q}$, see Fig. \[firstalteration\]. Shortly we will write represent $g_q$ more explicitly.
(0,0)![A neighbourhood of $S^{n-1}\times [0,\frac{1}{2}]$ on which $g''$ has a product structure (left) and the metric resulting from an isotopy on this neighbourhood (right)[]{data-label="firstalteration"}](transg6.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4769,2171)(772,-4102) (5526,-2274)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2586,-4011)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5189,-4036)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (901,-3124)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1201,-3624)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Returning once more to the metric $g''$ on $D$, we observe that outside of $S^{n-1}\times I$ and away from the old standard and easy transition regions, the metric is almost completely standard. The only difference between this metric and the metric $g''$ constructed in Example \[sphereeg\] is the fact that the metric on the second surgery sphere $S^{p+1}$ is first isotopied to the double torpedo metric $g_{Dtor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)$ before finally transitioning to the round metric $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p+1}^{2}$. This gives a concordance between the metric $g_{Dtor}^{p+1}+\delta'^{2}ds_{q-1}^{2}$ and $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p+1}^{2}+\delta'^{2}ds_{q-1}^{2}$ which is capped off on the remaining $D^{p+2}\times S^{q-1}$ by the [*new standard metric*]{} $g_{tor}^{p+2}(\epsilon)+\delta'^{2}ds_{q-1}^{2}$. This completes our initial analysis of $g''$.
The proof of Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\]
---------------------------------------------
We will perform a sequence of adjustments on each of the metrics $g$ and $g''$. Beginning with the metric $g''$, we will construct $g_1''$ and $g_2''$ each of which is isotopic to the previous one. Similarly, we will construct isotopic metrics $g_1$, $g_2$ and $g_3$. The metrics $g_3$ and $g_2''$ will then be demonstrably isotopic.\
[**The initial adjustment of $g''$.**]{} We will begin by making some minor adjustments to the metric $g''$ to obtain the metric $g_1''$. Recall again that on the part of the connecting cylinder identified with $S^{n-1}\times [0,\frac{1}{2}]$, the metric $g''$ is somewhat standard. We observed that on a particular region of $S^{n-1}\times [0,\frac{1}{2}]$, $g''$ takes the form $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_q+dt^{2}$. Here $g_q$ can be written more explicitly as
$$g_q=dr^{2}+F(r)^{2}ds_{q-1}^{2},$$
where $r$ is the radial distance cordinate and $F$ is a function of the type shown in Fig. \[adjfunc\].
(0,0)![The function $F$, with $f_{\delta'}$ shown as the dashed curve[]{data-label="adjfunc"}](firstadj.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3815,1657)(2661,-3602) (2689,-3536)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2676,-2199)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5901,-2861)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3214,-3549)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
A linear homotopy of $F$ to the torpedo function $f_{\delta'}$ induces an isotopy from the metric $g_q$ to the metric $g_{tor}^{q}(\delta')$. With an appropriate rescaling, it is possible to isotopy the metric $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_q+dt^{2}$ to one which is unchanged near $S^{n-1}\times\{\frac{1}{2}\}$ but near $S^{n-1}\times\{0\}$, is the standard product $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q}(\delta')+dt^{2}$. This isotopy then easily extends to an isotopy of $g''$ resulting in a metric which, on the old standard and easy transition regions, is now $g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+g_{tor}^{q}(\delta')$ away from $S^{n-1}\times \{\frac{1}{2}\}$, see Fig. \[generalgg\].\
(0,0)![The metric $g_1''$ resulting from the initial adjustment[]{data-label="generalgg"}](generalg3.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4555,5036)(974,-6870) (1070,-6311)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2401,-6749)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5514,-4974)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5514,-4261)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2251,-5124)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1731,-2649)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1651,-2274)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
(5514,-6086)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
(0,0)![The collar neighbourhood $S^{n-1}\times [0,\lambda]$[]{data-label="alteredg”"}](transg2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3552,2397)(1874,-3440) (5151,-3374)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2389,-2236)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
[**The embedding $\bar{J}$.**]{} For sufficiently small $\lambda$, the cylindrical portion $S^{n-1}\times[0,\lambda]$ of the connecting cylinder $S^{n-1}\times I$ is contained entirely in a region where $g''=g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+g_{tor}^{q}(\delta')$. Recall that in section \[embedmixedtorp\], we equipped the plane $\mathbb{R}^{n}=\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q}$ with this metric, then denoted by $h=g_{tor}^{p+1}(\epsilon)+g_{tor}^{q}(\delta')$. In standard spherical coordinates $(\rho, \phi), (r, \theta)$ for $\mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{q}$ respectively, we can represent this metric with the explicit formula
$$h=d\rho^{2}+f_{\epsilon}(\rho)^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+dr^{2}+f_{\delta'}(r)^{2}ds_{q}^{2},$$
where $f_{\epsilon}, f_{\delta'}$ are the standard $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ torpedo functions defined on $(0,\infty)$. The restriction of $g''$ to the region $S^{n-1}\times [0,\lambda]$ is now isometric to an annular region of $(\mathbb{R}^{n},h)$ shown in Fig. \[imageJ\]. For a more geometrically accurate schematic of $(\mathbb{R}^{n},h)$, see Fig. \[h\] in section \[prelim\].
(0,0)![The image of $\bar{J}$[]{data-label="imageJ"}](imagej.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4336,3299)(2240,-6861) (4514,-4911)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4764,-5461)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6464,-5474)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4539,-3761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
There is an isometric embedding $\bar{J}$ of the cylindrical portion $S^{n-1}\times[0,\lambda]$ of the connecting cylinder $S^{n-1}\times I$ into $(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)$. Let $\bar{a}$ denote an embedding
$$\begin{split}
\bar{a}:[0,\lambda]\times[0,b]&\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R} \\
(t_1, t_2)&\mapsto(a_1(t_1,t_2),\phi,a_2(t_1,t_2),\theta)
\end{split}$$
which satisfies the following properties.
\(1) For each $t_1\in[0,\lambda]$, the restriction of $\bar{a}$ to $\{t_1\}\times [0,b]$ is a smooth curve in the first quadrant of $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ which begins at $(c_1+t_1,0)$, follows a vertical trajectory, bends by an angle of $\frac{\pi}{2}$ towards the vertical axis in the form of a circular arc and continues as a horizontal line to end at $(0,c_1+t_1)$. We will assume that $c_1>\max\{\frac{\pi}{2}\epsilon,\frac{\pi}{2}\delta'\}$ and that the bending takes place above the horizontal line through line $(0,\delta\frac{\pi}{2})$, see Fig. \[fig:xandy\].
\(2) At each point $(t_1, t_2)$, the products $\frac{\p{a_1}}{\p{t_1}}.\frac{\p{a_1}}{\p{t_2}}$ and $\frac{\p{a_1}}{\p{t_1}}.\frac{\p{a_1}}{\p{t_2}}$ are both zero.
For some such $\bar{a}$, there is a map $\bar{J}$ defined
$$\begin{split}
\bar{J}:[0,\lambda]\times[0,b]\times{S^{p}}\times S^{q-1}&\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q}\\
(t_1,t_2,\phi,\theta)&\mapsto(a_1(t_1,t_2),\phi,a_2(t_1,t_2),\theta)
\end{split}$$
which isometrically embeds the cylindrical piece $(S^{n-1}\times [0,\lambda], g''|_{S^{n-1}\times[0,\lambda]})$ into $(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)$, see Fig. \[imageJ\]. Furthermore, assumption (2) above means that the metric $g''|_{S^{n-1}\times[0,\lambda]}$ can be foliated as $dt_1^{2}+g_{t_1}''$ where $g_{t_1}''$ is the metric induced on the restriction of $\bar{J}$ to $\{t_1\}\times[0,\lambda]\times S^{p}\times S^{q}$. For each $t_1\in [0,\lambda]$, the metric $g_{t_1}''$ is a mixed torpedo metric $g_{Mtor}^{p,q-1}$. These metrics are of course not isometric, but differ only in that the tube lengths of the various torpedo parts vary continuously.\
[**Isotopying the metric on $S^{n-1}\times [0,\lambda]$ to the “connected sum" metric $g_2''$.**]{} Given two copies of the plane $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, each equipped with the metric $h$, we can apply the Gromov-Lawson technique to construct a connected sum $(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)\#(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)$. This technique determines a psc-metric by removing a disk around each origin and gluing the resulting manifolds together with an appropriate psc-metric on the cylinder $S^{n-1}\times I$. In this section, we will isotopy the metric $g''|_{S^{n-1}\times [0,\lambda]}$ to obtain precisely this cylinder metric, see Fig. \[connsum\]. Importantly, this isotopy will fix the metric near the ends of the cylinder and so will extend easily to an isotopy of $g_1''$ on all of $X$ to result in the metric $g_2''$.
(0,0)![The metric obtained by isotopying $g''|_{{S^{n-1}\times[0,\lambda]}}$ to the cylinder metric of Gromov-Lawson “connected sum" construction[]{data-label="connsum"}](transg20.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5805,5658)(2846,-6115) (5976,-3424)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2914,-6049)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (7514,-611)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Let $\bar{a}^{t_1}$ denote the curve which is the image of the map $\bar{a}$ restricted to $\{t_1\}\times[0,b]$ and $\bar{J}^{t_1}$ will denote the embedded sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ which is the image of the map $\bar{J}$ on $\{t_1\}\times[0,b]\times S^{p}\times S^{q-1}$. We define the map $K^{\tau}$ as
$$\begin{array}{cl}
{K^{\tau}}:[0,\frac{\pi}{2}\tau]\times{S^{p}}\times S^{q-1}&\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{q}\\
(t,\phi,\theta)&\longmapsto(\tau\cos(\frac{t}{\tau}),\phi,\tau\sin(\frac{t}{\tau}),\theta)
\end{array}$$
For each $\tau>0$, the image of $K^{\tau}$ in $(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)$ is a geodesic sphere of radius $\tau$. Now consider the region, shown in Fig. \[foliatingh\], bounded by the embedded spheres $\bar{J}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ and $K^{\tau}$ where $\tau$ is assumed to be very small. Let $c^{\tau}$ denote the circular arc given by $c^{\tau}(t)=(\tau\cos(\frac{t}{\tau}),\tau\sin(\frac{t}{\tau})$, for $t\in[0,\frac{\pi}{2}\tau]$. It is easy to construct a smooth homotopy between $\bar{a}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ and $c^{\tau}$ through curves $(x_{\nu}, y_{\nu}), \nu\in I$ where $c^{\tau}=(x_{0}, y_0)$ and $\bar{a}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}=(x_1, y_1)$. For example, this can be done by smoothly shrinking the straight edge pieces of $\bar{a}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ to obtain a piece which is within arbitrarily small smoothing adjustments of being a circular arc, the radius of which can then be smoothly shrunk as required, see Fig. \[homotopyfoliate\].
(0,0)![Homotopying the curve $\bar{a}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ to $c^{\tau}$[]{data-label="homotopyfoliate"}](foliatingh2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(6214,1778)(563,-3054) (739,-2963)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2039,-2988)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (664,-2588)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2026,-1650)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3720,-1542)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5952,-1536)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
By smoothly varying the length of domain intervals of $x_\nu$ and $y_\nu$ with respect to $\nu$ we can ensure that the curve $(x_\nu, y_\nu)$ is unit speed for all $\nu$. The above homotopy gives rise to a foliation of the region contained between $\bar{J}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ and $K^{\tau}$, see Fig. \[foliatingh\], and a corresponding foliation of the metric $h$ on this region. Letting $l\in[0,1]$ denote the coordinate running orthogonal to the curves given by the above homotopy, we can write the metric $h=dl^{2}+h_l$. Moreover, the metric $h_l$ can be computed explicitly as
$$h_l=dt^{2}+f_\epsilon(x(t))^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+f_{\delta'}(y(t))^{2}ds_{q}^{2}$$
where $x=x_{\nu}$ and $y=y_\nu$ for some $\nu$. An elementary calculation shows that $-1\leq\dot{x_\nu}\leq 0$, $0\leq \dot{y_\nu}\leq 1$, $\ddot{x_\nu}\leq 0$ and $\ddot{y_\nu}\leq 0$. A further elementary calculation now shows that the functions $f_\epsilon(x(t))$ and $f_{\delta'}(y(t))$ belong to the spaces $\U$ and $\V$ defined in section \[prelim\]. Thus, by Lemma \[lem:markslemm1.5\], the metric $h_l$ has positive scalar curvature and so the decomposition of $h$ into $dl^{2}+h_l$ induces an isotopy between the metric $h_1=g_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}''$ and the metric $h_0$ induced by $h$ on the geodesic sphere of radius $\tau$.
(0,0)![The region bounded by $\bar{J}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ and $K^{\tau}$[]{data-label="foliatingh"}](foliatingh.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4512,3574)(2864,-5198) (6601,-2374)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4764,-3724)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6176,-2849)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Recall that the restriction of the metric $g''$ to $S^{n-1}\times [0, \frac{\lambda}{2}]$, isometrically embeds into $(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)$ as the region between the curves $\bar{J}^{0}$ and $\bar{J}^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$. Using the foliation $h=dl^{2}+h_l$, this metric can now be continuously extended as the metric $h$ over the rest of the region between $\bar{J}^{0}$ and $K^{\tau}$, see Fig. \[extendh\]. As the curve $K^{\tau}$ is a geodesic sphere with respect to $h$, this metric can then be continuously extended as the metric obtained by the Gromov-Lawson construction, to finish as a round cylinder metric. The metric $g''|_{S^{n-1}\times [0,\frac{\lambda}{2}]}$ has now been isotopied to one half of the metric depicted in Fig. \[connsum\] without making any adjustment near $S^{n-1}\times \{0\}$.
An analogous construction can be performed on $g''|_{S^{n-1}\times [\frac{\lambda}{2}, \lambda]}$, this time making no alteration to the metric near ${S^{n-1}\times \{\lambda\}}$. Both constructions can be combined to form the desired isotopy by making a minor modifcation to ensure that at each stage, the metric near $S^{n-1}\times\{\frac{\lambda}{2}\}$ is a psc-Riemannian cylinder. Such a modification is possible because of the fact that the above foliation decomposes $h$ into an isotopy of psc-metrics.\
(0,0)![Isotopying the metric $g''|_{S^{n-1}\times[0,\frac{\lambda}{2}]}$ to the metric $h$ on the region bounded by $\bar{J}^{0}$ and $K^{\tau}$[]{data-label="extendh"}](extendh.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4512,3574)(2864,-5198) (4726,-3686)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6864,-2699)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6864,-2299)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
[**Isotopying the metric $g$.**]{} In this step we will perform three successive adjustments on the metric $g$, resulting in succesive positive scalar curvature metrics $g_1, g_2$ and $g_3$. Each adjustment will result in a metric which is isotopic to the previous one and thus to $g$.
In adjusting the metric $g$, we wish to mimic as closely as possible, the Gromov-Lawson technique applied in the construction of $g''$. The main difficulty of course is that we are prevented from making any topological change to the manifold $X$. Thus, the first adjustment is one we have seen before. The metric $g_1$ is precisely the metric $g_{std}$ constructed in Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], this being the closest we can get to the original Gromov-Lawson construction without changing the topology of $X$, see Fig. \[g\_1\]. The metric $g_1$ is the original metric $g$ outside of a tubular neighbourhood of the embedded $S^{p}$. It then transitions to a standard form so that near $S^{p}$ it is $\epsilon^{2}ds_{p}^{2}+g_{tor}^{q+1}(\delta)$ for some suitably small $\delta>0$. We will refer to this region as the [*standard region*]{} throughout this proof, see Fig. \[g\_1\]. From Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], we know that $g_1$ is isotopic to the original $g$. We make two important observations.
\(i) All of the data regarding the effects of the Gromov-Lawson construction on $(X,g)$, is contained in the metric $g_1$.
\(ii) The embedded disk $D_{-}^{p+1}$ agrees entirely with the non-standard part of the embedded sphere $S^{p+1}$.
(0,0)![The metric $g_1$ on $X$, made standard near the embedded $S^{p}$[]{data-label="g_1"}](g1.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4705,1895)(156,-3240) (1851,-2824)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (401,-3174)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1164,-1924)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3564,-2849)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3589,-3111)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The aim of the next adjustment is to mimic as closely as possible the metric effects of the second surgery. The boundary of $D_{-}^{p+1}$ lies at the end of the standard region of $(X,g_1)$. Application of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\] allows us adjust the metric near $D_{-}^{p+1}$ exactly as in the construction of $g''$. Near the boundary of $D_{-}^{p+1}$, the induced metric is standard and so we can transition (possibly very slowly) back to the metric $g_1$, see Fig. \[g\_2\]. The connecting cylinder $S^{n-1}\times I$ can be specified exactly as before and it is immediately obvious that the metric $g_2$ agrees with $g''$ on this region. The metric $g_3$ is now obtained by making precisely the adjustments made to the metric $g''$ in the region of $S^{n-1}\times [0,\frac{1}{2}]$.\
(0,0)![Adjusting the metric $g_1$ on a neighbourhood of the embedded disk $D_{-}^{p+1}$: Notice how no change is made near the boundary of this disk.[]{data-label="g_2"}](g2.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(7788,5429)(361,-7165) (1489,-7099)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3889,-7074)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (376,-5049)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1014,-6311)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2426,-6711)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (5551,-6761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (676,-1924)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (664,-2211)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6301,-3799)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
[**Comparing the metrics $g_2''$ and $g_3$.**]{} At this stage we have constructed two metrics $g_2''$ and $g_3$ on $X$ which agree on $(X\setminus D)\cup (S^{n-1}\times[\frac{\lambda}{2}, \lambda])$. Near $S^{n-1}\times\{\frac{\lambda}{2}\}$, both metrics have the form of a standard round cylinder. The remaining region of $X$ is an $n$-dimensional disk which we denote $D'$. Here the metrics $g_2''$ and $g_3$ are quite different. Henceforth $g_2''$ and $g_3$ will denote the restriction of these metrics to the disk $D'$. As $g_2''$ and $g_3$ agree near the boundary of $D'$, to complete the proof it is enough to show that there is an isotopy from $g_2''$ to $g_3$ which fixes the metric near the boundary.
Both $g_2''$ and $g_3$ are obtained from metrics on the sphere $S^{n}$ by removing a point and pushing out a tube in the manner of the Gromov-Lawson connected sum construction. In both cases the point itself is the origin of a region which is isometrically identified with a neighbourhood of the origin in $(\mathbb{R}^{n}, h)$. We will denote by $\bar{g}_2''$ and $\bar{g}_3$, the respective sphere metrics which give rise to $g_2''$ and $g_3$ in this way, see Fig. \[ggggsphere\] and Fig. \[g3sphere\].
(0,0)![The metric $\bar{g}_2''$[]{data-label="ggggsphere"}](ggggsphere.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3394,4426)(1160,-4448) (4539,-4249)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (3639,-837)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
(0,0)![The metric $\bar{g}_3$[]{data-label="g3sphere"}](g3sphere.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(6188,5165)(430,-5520) (5295,-5267)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (445,-5454)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
The metrics $\bar{g}_2''$ and $\bar{g}_3$ isotopy easily to the respective mixed torpedo metrics $g_{tor}^{p+1,q-1}$ and $g_{tor}^{p, q}$ on $S^{n}$, see Fig. \[fig:mixed torpedoagain\], and are thus isotopic by the results of section \[prelim\], in particular Lemma \[toriso\]. The proof of Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\] then follows from Theorem \[GLcompact\], where we showed that the Gromov-Lawson construction goes through for a compact family of psc-metrics.
![The mixed torpedo metrics $g_{Mtor}^{p,q}$ and $g_{Mtor}^{p+1,q-1}$[]{data-label="fig:mixed torpedoagain"}](mtorpedo55.eps){height="30mm"}
Gromov-Lawson concordance implies isotopy in the general case {#glconcisosection}
=============================================================
Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\] is the main tool needed in the proof of Theorem \[conciso\]. The rest of the proof follows from Morse-Smale theory and all of the results needed to complete it are to be found in [@Smale]. Before we proceed with the proof of Theorem \[conciso\], it is worth discussing some of these results.
A weaker version of Theorem \[conciso\]
---------------------------------------
Throughout, $\{W^{n+1},X_0,X_1\}$ is a smooth compact cobordism where $X_0$ and $X_1$ are closed manifolds of dimension $n$. Later on we will also need to assume that $X_0, X_1$ and $W$ are simply connected and that $n\geq 5$, although that is not necessary yet. Let $f$ denote a Morse triple on $W$, as defined in section \[GLcobordsection\]. Recall this means that $f:W\rightarrow I$ is a Morse function which comes with extra data, a Riemannian metric $m$ on $W$ and a gradient-like vector field $V$ with respect to $f$ and $m$. Now by Theorem \[rearrangement\], $f$ can be isotopied to a Morse triple which is well-indexed. We will retain the name $f$ for this well-indexed Morse triple. As discussed in section \[GLcobordsection\], $f$ decomposes $W$ into a union of cobordisms $C_{0}\cup C_{1}\cup \cdots \cup{C_{n+1}}$ where each $C_{k}$ contains at most one critical level (contained in its interior) and all critical points of $f$ on this level have index $k$. For each $0\leq k\leq n+1$, we denote by $W_k$, the union $C_{0}\cup C_{1}\cup \cdots \cup{C_{k}}$. By setting $W_{-1}=X_0$, we obtain the following sequence of inclusions
$$X_0=W_{-1}\subset W_{0}\subset W_{1}\subset \cdots \subset W_{n+1}=W,$$
describing this decomposition.
Suppose that $f$ has $l$ critical points of index $k$. Then for some $a<c<b$, the cobordism $C_k=f^{-1}[a,b]$, where $c$ is the only critical value between $a$ and $b$. The level set $f^{-1}(c)$ has $l$ critical points $w_1, \cdots, w_l$, each of index $k$. Associated to these critical points are trajectory disks $K_{-}^{k}(w_1), \cdots K_{-}^{k}(w_l)$ where each $K_{-}^{k}(w_i)$ has its boundary sphere $S_{-}^{k-1}(w_i)$ embedded in $f^{-1}(a)$. These trajectory disks determine a basis, by theorem 3.15 of [@Smale], for the relative integral homology group $H_{k}(W_k,W_{k-1})$ which is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}\oplus \cdots \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ ($l$ summands).
We can now construct a chain complex $\C_{*}=\{\C_{k},\p\}$, where $\C_{k}=H_{k}(W_k,W_{k-1})$ and $\p:\C_{k}\rightarrow \C_{k-1}$ is the boundary homomorphism of the long exact sequence of the triple $W_{k-2}\subset W_{k-1}\subset W_{k}$. The fact that $\p^{2}=0$ is proved in theorem 7.4 of [@Smale]. Furthermore, theorem 7.4 gives that $H_{k}(\C_{*})=H_{k}(W,X_0)$.
\[concisoeasy\] Let $X$ be a closed simply connected manifold with $dimX=n\geq5$ and let $g_0$ be a positive scalar curvature metric on $X$. Let $f$ be an admissible Morse function on $X\times I$ with no critical points of index $0$ or $1$. Then the metrics $g_0$ and $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{1\}}$ are isotopic, where $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ is a Gromov-Lawson concordance on $X\times I$.
By Corollary \[rearrangementmetric\], we may assume that $f$ is well indexed. Using the notation above, $f$ gives rise to a decomposition $X\times I=C_2\cup C_3\cup \cdots \cup C_{n-2}$ which in turn gives rise to a chain complex $$\C_{n-2}\rightarrow \C_{n-3}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\C_{k+1}\rightarrow\C_{k}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\C_2$$
where each $\C_{k}$ is a free abelian group. (Recall that all critical points of an admissible Morse function have index which is less than or equal to $n-2$.) Since $H_{*}(X\times I, X)=0$, it follows that the above sequence is exact. Thus, for each $\C_{k+1}$ we may choose elements $z_1^{k+1},\cdots, z_{l_{k+1}}^{k+1}\in \C_{k+1}$ and $b_1^{k+1},\cdots,b_{l_{k}}^{k+1}\in \C_{k+1}$ so that $\p(b_i^{k+1})=z_{i}^{k}$ for $i=1,\cdots,l_k$. Then $z_1^{k+1},\cdots, z_{l_{k+1}}^{k+1}, b_1^{k+1},\cdots,b_{l_{k}}^{k+1}$ is a basis for $\C_{k+1}$.
We will now restrict our attention to the cobordism $C_k\cup C_{k+1}$. Now let $w_1^{k+1},w_2^{k+1},\cdots, w_{l_{k+1}+l_{k}}^{k+1}$ denote the critical points of $f$ inside of $C_{k+1}$ and $w_1^{k},w_2^{k},\cdots, w_{l_{k}+l_{k-1}}^{k}$ denote the critical points of $f$ inside of $C_{k}$. As $2\leq k<k+1\leq n-2$, it follows from theorem 7.6 of [@Smale], that $f$ can be perturbed so that the trajectory disks $K_{-}(w_1^{k+1}), \cdots K_{-}(w_{l_{k+1}+l_k}^{k+1})$ and $K_{-}(w_1^{k}), \cdots K_{-}(w_{l_{k}+l_{k-1}}^{k})$ represent the chosen bases for $\C_{k+1}$ and $\C_{k}$ respectively.
Denote by $w_1^{k},w_2^{k},\cdots, w_{l_{k}}^{k}$, those critical points on $C_k$ which correspond to the elements $z_1^k,z_2^{k}\cdots, z_{l_{k}}^k$ of $\C_k$, i.e. the kernel of $\p:\C_k\rightarrow \C_{k-1}$. Denote by $w_1^{k+1},w_2^{k+2},\cdots,w_{l_k}^{k+1}$, those critical points in $C_{k+1}$ which correspond to the elements $b_1^{k+1},\cdots,b_{l_{k}}^{k+1}\in \C_{k+1}$. A slight perturbation of $f$, replaces $C_k\cup C_{k+1}$ with the decomposition $C_{k}'\cup C_{k}''\cup C_{k+1}''\cup C_{k+1}'$, see Fig. \[cancellingcobordisms\]. Here $C_{k}'\cup C_{k}''$ is diffeomorphic to $C_k$, however, the critical points $w_1^{k},w_2^{k},\cdots, w_{l_{k}}^{k}$ have been moved to a level set above their orginal level, resulting in a pair of cobordisms each with one critical level. Similarly, we can move the critical points $w_1^{k+1},w_2^{k+2},\cdots,w_{l_k}^{k+1}$ down to a level set below their original level to replace $C_{k+1}$ with $C_{k+1}''\cup C_{k+1}'$.
(0,0)![Replacing $C_k\cup C_{k+1}$ with $C_{k}'\cup C_{k}''\cup C_{k+1}''\cup C_{k+1}'$[]{data-label="cancellingcobordisms"}](lastpicture.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(5755,3248)(1161,-4605) (1176,-2761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1476,-3599)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6864,-2161)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6814,-2761)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6801,-3374)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (6901,-3936)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
We now consider the the cobordism $C_{k}''\cup C_{k+1}''$. For some $a<c_k<c<c_{k+1}<b$, $C_{k}''\cup C_{k+1}''=f^{-1}[a,b]$, where $f^{-1}(c_k)$ contains all of the critical points of index $k$ and $f^{-1}(c_{k+1})$ contains all of the critical points of index $k+1$. Each critical point $w_i^{k}$ of index $k$ is associated with a critical point $w_i^{k+1}$ of index $k+1$. Using Van Kampen’s theorem, we can show that $f^{-1}[a,b],f^{-1}(a)$ and $f^{-1}(b)$ are all simply connected, see remark 1 on page 70 of [@Smale].
Since $\p(b_i^{k+1})=z_{i}^{k}$, each pair of trajectory spheres has intersection $1$ or $-1$. The strong cancellation theorem, Theorem \[cancelthm2\], now gives that $f$ can be perturbed so that each pair of trajectory spheres intersects transversely on $f^{-1}(c)$ at a single point and that $f^{-1}[a,b]$ is diffeomorphic to $f^{-1}(a)\times[a,b]$.
Now consider the restriction of the metric $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ to $f^{-1}[a,b]$. Let $g_a$ and $g_b$ denote the induced metrics on $f^{-1}(a)$ and $f^{-1}(b)$ respectively. The trajectories connecting the critical points of the first critical level with trajectory spheres in $f^{-1}(a)$ are mutually disjoint, as are those connecting critical points on the second critical level with the trajectory spheres on $f^{-1}(b)$. In turn, pairs of cancelling critical points can be connected by mutually disjoint arcs where each arc is the union of intersection points of the corresponding trajectory spheres. The metric $g_b$ is therefore obtained from $g_a$ by finitely many independent applications of the construction in Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\] and so $g_a$ and $g_b$ are isotopic. By repeating this argument as often as necessary we show that $g_0$ is isotopic to $g_1$.
The proof of the main theorem
-----------------------------
We can now complete the proof of Theorem \[conciso\]. To do this, we must extend Theorem \[concisoeasy\] to deal with the case of index $0$ and index $1$ critical points.\
[**Theorem \[conciso\].**]{} [*Let $X$ be a closed simply connected manifold with $dimX=n\geq5$ and let $g_0$ be a positive scalar curvature metric on $X$. Suppose $\bar{g}=\bar{g}(g_0,f)$ is a Gromov-Lawson concordance with respect to $g_0$ and an admissible Morse function $f:X\times I\rightarrow I$. Then the metrics $g_0$ and $g_1=\bar{g}|_{X\times\{1\}}$ are isotopic.*]{}
We will assume that $f$ is a well-indexed admissible Morse function on $W$. Using the notation of the previous theorem, $f$ decomposes $W$ into a union of cobordisms $C_{0}\cup C_{1}\cup \cdots \cup{C_{n-2}}$. In the case where $f$ has index $0$ critical points, $f$ can be perturbed so that for some $\epsilon>0$, $f^{-1}[0,\epsilon]$ contains all index $0$ critical points along with an equal number of index $1$ critical points. These critical points are arranged so that all index $0$ critical points are on the level $f^{-1}(c_0)$ and all index $1$ critical points are on the level set $f^{-1}(c_1 )$ where $0<c_0<c<c_1<\epsilon$. In theorem 8.1 of [@Smale], it is proved that these critical points can be arranged into pairs of index $0$ and index $1$ critical points where each pair is connected by mutually disjoint arcs and each pair satisfies the conditions of theorem \[cancelthm\]. Thus, Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\] gives that the metric $g_0$ is isotopic to the metric $g_\epsilon=\bar{g}(g_0,f)|_{f^{-1}(\epsilon)}$.
If $f$ has no other critical points of index $1$, then Theorem \[concisoeasy\] gives that $g_\epsilon$ is isotopic to $g_{1}$, completing the proof. We thus turn our attention to the case where $f$ has excess index $1$ critical points which do not cancel with critical points of index $0$. Each of these critical points is asscociated with a critical point of index $2$ and the intersection number of the corresponding trajectory spheres is $1$ or $-1$. Unfortunately, theorem \[cancelthm2\] does not apply here as the presence of index $1$ critical points means the upper boundary component of $W_{1}$ is not simply connected. In turn, this prevents us from applying Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\].
There is however, another way to deal with these excess index $1$ critical points which we will now summarise. It is possible to add in auxiliary pairs of index $2$ and index $3$ critical points. This can be done so that the newly added pairs have trajectory spheres which intersect transversely at a point and so satisfy the conditions of theorem \[cancelthm\]. Furthermore, for each excess index $1$ critical point, such a pair of auxiliary critical points may be added so that the newly added index $2$ critical point has an incoming trajectory sphere which intersects transversely at a single point with the outgoing trajectory sphere of the index $1$ critical point. This allows us to use theorem \[cancelthm\] and hence Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\] with respect to these index $1$, index $2$ pairs. The old index $2$ critical points now all have index $3$ critical points with which to cancel and so we can apply Theorem \[concisoeasy\] to complete the proof. In effect, the excess index $1$ critical points are replaced by an equal number of index $3$ critical points. The details of this construction are to be found in the proof of theorem 8.1 of [@Smale] and so we will provide only a rough outline. The key result which makes this possible is a theorem by Whitney, which we state below.
[@Whitney]\[Whitney\] If two smooth embeddings of a smooth manifold $M$ of dimension $m$ into a smooth manifold $N$ of dimension $n$ are homotopic, then they are smoothly isotopic provided $n\geq 2m+2$.
Choose $\delta>0$ so that the metric $\bar{g}$ is a product metric on $X\times [1-\delta,1]$. Thus, $f$ has no critical points here either. On any open neighbourhood $U$ contained inside $f^{-1}[1-\delta,1]$, it is possible to replace the function $f$ with a new function $f_1$, so that outside $U$, $f_1=f$, but inside $U$, $f$ has a pair of critical points, $y$ and $z$ with respective indices $2$ and $3$ and so that on the cylinder $f^{-1}[1-\delta, 1]$, $f_1$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[cancelthm\]. For a detailed proof of this fact, see lemma 8.2 of [@Smale].
The Morse functions $f$ and $f_1$ are certainly not isotopic, as they have different numbers of critical points. However, this is not a problem as the following comment makes clear.
Recall that the metric $\bar{g}|_{X\times \{1-\delta\}}=g_1$ and that our goal is to show that $g_1$ is isotopic to $g_0$. By Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\], the metric $\bar{g}|_{X\times \{1-\delta\}}$ is isotopic to $\bar{g}(g_0, f_1)|_{X\times\{1\}}$ and so it is enough to show that $g_0$ is isotopic to $\bar{g}(g_0, f_1)|_{X\times\{1\}}$ for some such $f_1$.
For simplicity, we will assume that $f$ has no index $0$ critical points. We will assume that all of the critical points of index $1$ are on the level $f=c_1$. Choose points $a<c_1<b$ so that $f^{-1}[a,b]$ contains no other critical levels except $f^{-1}(c_1)$. Let $w$ be an index $1$ critical point of $f$. Emerging from $w$ is an outward trajectory whose intersection with the level set $f^{-1}(b)$ is an $n-1$-dimensional sphere $S_{+}^{n-1}(z)$. The following lemma is lemma 8.3 of [@Smale].
\[idealcircle\] There exists an embedded $1$-sphere $S=S^{1}$ in $f^{-1}(b)$ which intersects transversely with $S_{+}^{n-1}(z)$ at a single point and meets no other outward trajectory sphere.
Now replace $f$ with the function $f_1$ above. By Theorem \[rearrangement\], the function $f_1$ can be isotopied through admissible Morse functions to a well-indexed one $\bar{f_1}$. Consequently, the metric $\bar{g}(g_0, f_1)$ can be isotopied to a Gromov-Lawson concordance $\bar{g}(g_0,\bar{f_1})$. The critical points $y$ and $z$ have now been moved so that $y$ is on the same level as all of the other index $2$ critical points. There is a trajectory sphere $S_{-}^{1}(y)$, which is converging to $y$, embedded in $f^{-1}(b)$. Theorem \[Whitney\] implies that $\bar{f_1}$ can be isotopied so as to move $S_{-}^{1}(y)$ onto the embedded sphere $S$ of Lemma \[idealcircle\]. The resulting well-indexed admissible Morse function has the property that the outward trajectory spheres of index $1$ critical points intersect the inward trajectory spheres of their corresponding index $2$ critical points transversely at a point.
We can make an arbitrarily small adjustment to $\bar{f_1}$ so that the index $2$ critical points which correspond to the kernel of the map $\p:\C_3\rightarrow \C_2$ are on a level set just above the level containing the remaining index $2$ critical points. Let $f^{-1}(c)$ denote a level set between these critical levels. Then $f^{-1}[0,c]$ is diffeomorphic to $X\times [0,c]$ and, by Theorem \[concisodoublesurgery\], the metric $g_0$ is isotopic to the metric $\bar{g}(g_0,\bar{f_1})|_{f^{-1}(c)}$. Furthermore, the cobordism $f^{-1}[c,1]$ is diffeomorphic to $X\times [c,1]$ and the restriction of $\bar{f_1}$ satisfies all of the conditions of Theorem \[concisoeasy\]. This means that $\bar{g}(g_0,\bar{f_1})|_{f^{-1}(c)}$ is isotopic to $\bar{g}(g_0,\bar{f_1})|_{f^{-1}(1)}$, completing the proof.
Appendix: Curvature calculations from the Surgery Theorem {#append}
=========================================================
Below we provide detailed proofs of some Lemmas used in section \[surgerysection\], in the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\]. Lemma \[GLlemma1app\], in particular is exactly Lemma 1 from [@GL1]. We provide a detailed proof below. Lemmas \[principalMapp\] and \[scalarMapp\] below are curvature calculations. The resulting formulae arise in Gromov and Lawson’s original proof of the Surgery Theorem, see [@GL1] or [@RS].
\[GLlemma1app\] [[(Lemma 1, [@GL1])]{}]{}
\(a) The principal curvatures of the hypersurfaces $S^{n-1}{(\epsilon})$ in D are each of the form $\frac{-1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon)$ for $\epsilon$ small.
\(b) Furthermore, let $g_\epsilon$ be the induced metric on $S^{n-1}{(\epsilon})$ and let $g_{0,\epsilon}$ be the standard Euclidean metric of curvature $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}$. Then as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0, \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}{g_\epsilon}\rightarrow{\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}g_{0,\epsilon}}=g_{0,1}$ in the $C^{2}$-topology.
Below we use the following notation. A function $f(r)$ is $O(r)$ as $r\rightarrow 0$ if $\frac{f(r)}{r}\rightarrow constant$ as $r\rightarrow 0$.\
We begin with the proof of (a). On $D$, in coordinates $x_1,...,x_n$, the metric $g$ has the form
$$\label{3.1}
\begin{array}{c}
g_{ij}(x)=\delta_{ij}+ \sum{a_{ij}^{kl}x_{k}x_{l}+O(|x|^3)}=\delta_{ij}+O(|x|^3).
\end{array}$$
This follows from the Taylor series expansion of $g_{ij}(x)$ around $0$ and the fact that in a normal coordinate neighbourhood of $p=0$, $g_{ij}(0)=\delta_{ij}$ and $\Gamma_{ij}^{k}(0)=0$.
Next we will show that the Christoffel symbols of the corresponding Levi-Civita connection have the form
$$\begin{array}{c}
\Gamma_{ij}^{k}=\sum_{l}{\gamma_{ijk,l}}+O(|x|^2)=O(|x|).
\end{array}$$
Recall that the Christoffel symbols are given by the formula
$$\begin{array}{c}
\Gamma_{ij}^{k}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l}{g^{kl}(g_{il,j}+g_{jl,i}-g_{ij,l})}.
\end{array}$$
Differentiating (\[3.1\]), gives
$$\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}g_{jl}=0+\sum{a_{jl}^{st}(x_s \delta_{ti}+x_t \delta_{si})}+\hdots
\end{array}$$
Hence
$$\begin{array}{c}
g_{il,j}+g_{jl,i}-g_{ij,l}=O(|x|).
\end{array}$$
We must now deal with the $g^{kl}$ terms. Let $(g_{kl})=(I)+(Y)$ where the $I$ is the identity matrix and $Y$ is the matrix $(a_{kl}^{ij}x_{i}x_{j}+O(|x|^3))$. Recall the following elementary fact.\
$$\begin{array}{c}
(1+a)^{-1}=1-a+a^2-a^3+\hdots
\end{array}$$
Thus we can write
$$\begin{array}{c}
(g^{kl})=(I)-(Y)+(Y)^2-(Y)^3+\hdots
\end{array}$$
Each component of this matrix has the form\
$$\begin{array}{c}
g^{kl}=\delta_{kl}+O(|x|^2).
\end{array}$$
Finally we obtain $$\begin{array}{c}
\Gamma_{ij}^{k}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l}{(\delta_{ij}+O(|x|^2))(O(|x|))}=O(|x|).
\end{array}$$
We will now compute the scalar second fundamental form on tangent vectors to the geodesic sphere $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$. Consider the smooth curve $\alpha$ on $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$ given by
$$\begin{array}{c}
\alpha(s)=(\epsilon\cos{\frac{s}{\epsilon}},\epsilon\sin{\frac{s}{\epsilon}},0,\cdots,0).
\end{array}$$
Velocity vectors of this curve are tangent vectors to $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$ and have the form
$$\begin{array}{c}
\dot{\alpha}(s)=(-\sin{\frac{s}{\epsilon}},\cos{\frac{s}{\epsilon}},0,\cdots,0).
\end{array}$$
Letting $\xi$ denote the exterior unit normal vector field to $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$, we have
$$\begin{array}{c}
\xi(\alpha(0))=\frac{\alpha(0)}{|\alpha(0)|}=(1,0,\cdots,0)=e_1.
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{c}
\dot{\alpha}(0)=(0,1,0,\cdots,0)=e_2.
\end{array}$$
We will now proceed to compute the scalar second fundamental form at $\alpha(0)$. We denote by
$$\begin{array}{c}
A:T_{\alpha(0)} S^{n-1}(\epsilon)\times T_{\alpha(0)} S^{n-1}(\epsilon)\rightarrow \mathbb{R},
\end{array}$$
the scalar second fundamental form and by
$$\begin{array}{c}
S: T_{\alpha(0)} S^{n-1}(\epsilon)\rightarrow T_{\alpha(0)} S^{n-1}(\epsilon),
\end{array}$$
the shape operator, for the hypersurface $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)\subset D$. Recall that,
$$\begin{array}{c}
S(X_{\alpha(0)})=-\nabla_{X}\xi,
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{c}
A(X_{\alpha(0)},Y_{\alpha(0)})=g(S(X_{\alpha(0)}), Y)
\end{array}$$
where $X,Y$ are tangent vector fields on $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$, and that $A$ only depends on $X$ and $Y$ at $p$. We now compute
$$\begin{array}{cl}
A(\dot{\alpha}(0),\dot{\alpha}(0))&=g(S(\dot{\alpha}(0)),\dot{\alpha})\\
&=g(-\nabla_{\dot{\alpha}}\xi,\dot{\alpha})_{\alpha(0)}\\
&=-\dot{\alpha}[g(\xi,\dot{\alpha})](\alpha(0))+g(\nabla_{\dot{\alpha}}{\dot{\alpha}},\xi)_{\alpha(0)}\\
&=0+g(\nabla_{\dot{\alpha}}{\dot{\alpha}},e_1)\\
&=\ddot{\alpha}^{(1)}(0)+\sum_{i,j}{\alpha_{ij}^{1}\dot{\alpha}^{(i)}\dot{\alpha}^{(j)}}(0).
\end{array}$$
The components of the velocity vector are
$$\begin{array}{c}
\dot{\alpha}^{(1)}=-\sin{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}, \qquad
\dot{\alpha}^{(2)}=\cos{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}, \qquad
\dot{\alpha}^{(j)}=0, \hspace{2mm}j\geq 3,
\end{array}$$
while $$\begin{array}{c}
\ddot{\alpha}^{(1)}=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\cos{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}.
\end{array}$$
Thus, $$\begin{array}{c}
(\ddot{\alpha}^{(1)}+\sum_{i,j}{\alpha_{ij}^{1}\dot{\alpha}^{(i)}\dot{\alpha}^{(j)}})(s)=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\cos{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}+\alpha_{11}^{1}\sin^{2}{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}-2\alpha_{12}^{1}\sin{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}\cos{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}+\alpha_{22}^{1}\cos^{2}{\frac{s}{\epsilon}}.
\end{array}$$
Hence, $$\begin{array}{c}
(\ddot{\alpha}^{(1)}+\sum_{i,j}{\alpha_{ij}^{1}\dot{\alpha}^{(i)}\dot{\alpha}^{(j)}})(0)=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\alpha_{22}^{1}(\epsilon,0,\cdots,0)=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon).
\end{array}$$
We now have that $A(\dot{\alpha}(0),\dot{\alpha}(0))=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon)$. Finally we need to normalise the vector $\dot{\alpha}(0)$.
We can write $$\begin{array}{c}
A(\dot{\alpha}(0),\dot{\alpha}(0))=|\dot{\alpha}(0)|^{2}A(v,v)
\end{array}$$
where $v$ is the unit length vector $\frac{\dot{\alpha}(0)}{|\dot{\alpha}(0)|}$.
$$\begin{array}{cl}
|\dot{\alpha}(0)|^{2}&=g(\dot{\alpha}(0),\dot{\alpha}(0))\\
&=g(e_2,e_2)_{(\epsilon,0,\cdots,0)}\\
&=g_{22}(\epsilon,0,\cdots,0)\\
&=\delta_{22}+(\sum_{k,l}{a_{22}^{kl}{x_k}{x_l}}+O(|x|^3))(\epsilon,0,\cdots,0)\\
&=1+a_{22}^{11}\epsilon^{2}+O(|x|^3)\\
&=1+O(\epsilon^2).
\end{array}$$
We now have that $$\begin{array}{c}
A(\dot{\alpha}(0),\dot{\alpha}(0))=(1+O(\epsilon^2))A(v,v).
\end{array}$$
That is $$\begin{array}{c}
-\frac{1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon)=(1+O(\epsilon^2))A(v,v).
\end{array}$$
This means that $$\begin{array}{c}
A(v,v)=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon)+O(\epsilon^2)=-\frac{1}{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon).
\end{array}$$
By an orthogonal change of coordinates (another choice of orthonormal basis $\{e_1,...e_n\}$), this computation is valid for any unit vector. In particular, it holds if $v$ is a principal direction. Hence the principal curvatures have the desired form. This proves part (a).
The second part of the lemma is more straightforward. We can compare the induced metrics $g_{\epsilon}$ on $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$ for decreasing values of $\epsilon$ by pulling back onto $S^{n-1}(1)$ via the map
$f_\epsilon:S^{n-1}(1) \rightarrow S^{n-1}{(\epsilon)}$
$x\longmapsto \epsilon x$
Then at a point $x$ where $|x|=1$, we have
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}f_{\epsilon}^{*}(g_\epsilon)(x)&=\sum_{i,j}{g_{ij}(\epsilon x)}dx_i dx_j\\
&=\sum_{i,j}(\delta_{ij}+\epsilon^{2}{\sum_{i,j}{a_{ij}^{kl}x_k x_l}})dx_i dx_j+\epsilon^{3}(\text{higher order terms}).
\end{array}$$
In the $C^2$-topology (that is, in the zeroth, first and second order terms of the Taylor series expansion), $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}f_{\epsilon}^{*}(g_\epsilon)$ converges to the standard Euclidean metric in some neighbourhood of $S^{n-1}(1)$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. As $f_\epsilon$ is a diffeomorphism, the metric $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}(g_\epsilon)$ is isometric to $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}f_{\epsilon}^{*}(g_\epsilon)$ and converges (in $C^{2}$) to the standard metric in some neighbourhood of $S^{n-1}(\epsilon)$. This proves part (b) and completes the proof of Lemma \[GLlemma1\].
Recall, in the proof of Theorem \[IsotopyTheorem\], we deform a psc-metric $g$ on a smooth manifold $X$ inside a tubular neighbourhood $N=S^{p}\times D^{q+1}$ of an embedded sphere $S^{p}$. Here $q\geq 2$. We do this by specifying a hypersurface $M$ inside $N\times \mathbb{R}$, shown in Fig. \[hypermappendix\] and inducing a metric from the ambient metric $g+dt^{2}$. The hypersurface $M$ is defined as
$$M_{\gamma}=\{(y,x,t)\in S^{p}\times D^{q+1}(\bar{r})\times\mathbb{R}:(r(x),t)\in{\gamma}\}.$$
where $\gamma$ is the curve shown in Fig. \[gammaappendix\] and $r$ denotes radial distance from $S^{p}$ on $N$. The induced metric is denoted $g_\gamma$. The fact that $\gamma$ is a vertical line near the point $(0,\bar{r})$ means that $g_\gamma=g$, near $\p{N}$. Thus $\gamma$ specifies a metric on $X$ which is the orginal metric $g$ outside of $N$ and then transitions smoothly to the metric $g_\gamma$. For a more detailed description, see section \[surgerysection\]. In the following lemmas we compute the scalar curvature of $g_\gamma$.
(0,0)![The curve $\gamma$[]{data-label="gammaappendix"}](glcurve.eps "fig:"){height="60mm"}
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(3889,2884)(1374,-4954) (1180,-4690)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-4375)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-2825)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-3145)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1180,-2553)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1700,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2294,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2414,-3938)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1800,-4375)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (4159,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2294,-4640)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1430,-5088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1500,-3145)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
(0,0)![The hypersurface $M$ in $N\times\mathbb{R}$, the sphere $S^{p}$ is represented schematically as a pair of points[]{data-label="hypermappendix"}](hyperm.eps "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(4666,3733)(1218,-3861) (5869,-2318)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1716,-282)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2398,-386)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (2512,-933)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1972,-933)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1365,-1367)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1417,-1088)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[principalMapp\] The prinipal curvatures to $M$ with respect to the outward unit normal vector field have the form $$\begin{array}{cl}
\lambda_j =
\begin{cases}
k & \text{if $j=1$}\\
(-\frac{1}{r}+O(r))\sin{\theta} & \text{if $2\leq j\leq q+1$}\\
O(1)\sin{\theta} & \text{if $q+2\leq j\leq n$}.
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$ Here $k$ is the curvature of $\gamma$, $\theta$ is the angle between the outward normal vector $\eta$ and the horizontal (or the outward normal to the curve $\gamma$ and the $t$-axis) and the corresponding principle directions $e_j$ are tangent to the curve $\gamma$ when $j=1$, the fibre sphere $S^{q}$ when $2\leq j\leq q+1$ and $S^{p}$ when $q+2\leq j\leq n$.
Let $w=(y,x,t)\in S^{p}\times D^{q+1}\times\mathbb{R}$ be a point on $M$. Let $l$ be the geodesic ray emanating from $y\times\{0\}$ in $N$ through the point $(y,x)$. The surface $l\times\mathbb{R}$ in $N\times R$ can be thought of as an embedding of $[0,\bar{r})\times \mathbb{R}$, given by the map $(r,t)\mapsto (l_r,t)$ where $l_r$ is the point on $l$ of length $r$ from $y\times\{0\}$. We will denote by $\gamma_{l}$, the curve $M\cap{l\times{\mathbb{R}}}$. This can be parameterised by composing the parameterisation of $\gamma$ with the above embedding. We will denote by $\dot{\gamma_l}_w$, the velocity vector of this curve at $w$. Finally we denote by $\eta$, the outward pointing unit normal vector field to $M$.
We now make a couple of observations.
\(a) The surface $l\times\mathbb{R}$ is a totally geodesic surface in $N\times\mathbb{R}$. This can be seen from the fact that any geodesic in $l\times\mathbb{R}$ projects onto geodesics in $l$ and $\mathbb{R}$. But $D\times\mathbb{R}$ is a Riemannian product and so such a curve is therefore a geodesic in $D\times\mathbb{R}$.
\(b) The vector $\eta$ is tangential to $l\times\mathbb{R}$. This can be seen by decomposing $\eta$ into orthogonal components $$\begin{array}{c}
\eta=\eta_N+\eta_\mathbb{R}.
\end{array}$$ Here $\eta_N$ is tangent to $N$ and $\eta_\mathbb{R}$ is tangent to $\mathbb{R}$. Now $\eta_N$ is orthogonal to the geodesic sphere $S^{q}(r)_y$, centered at $y\times\{0\}$ with radius $r=|x|$. By Gauss’s Lemma, we know that $l$ runs orthogonally through $S^{q}(r)_y$ and so $\eta_N$ is tangent to $l$. Hence $\eta$ is tangent to $l\times {\mathbb{R}}$.
We will now show that $\gamma_l$ is a principal curve in $M$. Let $S^M$ denote the shape operator for $M$ in $N\times \mathbb{R}$ and $S^{\gamma_l}$, the shape operator for $\gamma_l$ in $l\times \mathbb{R}$. Both shape operators are defined with respect to $\eta$.
$$\begin{array}{cl}
S^M(\dot{\gamma_l})&=-\nabla^{N\times{\mathbb{R}}}_{\dot{\gamma_l}}\eta\\
&=(-\nabla^{N\times{\mathbb{R}}}_{\dot{\gamma_l}}\eta)^{T}+(-\nabla^{N\times{\mathbb{R}}}_{\dot{\gamma_l}}\eta)^{\perp}\\
&=-\nabla^{l\times{\mathbb{R}}}_{\dot{\gamma_l}}\eta+0\\
&=S^{\gamma_l}(\dot{\gamma_l}).
\end{array}$$
The third equality is a direct consequence of the fact that $l\times\mathbb{R}$ is a totally geodesic surface in $N\times\mathbb{R}$. Now as $T{\gamma_l}$, the tangent bundle of the curve $\gamma_l$, is a one-dimensional bundle, $\dot{\gamma_l}_w$ must be an eigenvector of $S^M$. Hence $\gamma_l$ is a principal curve. The corresponding principal curvature is of course the curvature of $\gamma$, which we denote by $k$.
At $w$, we denote the principal direction $\dot{\gamma_l}_w$ by $e_1$. The other principal directions we denote by $e_2,\cdots, e_n$, where $e_2,\cdots,e_{q+1}$ are tangent to the $S^{q}(r)$ factor and $e_{q+2},\cdots,e_{n}$ are tangent to $S^{p}$. Recall that the set $\{e_1,\cdots,e_n\}$ forms an orthonormal basis for $T_w M$. The corresponding principal curvatures will be denoted $\lambda_1=k,\lambda_2,\cdots,\lambda_n$. Our next task is to compute these principal curvatures.
Let $A$ denote the second fundamental form for $M$ in $N\times{\mathbb{R}}$ with respect to the outward normal vector $\eta$. Let $A^N$ denote the second fundamental form for $S^{p}\times S^{q}(r)$ in $N$, again with respect to $\eta$, and $\lambda_j^{N}$ the corresponding principal curvatures. When $2\leq j\leq n$,
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\lambda_j&=A(e_j,e_j)\\
&=-g(\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}\eta,e_j)\\
&=-g(\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}({\cos{\theta}{\p_t}}+{\sin{\theta}\p_r}),e_j)\\
&=-g(\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}{\cos{\theta}{\p_t}},e_j)-g(\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}{\sin{\theta}\p_r},e_j).
\end{array}$$
where $\p_t$ and $\p_r$ are the coordinate vector fields for the $t$ and $r$ coordinates respectively. Now,
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}{\cos{\theta}{\p_t}}&=\cos{\theta}\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}{{\p_t}}+\partial_j(\cos{\theta})\cdot\p_t\\
&=\cos{\theta}\cdot 0+0\cdot\p_t\\
&=0.
\end{array}$$
However,
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}{\sin{\theta}\p_r}&=\sin{\theta}\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}\p_r+\partial_j(\sin{\theta})\cdot\p_r\\
&=\sin{\theta}\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}\p_r+0\cdot\p_r\\
&=\sin{\theta}\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}\p_r.
\end{array}$$
Hence,
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\lambda_j&=-\sin{\theta}.g(\nabla_{e_j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}\p_r,e_j)\\
&=\sin{\theta}\cdot A^N(e_j,e_j)\\
&=\sin{\theta}\cdot\lambda_j^{N}.
\end{array}$$
We know from Lemma \[GLlemma1\] that when $2\leq j\leq q+1$, $\lambda_j^{N}=-\frac{1}{r}+O(r)$. When $q+2\leq j\leq n$, $\lambda_j^{N}=O(1)$ as here the curvature is bounded. Hence the principal curvatures to $M$ are
$$\begin{array}{c}
\lambda_j =
\begin{cases}
k & \text{if $j=1$}\\
(-\frac{1}{r}+O(r))\sin{\theta} & \text{if $2\leq j\leq q+1$}\\
O(1)\sin{\theta} & \text{if $q+2\leq j\leq n$}.
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$
\[scalarMapp\] The scalar curvature of the metric induced on $M$ is given by $$\label{scalarMeqnapp}
\begin{split}
R^{M}&=R^{N}+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)-2k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +2q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}.
\end{split}
$$
The Gauss Curvature Equation gives that
$$\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{2}R^{M}=\sum_{i<j}(K_{ij}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}+\lambda_i\lambda_j)
\end{array}$$
where $K^{N\times\mathbb{R}}$ denotes sectional curvature on $N\times\mathbb{R}$. Before we continue we should examine $K^{N\times\mathbb{R}}$. When $2\leq i,j\leq n$,
$$\begin{array}{c}
K_{ij}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}=K_{ij}^{N}.
\end{array}$$
When $2\leq j\leq n$,
$$\label{earlier}
\begin{array}{cl}
K_{ij}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}&= {Rm}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}(e_1,e_j,e_j,e_1)\\
&=Rm^{N\times\mathbb{R}}(-\cos{\theta}\p_r+\sin{\theta}\p_t,e_j,e_j,-\cos{\theta}\p_r+\sin{\theta}\p_t)\\
&=\cos^{2}{\theta}\cdot Rm^{N\times\mathbb{R}}(\p_r,e_j,e_j,\p_r) +\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot Rm^{N\times\mathbb{R}}(\p_t,e_j,e_j,\p_t)\\
&=\cos^{2}{\theta}\cdot Rm^{N\times\mathbb{R}}(\p_r,e_j,e_j,\p_r)+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot 0\\
&=\cos^{2}{\theta}\cdot Rm^{N}(\p_r,e_j,e_j,\p_r)\\
&=\cos^{2}{\theta}\cdot K_{\p_rj}^{N}.
\end{array}$$
Now,
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{1}{2}R^{M}&=\sum_{i<j}(K_{ij}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}+\lambda_i\lambda_j)\\
&=\sum_{j\leq 2}K_{1j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}+\sum_{1\neq i<j}K_{ij}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}+\sum_{i<j}\lambda_i\lambda_j.
\end{array}$$
From (\[earlier\]),
$$\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{j\leq 2}K_{1j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}=(1-\sin^{2}{\theta})\sum_{j\geq 2}K_{\p_rj}^{N}.
\end{array}$$
Hence,
$$\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{j\leq 2}K_{1j}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}+\sum_{1\neq i<j}K_{ij}^{N\times\mathbb{R}}=\frac{1}{2}R^{N}-\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot Ric^N(\p_r,\p_r).
\end{array}$$
Next we deal with $\sum_{i<j}\lambda_i\lambda_j$.
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\sum_{i<j}\lambda_i\lambda_j&= k\sum_{j\geq 2}\lambda_j+\sum_{2\leq i<j\leq q+1}\lambda_i\lambda_j+\sum_{2\leq i\leq q+1,q+2\leq j\leq n}\lambda_i\lambda_j+\sum_{q+2\leq i<j\leq n}\lambda_i\lambda_j\\\\
&=k\cdot{q}(-\frac{1}{r}+O(r))\sin{\theta}+kO(1)\sin{\theta}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +q(q-1)(-\frac{1}{r}+O(r))^{2}\sin^{2}{\theta}\\
& \hspace{0.4cm}+q(-\frac{1}{r}+O(r))O(1)\sin^{2}{\theta}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +O(1)\sin^{2}{\theta}.
\end{array}$$
Thus,
$$\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{1}{2}R^{M}&=\frac{1}{2}R^{N}-\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot Ric^{N}(\p_r,\p_r)\\
&\hspace{0.4cm}-q\frac{k\sin{\theta}}{r}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}+k\cdot O(1)\sin{\theta}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +q(q-1)(\frac{1}{r^{2}}+O(1))\sin^{2}{\theta}\\
& \hspace{0.4cm}-\frac{q}{r}\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)+q\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(r)\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)\\\\
&=\frac{1}{2}R^{N}-\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot [Ric^{N}(\p_r,\p_r)+q(q-1)O(1)+O(1)+qO(r)]\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} -k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}+q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +k\cdot O(1)\sin{\theta}-\frac{q}{r}\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)\\\\
&=\frac{1}{2}R^{N}+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)-[k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}-k\cdot O(1)\sin{\theta}]\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +[q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}-\frac{q}{r}\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)]\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}.
\end{array}$$
When $r$ is small, this reduces to (\[scalarMeqnapp\]), i.e.
$$\begin{array}{cl}
R^{M}&=R^{N}+\sin^{2}{\theta}\cdot O(1)-2k\cdot q\frac{\sin{\theta}}{r}\\
&\hspace{0.4cm} +2q(q-1)\frac{\sin^{2}{\theta}}{r^2}+k\cdot qO(r)\sin{\theta}.
\end{array}$$
[1]{}
K. Akutagawa and B. Botvinnik, [*Manifolds of positive scalar curvature and conformal cobordism theory,*]{} [Math. Ann]{} [ **324**]{}, no. 4, 2002, 817-840.
Arthur L. Besse, [*Einstein Manifolds,*]{} [ Springer-Verlag]{} (Berlin, 1987), Chapter 9
B. Botvinnik and P.B. Gilkey, [*The eta invariant and metrics of positive scalar curvature,*]{} [Math. Ann]{} [**302**]{}, no. 3, 1995, 507-517.
R. Carr, [*Construction of manifolds of positive scalar curvature*]{}, [ Trans. A.M.S.]{} [**307**]{}, no. 1, May 1988, 63-74.
J. Cerf, [*La stratification naturelle des espaces de fonctions differentiables reelles et le theoreme de la pseudo-isotopie,*]{} [ Publications mathematiques de l’I.H.E.S., tome 39]{} (1970), p. 5-173.
V. Chernysh, [*On the homotopy type of the space $ \mathcal{R}^{+}(M)$,*]{} [ Preprint, arXiv:math.GT/0405235]{}
R.L. Cohen, [*A decomposition of the space of generalized Morse functions,*]{} [ Algebraic topology and algebraic $K$-theory]{} (Princeton, N.J., 1983), 365–391
Y. Eliashberg and N.M. Mishachev, [*Wrinkling of smooth mappings and its applications. I,*]{} [Invent. math. 130, 345-369]{} (Springer-Verlag 1997)
Y. Eliashberg and N.M. Mishachev, [*Wrinkling of smooth mappings-II Wrinkling of embeddings and K.Igusa’s theorem,*]{} [Topology 39]{} (2000) 711-732
P. Gajer, [*Riemannian metrics of positive scalar curvature on compact manifolds with boundary,*]{} [ Ann. Global Anal. Geom.]{} [**5**]{}, no. 3 (1987) 179-191.
M. Gromov and H. B. Lawson, Jr., [*The classification of simply-connected manifolds of positive scalar curvature,*]{} [ Ann. of Math.]{} [**111**]{} (1980), 423-434.
M. Gromov and H. B. Lawson, Jr., [*Positive scalar curvature and the Dirac operator on complete Riemannian manifolds,*]{} [ Publ. Math. I.H.E.S., no. 58]{} (1983), 83-196 .
A Hatcher and J Wagoner, [*Pseudo-Isotopies of Compact Manifolds,*]{} [Societe Mathematique de France ]{} (1973).
M. W. Hirsch , [*Differential Topology,*]{} [ Springer]{} (1980)
K. Igusa, [*Higher singularities of smooth functions are unnecessary,*]{} [Annals of Mathematics]{}, 2nd Ser., Vol. 119, No.1 (Jan., 1984), pp 1-58.
K. Igusa, [*On the homotopy type of the space of generalized Morse functions,*]{} [ Topology]{} [**23**]{} (1984), 245-256.
K. Igusa, [*The space of framed functions,*]{} [ Trans. A.M.S.]{} [**301**]{}, no. 2, June 1987, 431-437
K. Igusa, [*The stability theorem for smooth pseudoisotopies,*]{} [K-Theory]{} [**2**]{} (1988) 1-355
D.D. Joyce, [*Compact 8-manifolds with holonomy Spin(7),*]{} [ Invent. Math.]{} [**123**]{} (1996), no. 3, 507-552.
A. Lichnerowicz, [*Spineurs harmoniques*]{}, [ C. R. Acad. Sci Paris, Ser. A-B]{} [**257**]{} (1963), 7-9.
J. Milnor, [*Lectures on the h-Cobordism Theorem*]{}, [Princeton Univ. Press]{} (1965).
P. Peterson, [*Riemannian Geometry 2nd Edition,*]{} [ Springer]{}.
A. Ranicki, [*Algebraic and Geometric Surgery,*]{} [ Oxford University Press]{} (2002).
J. Rosenberg and S. Stolz, [*Metrics of positive scalar curvature and connections with surgery,*]{} [ Surveys on Surgery Theory,]{} Vol. 2, Ann. of Math. Studies 149, Princeton Univ. Press, 2001.
D. Ruberman, [*Positive scalar curvature, diffeomorphisms and the Seiberg-Witten invariants.*]{} Geom. Topol. 5 (2001), 895–924
R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, [*On the structure of manifolds with positive scalar curvature,*]{} [ Manuscripta Math.]{} [**28**]{} (1979), 159-183.
S. Stolz, [*Simply connected manifolds with positive scalar curvature,*]{} [ Ann. of Math., 2nd Series]{} [**136**]{}, no. 3 (1979), 511-540.
S. Stolz, [*Concordance classes of positive scalar curvature metrics*]{}, [Preprint, University of Notre Dame, http://www.nd.edu/$\tilde{\ }$stolz/preprint.html]{}
H. Whitney, [*Differentiable Manifolds,*]{} [ Ann. of Math.]{} [vol. 37]{} (1936), pp. 511-540.
[*E-mail address:*]{} [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove constructive estimates for elastic plates modelled by the Reissner-Mindlin theory and made by general anisotropic material. Namely, we obtain a generalized Korn inequality which allows to derive quantitative stability and global $H^2$ regularity for the Neumann problem. Moreover, in case of isotropic material, we derive an interior three spheres inequality with optimal exponent from which the strong unique continuation property follows.'
author:
- 'Antonino Morassi[^1], Edi Rosset[^2] and Sergio Vessella[^3]'
title: 'A generalized Korn inequality and strong unique continuation for the Reissner-Mindlin plate system [^4]'
---
**Mathematical Subject Classifications (2010):** 35J57, 74K20, 35B60.
**Key words:** elastic plates, Korn inequalities, quantitative unique continuation, regularity.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the present paper we consider elastic plates modelled by the Reissner-Mindlin theory. This theory was developed for moderately thick plates, that is for plates whose thickness is of the order of one tenth of the planar dimensions of the middle surface [@Rei45], [@Min51]. Our aim is to give a rigorous, thorough and self-contained presentation of mathematical results concerning the Neumann problem, a boundary value problem which poses interesting features which, at our knowledge, have not yet been pointed out in the literature.
Throughout the paper we consider an elastic plate $\Omega \times
\left [ - \frac{h}{2}, \frac{h}{2} \right ]$, where $\Omega
\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is the middle surface and $h$ is the constant thickness of the plate. A transversal force field $\overline{Q}$ and a couple field $\overline{M}$ are applied at the boundary of the plate. According to the Reissner-Mindlin model, at any point $x=(x_1,x_2)$ of $\Omega$ we denote by $w=w(x)$ and $\omega_\alpha(x)$, $\alpha=1,2$, the infinitesimal transversal displacement at $x$ and the infinitesimal rigid rotation of the transversal material fiber thorugh $x$, respectively. Therefore, the pair $(\varphi,w)$, with $(\varphi_1=\omega_2,\varphi_2=-\omega_1)$, satisfies the following Neumann boundary value problem
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}(S(\varphi+\nabla w))=0
& \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}({\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi)-S(\varphi+\nabla w)=0, & \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
(S(\varphi+\nabla w))\cdot n= \overline{Q},
& \mathrm{on}\ \partial \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
({\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi) n = \overline{M}, &\mathrm{on}\ \partial
\Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -7.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:intro-1}\\
& & \label{eq:intro-2}\\
& & \label{eq:intro-3}\\
& & \label{eq:intro-4}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\mathbb P}$ and $S$ are the fourth-order bending tensor and the shearing matrix of the plate, respectively. The vector $n$ denotes the outer unit normal to $\Omega$.
The weak formulation of – consists in determining $(\varphi,w)\in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)\times
H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:var_for}
a((\varphi,w), (\psi,v)) =\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{Q} v + \overline{M}\cdot \psi, \quad \forall \psi\in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2), \forall v\in H^1(\Omega),$$ where $$\label{eq:bil_for}
a((\varphi,w), (\psi,v)) = \int_\Omega {\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi\cdot \nabla \psi + \int_\Omega S(\varphi+\nabla w)\cdot
(\psi+\nabla v).$$ The coercivity of the bilinear form $a(\cdot,\cdot)$ in the subspace $${\mathcal H} =\left\{(\psi,v)\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1(\Omega)\ |\ \int_\Omega \psi =0, \int_\Omega v =0\right\}$$ with respect to the norm induced by $H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1(\Omega)$ is not standard. To prove this property – in other terms, the equivalence of the standard norm in ${\mathcal H}$ with the norm induced by the energy functional – we derive the following generalized Korn-type inequality $$\label{eq:gener_korn}
\|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq C\left(\|\widehat{\nabla} \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|\varphi+\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right), \forall \varphi\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2), \forall w\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}),$$ where $\widehat \nabla$ denotes the symmetric part of the gradient and the constant $C$ is constructively determined in terms of the parameters describing the geometrical properties of the Lipschitz domain $\Omega$. Inequality allows to solve the Neumann problem and provides a quantitative stability estimate in the $H^1$ norm.
Assuming Lipschitz continuous coefficients and $C^{1,1}$ regularity of the boundary, we prove global $H^2$ regularity estimates. For the proof, which is mainly based on the regularity theory developed by Agmon [@Ag65] and Campanato [@Ca80], a key role is played by quantitative Poincaré inequalities for functions vanishing on a portion of the boundary, derived in [@A-M-R08].
Finally, in case of isotropic material, we adapt arguments in [@LNW2010] to $H^2$ solutions of the plate system –, obtaining a three spheres inequality with optimal exponent and, as a standard consequence, we derive the strong unique continuation property.
Let us notice that the constructive character of all the estimates derived in the present paper is crucial for possible applications to inverse problems associated to the Neumann problem –. As a future direction of research, we plan to use such results to treat inverse problems concerning the determination of defects, such as elastic inclusions, in isotropic elastic plates modelled by the Reissner-Mindlin model.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:notation\] we collect the notation and in section \[sec:model\] we present a self-contained derivation of the mechanical model for general anisotropic material. Section \[sec:korn\] contains the proof of the generalized Korn-type inequality , which is the key ingredient used in section \[sec:direct\] to study the Neumann problem. In section \[sec:reg\] we derive $H^2$ global regularity estimates. In Section \[sec:UC\] we state and prove the three spheres inequality. Finally, section \[sec:appendix\] is an Appendix where we have postponed some technical estimates about regularity up to the boundary.
Notation {#sec:notation}
========
Let $P=(x_1(P), x_2(P))$ be a point of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. We shall denote by $B_r(P)$ the disk in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ of radius $r$ and center $P$ and by $R_{a,b}(P)$ the rectangle $R_{a,b}(P)=\{x=(x_1,x_2)\ |\ |x_1-x_1(P)|<a,\ |x_2-x_2(P)|<b \}$. To simplify the notation, we shall denote $B_r=B_r(O)$, $R_{a,b}=R_{a,b}(O)$.
\[def:2.1\] (${C}^{k,1}$ regularity) Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}$. Given $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we say that a portion $S$ of $\partial \Omega$ is of *class ${C}^{k,1}$ with constants $\rho_{0}$, $M_{0}>0$*, if, for any $P \in S$, there exists a rigid transformation of coordinates under which we have $P=0$ and $$\Omega \cap R_{\frac{\rho_0}{M_0},\rho_0}=\{x=(x_1,x_2) \in R_{\frac{\rho_0}{M_0},\rho_0}\quad | \quad
x_{2}>\psi(x_1)
\},$$ where $\psi$ is a ${C}^{k,1}$ function on $\left(-\frac{\rho_0}{M_0},\frac{\rho_0}{M_0}\right)$ satisfying $$\psi(0)=0, \quad \psi' (0)=0, \quad \hbox {when } k \geq 1,$$ $$\|\psi\|_{{C}^{k,1}\left(-\frac{\rho_0}{M_0},\frac{\rho_0}{M_0}\right)} \leq M_{0}\rho_{0}.$$
When $k=0$ we also say that $S$ is of *Lipschitz class with constants $\rho_{0}$, $M_{0}$*.
\[rem:2.1\] We use the convention to normalize all norms in such a way that their terms are dimensionally homogeneous with the $L^\infty$ norm and coincide with the standard definition when the dimensional parameter equals one, see [@MRV07] for details.
Given a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\partial
\Omega$ is of class $C^{k,1}$, with $k\geq 1$, we consider as positive the orientation of the boundary induced by the outer unit normal $n$ in the following sense. Given a point $P\in\partial\Omega$, let us denote by $\tau=\tau(P)$ the unit tangent at the boundary in $P$ obtained by applying to $n$ a counterclockwise rotation of angle $\frac{\pi}{2}$, that is $\tau=e_3 \times n$, where $\times$ denotes the vector product in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, $\{e_1,
e_2\}$ is the canonical basis in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $e_3=e_1 \times e_2$. We denote by $\mathbb{M}^2$ the space of $2 \times 2$ real valued matrices and by ${\mathcal L} (X, Y)$ the space of bounded linear operators between Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$.
For every $2 \times 2$ matrices $A$, $B$ and for every $\mathbb{L}
\in{\mathcal L} ({\mathbb{M}}^{2}, {\mathbb{M}}^{2})$, we use the following notation: $$\label{eq:2.notation_1}
({\mathbb{L}}A)_{ij} = L_{ijkl}A_{kl},$$ $$\label{eq:2.notation_2}
A \cdot B = A_{ij}B_{ij}, \quad |A|= (A \cdot A)^{\frac {1} {2}}.$$ Notice that here and in the sequel summation over repeated indexes is implied.
The Reissner-Mindlin plate model {#sec:model}
================================
The Reissner-Mindlin plate is a classical model for plates having moderate thickness [@Rei45], [@Min51]. The Reissner-Mindlin plate theory can be rigorously deduced from the three-dimensional linear elasticity using arguments of $\Gamma$-convergence of the energy functional, as it was shown in [@P-PPG-T-07]. Our aim in this section is more modest, namely, we simply derive the boundary value problem governing the statical equilibrium of an elastic Reissner-Mindlin plate under Neumann boundary conditions following the engineering approach of the Theory of Structures. This allows us to introduce some notations useful in the sequel and to make the presentation of the physical problem complete.
Let us consider a plate $\Omega \times \left [ - \frac{h}{2},
\frac{h}{2} \right ]$ with middle surface represented by a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ having uniform thickness $h$ and boundary $\partial \Omega$ of class $C^{1,1}$. In this section we adopt the convention that Greek indexes assume the values $1,2$, whereas Latin indexes run from $1$ to $3$.
We follow the direct approach to define the infinitesimal deformation of the plate. In particular, we restrict ourselves to the case in which the points $x=(x_1,x_2)$ of the middle surface $\Omega$ are subject to transversal displacement $w(x_1,x_2)e_3$, and any transversal material fiber $\{x\}\times \left [ -
\frac{h}{2}, \frac{h}{2} \right ]$, $x\in \Omega$, undergoes an infinitesimal rigid rotation $\omega(x)$, with $\omega(x)\cdot e_3
=0$. In this section we shall be concerned exclusively with regular functions on their domain of definition. The above kinematical assumptions imply that the displacement field present in the plate is given by the following three-dimensional vector field: $$\label{eq:anto-1.2}
u(x,x_3)=w(x)e_3 + x_3 \varphi (x), \quad x\in
\overline{\Omega}, \ |x_3| \leq \frac{h}{2},$$ where $$\label{eq:anto-1.3}
\varphi (x) = \omega (x) \times e_3, \quad x\in
\overline{\Omega}.$$ By and , the associated infinitesimal strain tensor $E[u]\in {\mathbb{M}}^3$ takes the form $$\label{eq:anto-2.3}
E[u](x,x_3) \equiv (\nabla u)^{sym}(x,x_3)= x_3 (\nabla_x
\varphi(x) )^{sym} + (\gamma(x) \otimes e_3)^{sym},$$ where $\nabla_x (\cdot)= \frac{\partial}{\partial x_\alpha}
(\cdot ) e_\alpha $ is the surface gradient operator, $\nabla^{sym}(\cdot)= \frac{1}{2} ( \nabla (\cdot) + \nabla^T
(\cdot))$, and $$\label{eq:anto-2.4}
\gamma(x)=\varphi(x) + \nabla_x w(x).$$ Within the approximation of the theory of infinitesimal deformations, $\gamma$ expresses the angular deviation between the transversal material fiber at $x$ and the normal direction to the deformed middle surface of the plate at $x$.
The classical deduction of the mechanical model of a thin plate follows essentially from integration over the thickness of the corresponding three-dimensional quantities. In particular, taking advantage of the infinitesimal deformation assumption, we can refer the independent variables to the initial undeformed configuration of the plate.
Let us introduce an arbitrary portion $\Omega' \times \left [ -
\frac{h}{2}, \frac{h}{2} \right ]$ of plate, where $\Omega'
\subset \subset \Omega$ is a subdomain of $\Omega$ with regular boundary. Consider the material fiber $\{x\}\times \left [ -
\frac{h}{2}, \frac{h}{2} \right ]$ for $x\in \partial \Omega'$ and denote by $t(x,x_3,e_\alpha)\in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, $|x_3| \leq \frac{h}{2}$, the *traction vector* acting on a plane containing the direction of the fiber and orthogonal to the direction $e_\alpha$. By Cauchy’s Lemma we have $t(x,x_3,e_\alpha)=T(x,x_3)e_\alpha$, where $T(x,x_3) \in {\mathbb{M}}^{3}$ is the (symmetric) Cauchy stress tensor at the point $(x,x_3)$. Denote by $n$ the unit outer normal vector to $\partial \Omega'$ such that $n\cdot e_3=0$. To simplify the notation, it is convenient to consider $n$ as a two-dimensional vector belonging to the plane $x_3=0$ containing the middle surface $\Omega$ of the plate. By the classical Stress Principle for plates, we postulate that the two complementary parts $\Omega'$ and $\Omega \setminus \Omega'$ interact with one another through a field of force vectors $R=R(x,n)\in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ and couple vectors $M=M(x,n) \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ assigned per unit length at $x
\in
\partial \Omega'$. Denoting by $$\label{eq:anto-4.1}
R(x,e_\alpha) = \int_{-h/2}^{h/2} t(x,x_3, e_\alpha) dx_3$$ the force vector (per unit length) acting on a direction orthogonal to $e_\alpha$ and passing through $x \in
\partial \Omega'$, the contact force $R(x,n)$ can be expressed as $$\label{eq:anto-4.2}
R(x,n) = T^\Omega (x) n, \quad x \in \partial \Omega',$$ where the *surface force tensor* $T^\Omega (x) \in
{\mathbb{M}}^{3\times 2}$ is given by $$\label{eq:anto-4.3}
T^\Omega (x) = R(x,e_\alpha) \otimes e_\alpha, \quad \hbox{in }
\Omega.$$ Let $P=I-e_3 \otimes e_3$ be the projection of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ along the direction $e_3$. $T^{\Omega}$ is decomposed additively by $P$ in its *membranal* and *shearing* component $$\label{eq:anto-4.4}
T^\Omega = PT^\Omega + (I-P)T^\Omega \equiv T^{\Omega(m)}+
T^{\Omega(s)},$$ where, following the standard nomenclature in plate theory, the components $T_{\alpha \beta}^{\Omega(m)}$ ($=T_{\beta
\alpha}^{\Omega(m)}$), $\alpha, \beta =1,2$, are called the *membrane forces* and the components $T_{3
\beta}^{\Omega(s)}$, $\beta=1,2$, are the *shear forces* (also denoted as $T_{3 \beta}^{\Omega(s)} = Q_\beta$). The assumption of infinitesimal deformations and the hypothesis of vanishing in-plane displacements of the middle surface of the plate allow us to take $$\label{eq:anto-5.1}
T^{\Omega(m)} = 0, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega.$$ Denote by $$\label{eq:anto-5.2}
M(x,e_\alpha) = \int_{-h/2}^{h/2} x_3 e_3 \times t (x,x_3,e_\alpha)
dx_3, \quad \alpha=1,2,$$ the contact couple acting at $x \in \partial \Omega'$ on a direction orthogonal to $e_\alpha$ passing through $x$. Note that $M(x,e_\alpha) \cdot e_3=0$ by definition, that is $M(x,e_\alpha)$ actually is a two-dimensional couple field belonging to the middle plane of the plate. Analogously to , we have $$\label{eq:anto-5.3}
M(x,n) = M^\Omega (x) n, \quad x \in \partial \Omega',$$ where the *surface couple tensor* $M^\Omega (x) \in
{\mathbb{M}}^{3\times 2}$ has the expression $$\label{eq:anto-surface_couple_tensor}
M^\Omega (x) = M(x,e_\alpha) \otimes e_\alpha.$$ A direct calculation shows that $$\label{eq:anto-6.1}
M(x,e_\alpha) = e_3 \times e_\beta M_{\beta \alpha}(x),$$ where $$\label{eq:anto-6.2}
M_{\beta \alpha}(x)=\int_{-h/2}^{h/2}x_3 T_{\beta
\alpha}(x,x_3)dx_3, \quad \alpha, \beta =1,2,$$ are the *bending moments* (for $\alpha=\beta$) and the *twisting moments* (for $\alpha \neq \beta$) of the plate at $x$ (per unit length).
Denote by $q(x)e_3$ the external transversal force per unit area acting in $\Omega$. The statical equilibrium of the plate is satisfied if and only if the following two equations are simultaneously satisfied:
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\int_{\partial \Omega'} T^{\Omega}n ds + \int_{\Omega'}qe_3
dx=0,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\int_{\partial \Omega'} \left ( (x-x_0) \times T^{\Omega}n
+ M^{\Omega}n \right ) ds + \int_{\Omega'} (x-x_0)\times qe_3 dx=0,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -4.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:anto-7.1}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-7.2}\end{aligned}$$
for every subdomain $\Omega' \subseteq \Omega$, where $x_0$ is a fixed point. By applying the Divergence Theorem in $\Omega'$ and by the arbitrariness of $\Omega'$ we deduce
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
{\rm div}_x T^{\Omega(s)} + qe_3=0,
& \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
{\rm div}_x M^{\Omega} + (T^{\Omega(s)})^Te_3 \times e_3=0,
& \mathrm{in}\ \Omega.
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -4.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:anto-7.3}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-7.4}\end{aligned}$$
Consider the case in which the boundary of the plate $\partial
\Omega$ is subjected simultaneously to a couple field $\overline{M}^*$, $\overline{M}^*\cdot e_3=0$, and a transversal force field $\overline{Q}e_3$. Local equilibrium considerations on points of $\partial \Omega$ yield the following boundary conditions:
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
M^{\Omega}n = \overline{M}^*,
& \mathrm{on}\ \partial \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
T^{\Omega(s)}n= \overline{Q}e_3,
& \mathrm{on}\ \partial \Omega.
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -4.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:anto-7.6}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-7.7}\end{aligned}$$
where $n$ is the unit outer normal to $\partial \Omega$. In cartesian components, the equilibrium equations – take the form
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
M_{\alpha\beta, \beta} - Q_\alpha=0,
& \mathrm{in}\ \Omega, \mathrm{ \alpha=1,2},
\vspace{0.25em}\\
Q_{\alpha,\alpha} + q=0, & \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
M_{\alpha\beta} n_\beta = \overline{M}_\alpha,
& \mathrm{on}\ \partial \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
Q_\alpha n_\alpha = \overline{Q}, &\mathrm{on}\ \partial
\Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -7.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:anto-8.1}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-8.2}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-8.3}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-8.4}\end{aligned}$$
where we have defined $\overline{M}_1= \overline{M}^*_2$ and $\overline{M}_2= - \overline{M}^*_1$.
To complete the formulation of the equilibrium problem, we need to introduce the constitutive equation of the material. We limit ourselves to the Reissner-Mindlin theory and we choose to regard the kinematical assumptions $E_{33}[u]=0$ as internal constraint, that is we restrict the possible deformations of the points of the plate to those whose infinitesimal strain tensor belongs to the set $$\label{eq:anto-8.6}
{\cal{M}}=\{E \in {\mathbb{M}}^{3\times3}| E=E^T, E \cdot A=0,
\hbox{ for } A= e_3 \otimes e_3 \}.$$ Therefore, by the *Generalized Principle of Determinism* [@Truesdell], the Cauchy stress tensor $T$ at any point $(x,x_3)$ of the plate is additively decomposed in an *active* (symmetric) part $T_{A}$ and in a *reactive* (symmetric) part $T_{R}$: $$\label{eq:anto-9.1}
T=T_{A}+T_{R},$$ where $T_{R}$ does not work in any admissible motion, e.g., $T_{R}
\in {\cal{M}}^\perp$. Consistently with the Principle, the active stress $T_{A}$ belongs to ${\cal{M}}$ and, in cartesian coordinates, we have $$\label{eq:anto-9.2}
T_{A} = T_{A \alpha\beta} e_\alpha \otimes e_\beta +
T_{A \alpha 3} e_\alpha \otimes e_3 + T_{A 3\alpha} e_3 \otimes
e_\alpha, \quad
\alpha, \beta=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:anto-9.3}
T_{R} = T_{R 33} e_3 \otimes e_3.$$ In linear theory, on assuming the reference configuration unstressed, the active stress in a point $(x,x_3)$ of the plate, $x \in \overline{\Omega}$ and $|x_3|\leq h/2$, is given by a linear mapping from ${\cal{M}}$ into itself by means of the fourth order *elasticity tensor* ${\mathbb{C}}_{\cal{M}} \in
{\mathcal L} ({\mathbb{M}}^{3}, {\mathbb{M}}^{3})$: $$\label{eq:anto-9.4}
T_{A} = {\mathbb{C}}_{\cal{M}} E[u].$$ We assume that ${\mathbb{C}}_{\cal{M}}$ is constant over the thickness of the plate and satisfies the minor and major symmetry conditions expressed in cartesian coordinates as (we drop the subscript ${\cal{M}}$) $$\label{eq:anto-9.5}
C_{ijrs}=C_{jirs}= C_{ijsr}=C_{rsij}, \quad i,j,r,s= 1,2,3, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega.$$ Using and recalling , we have: $$\label{eq:anto-10.1}
T^{\Omega}=T^{\Omega(s)}_A, \quad M^{\Omega}=M^{\Omega}_A,$$ that is, both the shear forces and the moments have active nature. By , after integration over the thickness, the surface force tensor and the surface couple tensor are given by $$\label{eq:anto-10.1bis}
T^{\Omega}(x) = h {\mathbb{C}}(x) ( \gamma \otimes e_3 )^{sym}, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,$$ $$\label{eq:anto-10.2}
M^{\Omega}(x) = \frac{h^3}{12} {\cal{E}}{\mathbb{C}}(x) (\nabla_x
\varphi(x))^{sym}, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,$$ where ${\cal{E}} \in {\mathbb{M}}^3$ is the unique skew-symmetric matrix such that ${\cal{E}} a = e_3 \times a$ for every $a \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$. The constitutive equations , can be written in more expressive way in terms of the cartesian components of shear forces and bending-twisting moments, namely $$\label{eq:anto-10.3bis}
Q_\alpha= S_{\alpha \beta}(x) (\varphi_\beta + w,_\beta), \quad \alpha=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:anto-10.3}
M_{\alpha\beta}= P_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}(x)
\varphi_{\gamma, \delta}, \quad \alpha, \beta=1,2.$$ where the *plate shearing matrix* $S \in {\mathbb{M}}^{2}$ and the *plate bending tensor* $\mathbb P \in {\mathcal L}
({\mathbb{M}}^{2}, {\mathbb{M}}^{2})$ are given by $$\label{eq:anto-10.4bis}
S_{\alpha \beta}(x) =h C_{3 \alpha 3 \beta}(x), \quad \alpha,
\beta=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:anto-10.4}
P_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (x) =\frac{h^3}{12} C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}(x), \quad \alpha, \beta, \gamma,
\delta=1,2.$$ From the symmetry assumptions on the elastic tensor ${\mathbb{C}}$ it follows that the shearing matrix $S$ is symmetric and the bending tensor $\mathbb P$ satisfies the minor and major symmetry conditions, namely (in cartesian coordinates) $$\label{eq:anto-11.1}
S_{\alpha \beta} = S_{\beta \alpha}, \quad \alpha, \beta =1,2,
\ \ \hbox{in } \Omega,$$ $$\label{eq:anto-11.2}
P_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}= P_{\beta \alpha \gamma \delta}= P_{\alpha \beta \delta \gamma}=P_{\gamma \delta \alpha \beta}, \quad \alpha, \beta, \gamma,
\delta=1,2, \ \ \hbox{in } \Omega.$$ We recall that the symmetry conditions are equivalent to $$\label{eq:anto-11.3}
{\mathbb P} A = {\mathbb P} \widehat{A}, \quad {\mathbb P} A \ \hbox{is symmetric}, \quad
{\mathbb P} A \cdot B = {\mathbb P} B \cdot A,$$ for every $2 \times 2$ matrices $A$, $B$, where, here and in the sequel, we denote for brevity $\widehat{A}=A^{sym}$.
On $S$ and $\mathbb P$ we also make the following assumptions.
I) *Regularity (boundedness)* $$\label{eq:anto-11.4}
S \in L^\infty(\Omega, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2})),$$ $$\label{eq:anto-11.5}
\mathbb P \in L^\infty(\Omega, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}, {{\mathbb{M}}}^{2})).$$
II) *Ellipticity (strong convexity)* There exist two positive constants $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_1$ such that $$\label{eq:convex-S}
h \sigma_0 |v|^2 \leq Sv \cdot v \leq h \sigma_1 |v|^2, \qquad \hbox{a.e. in } \Omega,$$ for every $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, and there exist two positive constants $\xi_0$, $\xi_1$ such that $$\label{eq:convex-P}
\frac{h^3}{12} \xi_0 | \widehat{A} |^2 \leq {\mathbb P}A \cdot A \leq \frac{h^3}{12} \xi_1 | \widehat{A} |^2, \qquad \hbox{a.e. in } \Omega,$$ for every $2\times 2$ matrix $A$.
Finally, under the above notation and in view of –, the problem – for $q \equiv 0$ in $\Omega$ takes the form –, namely (in cartesian components)
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
(P_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \varphi_{\gamma, \delta}),_\beta - S_{\alpha \beta}(\varphi_\beta +w,_\beta)=0,
& \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
(S_{\alpha \beta}(\varphi_\beta +w,_\beta)),_\alpha=0, & \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
(P_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \varphi_{\gamma, \delta}) n_\beta = \overline{M}_\alpha,
& \mathrm{on}\ \partial \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
S_{\alpha \beta}(\varphi_\beta +w,_\beta) n_\alpha = \overline{Q}, &\mathrm{on}\ \partial
\Omega.
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -7.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:anto-12.1}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-12.2}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-12.3}\\
& & \label{eq:anto-12.4}\end{aligned}$$
A generalized Korn inequality {#sec:korn}
=============================
Throughout this section, $\Omega$ will be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, with boundary of Lipschitz class with constants $\rho_0$, $M_0$, satisfying $$\label{eq:korn1}
\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\leq M_1\rho_0,$$ $$\label{eq:korn2}
B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)\subset\Omega,$$ for some $s_0>0$ and $x_0\in \Omega$. For any $E\subset\Omega$, we shall denote by
$$\label{eq:korn3}
x_E=\frac{1}{|E|}\int_E x,$$
$$\label{eq:korn4}
v_E=\frac{1}{|E|}\int_E v,$$
the center of mass of $E$ and the integral mean of a function $v$ with values in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\geq 1$, respectively.
In order to prove the generalized Korn inequality of Theorem \[theo:Korn\_gener2\], let us recall the constructive Poincaré and classical Korn inequalities.
\[Poincaré inequalities\] \[prop:Poinc\] There exists a positive constant $C_P$ only depending on $M_0$ and $M_1$, such that for every $u\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $n=1,2$, $$\label{eq:korn5}
\|u-u_\Omega\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq C_P\rho_0\|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega)},$$
$$\label{eq:korn6}
\|u-u_E\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq
\left(1+\left(\frac{|\Omega|}{|E|}\right)^\frac{1}{2}\right)\sqrt{1+C_P^2}\ \rho_0\|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
See for instance [@A-M-R08 Example 3.5] and also [@A-M-R02] for a quantitative evaluation of the constant $C_P$.
\[Korn inequalities\] \[prop:Korn\_classica\] There exists a positive constant $C_K$ only depending on $M_0$ and $M_1$, such that for every $u\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $$\label{eq:korn7}
\left\|\nabla u-\frac{1}{2}(\nabla u - \nabla^T u)_\Omega\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq C_K\|\widehat{\nabla} u\|_{L^2(\Omega)},$$
$$\label{eq:korn8}
\left\|u-u_E-\frac{1}{2}(\nabla u - \nabla^T u)_E(x-x_E)\right\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq C_{E,\Omega}C_K
\sqrt{1+C_P^2}\ \rho_0\|\widehat{\nabla} u\|_{L^2(\Omega)},$$
where $$\label{eq:korn9}
C_{E,\Omega} = 1+\left(2\frac{|\Omega|}{|E|}\left(1+M_1^2\right)\right)^\frac{1}{2}.$$
See the fundamental paper by Friedrichs [@F47] on second Korn inequality and also [@A-M-R08 Example 5.3] for a proof of -.
Notice that, when $E=B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)$, $C_{E,\Omega} \leq 1+\sqrt 2\left(1+M_1^2\right)^
\frac{1}{2}\frac{M_1}{s_0}$.
The following generalized Korn-type inequality is useful for the study of the Reissner-Mindlin plate system.
\[Generalized second Korn inequality\] \[theo:Korn\_gener2\] There exists a positive constant $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$ and $s_0$, such that, for every $\varphi\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and for every $w\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$,
$$\label{eq:korn17}
\|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq C\left(\|\widehat{\nabla} \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|\varphi+\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right).$$
We may assume, with no loss of generality, that $\int_{B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)}\varphi =0$. Let $$\mathcal{S}=\left\{\nabla w\ |\ w\in H^1(\Omega), \int_\Omega w =0\right\}
\subset L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2).$$ $\mathcal{S}$ is a closed subspace of $L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$. In fact, let $\nabla w_n\in \mathcal{S}$ and $F\in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$ such that $\nabla w_n \rightarrow F$ in $L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$. By the Poincaré inequality , $w_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $H^1(\Omega)$, so that there exists $w\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $w_n \rightarrow w$ in $H^1(\Omega)$. Therefore $F=\nabla w\in \mathcal{S}$. By the projection theorem, for every $\varphi \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$, there exists a unique $\nabla \overline{w}\in \mathcal{S}$ such that $$\label{eq:korn17bis}
\|\varphi -\nabla \overline{w}\|_{L^2(\Omega)} =
\min_{\nabla w\in S}\|\varphi -\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)} =
\min_{\nabla w\in S}\|\varphi +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ Moreover, $\nabla \overline{w}$ is characterized by the condition $$\label{eq:korn18}
\varphi -\nabla \overline{w} \perp \nabla w\ \hbox{in } L^2(\Omega), \hbox{ for every }\nabla w \in S.$$
Let us consider the infinitesimal rigid displacement
$$\label{eq:korn18bis}
r=\frac{1}{2}(\nabla \varphi - \nabla^T \varphi)_{B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)}(x-x_0) := W(x-x_0),$$
where $$W=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&\alpha\\
-\alpha & 0
\end{array}
\right) \ ,$$ that is $$r=(\alpha(x-x_0)_2,-\alpha(x-x_0)_1).$$
Let us distinguish two cases:
i\) $\Omega=B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)$,
ii\) $B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)\subsetneq\Omega$.
*Case i).* Let us see that, when one takes $\varphi = r$ in , with $r$ given by , then its projection into $\mathcal{S}$ is $$\label{eq:korn18ter}
\nabla \overline{w} =0,$$ that is, by the equivalent condition , $r\perp \nabla w$ in $L^2(\Omega)$, for every $\nabla w \in \mathcal{S}$. In fact
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:korn19}
\int_{B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)} r\cdot \nabla w = \int_{B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)}
\alpha(x-x_0)_2w_{x_1}-\alpha(x-x_0)_1w_{x_2} =\\
=\alpha
\int_{\partial B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)}w\left((x-x_0)_2\nu_1-(x-x_0)_1\nu_2\right).\end{gathered}$$
Since $\nu = \frac{x-x_0}{s_0\rho_0}$, we have $$(x-x_0)_2\nu_1-(x-x_0)_1\nu_2=(x-x_0)_2\frac{(x-x_0)_1}{s_0\rho_0}-
(x-x_0)_1\frac{(x-x_0)_2}{s_0\rho_0}=0,$$ so that $$\label{eq:korn19bis}
\int_{B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)} r\cdot \nabla w = 0, \qquad \hbox{for every } \nabla w \in S.$$
Therefore, by and , $$\label{eq:korn20}
\|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \|r+\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}, \qquad\hbox{for every }\nabla w \in S.$$ By the definition of $r$ and recalling that $\Omega = B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)$, it follows trivially that $$\label{eq:korn21}
\|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 =\frac{\pi}{2}\alpha^2s_0^4\rho_0^2 = \frac{s_0^2\rho_0^2}{4}
\|\nabla r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2.$$
By the Korn inequality , by and , we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:korn22}
\|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +
\|\nabla r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}= \\
= \|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{2}{s_0\rho_0}\|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\leq \|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{2}{s_0\rho_0}\|r +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq\\
\leq
\|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{2}{s_0\rho_0}\|\varphi +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\frac{2}{s_0\rho_0}
\|\varphi -r\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq\\
\leq C\left(\|\widehat{\nabla} \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|\varphi +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right),\end{gathered}$$ with $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$ and $s_0$.
*Case ii).*
Let $r$ be the infinitesimal rigid displacement given by . By , its projection $\nabla
\overline{w}$ into $\mathcal{S}$ satisfies
$$\label{eq:korn23}
\int_\Omega r\cdot \nabla w = \int_\Omega \nabla \overline{w}\cdot \nabla w,
\hbox{ for every }\nabla w \in S.$$
Choosing, in particular, $w=\overline{w}$ in , and by the same arguments used to prove , we have $$\label{eq:korn24}
\int_\Omega |\nabla \overline{w}|^2 = \int_\Omega r\cdot\nabla \overline{w}
=\int_{B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)}r\cdot\nabla \overline{w}+\int_{\Omega\setminus B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)}r\cdot\nabla \overline{w}
=\int_{\Omega\setminus B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)}r\cdot\nabla \overline{w},$$ so that, by Hölder inequality, $$\label{eq:korn25}
\|\nabla \overline{w}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \| r\|_{L^2(\Omega\setminus B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0))}.$$ By a direct computation, we have $$\label{eq:korn26}
\frac{\int_{\Omega\setminus B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)}|r|^2}{\int_\Omega |r|^2}
= 1 - \frac{\int_{B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)}|r|^2}{\int_\Omega |r|^2}\leq
1- \frac{\int_{B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)}|r|^2}{\int_{B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)} |r|^2}=\frac{15}{16},$$ and, by and , $$\label{eq:korn27}
\|\nabla \overline{w}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \frac{\sqrt{15}}{4}\| r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ Therefore $$\label{eq:korn28}
\|r-\nabla \overline{w}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\geq
\|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}- \|\nabla \overline{w}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\geq
\left(1- \frac{\sqrt {15}}{4}\right) \|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ From and , it follows that $$\label{eq:korn29}
\|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \frac{4}{4-\sqrt{15}} \|r+\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)},\qquad
\hbox{for every } w\in H^1(\Omega).$$
Now, $\nabla r = W$, $|\nabla r|^2 =2\alpha^2$, so that $$\label{eq:korn29bis}
\int_\Omega |\nabla r|^2 \leq 8\alpha^2\pi M_1^2\rho_0^2.$$
Since $|W(x-x_0)|^2=\alpha^2|x-x_0|^2$, by, we have $$\label{eq:korn29ter}
\int_\Omega|r|^2=\alpha^2\int_\Omega|x-x_0|^2\geq
\frac{\pi}{2}\alpha^2s_0^4\rho_0^4
\geq\left(\frac{s_0^2}{4M_1}\right)^2\rho_0^2\int_\Omega|\nabla r|^2.$$
By , and , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:korn30}
\|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +
\|\nabla r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \\
\leq C\left(\|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|r\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right)
\leq C\left(\|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|r +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right)\leq\\
\leq
C\left(\|\nabla (\varphi-r)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|\varphi +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\frac{1}{\rho_0}
\|\varphi -r\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \right)\leq\\
\leq C\left(\|\widehat{\nabla} \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|\varphi +\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right),\end{gathered}$$ with $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$ and $s_0$.
Notice that a more accurate estimate can be obtained by replacing $B_{\frac{s_0\rho_0}{2}}(x_0)$ with $B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)$ in and in what follows, obtaining $$\label{eq:korn31}
\|\nabla \overline{w}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \sqrt \gamma\| r\|_{L^2(\Omega)},$$ where the constant $\gamma$, $$\label{eq:korn32}
\gamma = \frac{\int_{\Omega\setminus B_{s_0\rho_0}(x_0)}|r|^2}{\int_\Omega |r|^2}
= 1 - \frac{\frac{\pi}{2}s_0^4\rho_0^4}{\int_\Omega |x-x_0|^2}<1$$ can be easily estimated in terms of the geometry of $\Omega$.
\[rem:Gobert\] Let us notice that, choosing in particular $w\equiv 0$ in , it follows that there exists a positive constant $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$ and $s_0$, such that for every $u\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$,
$$\label{eq:Gobert}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq C(\rho_0\|\widehat{\nabla} u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}).$$
The above inequality was first proved by Gobert in [@G62] by using the theory of singular integrals, a different proof for regular domains being presented by Duvaut and Lions in [@DL76].
The Neumann problem {#sec:direct}
===================
Let us consider a plate $\Omega \times \left [ - \frac{h}{2},
\frac{h}{2} \right ]$ with middle surface represented by a bounded domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ having uniform thickness $h$, subject to a transversal force field $\overline{Q}$ and to a couple field $\overline{M}$ acting on its boundary. Under the kinematic assumptions of Reissner-Mindlin’s theory, the pair $(\varphi,w)$, with $\varphi = (\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$, where $\varphi_\alpha$, $\alpha=1,2$, are expressed in terms of the infinitesimal rigid rotation field $\omega$ by and $w$ is the transversal displacement, satisfies the equilibrium problem -. The shearing matrix $S \in
L^\infty(\Omega, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$ and the bending tensor ${\mathbb P}\in L^\infty(\Omega, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2},
{{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$, introduced in Section \[sec:model\], are assumed to satisfy the symmetry conditions , and the ellipticity conditions , , respectively.
Summing up the weak formulation of equations and , one derives the following *weak formulation* of the equilibrium problem -:
*A pair* $(\varphi,w)\in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)\times
H^1(\Omega)$ *is a weak solution to* - *if* *for every* $\psi\in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$ *and for every* $v\in H^1(\Omega)$, $$\label{eq:dir1}
\int_\Omega {\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi\cdot \nabla \psi + \int_\Omega S(\varphi+\nabla w)\cdot
(\psi+\nabla v)=\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{Q} v + \overline{M}\cdot \psi.$$ Choosing $\psi\equiv 0$, $v\equiv 1$, in , we have $$\label{eq:dir2}
\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{Q}=0.$$ Inserting $\psi\equiv -b$, $v=b\cdot x$ in , we have $$\int_{\partial\Omega}b\cdot(\overline{Q}x-\overline{M})=0, \qquad \hbox{for every }b\in {\mathbb{R}}^2,$$ so that $$\label{eq:dir3}
\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{Q}x-\overline{M}=0.$$ We refer to - as the *compatibility conditions* for the equilibrium problem.
\[rem:all\_sol\] Given a solution $(\varphi,w)$ to the equilibrium problem -, then all its solutions are given by $$\label{eq:dir4}
\varphi^* = \varphi-b,\quad w^* = w +b\cdot x + a,\qquad \forall a\in {\mathbb{R}}, \forall b\in {\mathbb{R}}^2.$$ It is obvious that any $(\varphi^*,w^*)$ given by is a solution. Viceversa, given two solutions $(\varphi,w)$, $(\varphi^*,w^*)$, by subtracting their weak formulations one has $$\begin{gathered}
\int_\Omega {\mathbb P}\nabla (\varphi-\varphi^*)\cdot \nabla \psi + \int_\Omega S((\varphi-\varphi^*)+\nabla (w-w^*))\cdot
(\psi+\nabla v)=0,\\
\quad \forall v\in H^1(\Omega),
\forall \psi\in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2).\end{gathered}$$ Choosing $\psi=\varphi-\varphi^*$, $v=w-w^*$, and by the ellipticity conditions , , we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:dir5}
0=\int_\Omega {\mathbb P}\nabla (\varphi-\varphi^*)\cdot \nabla (\varphi-\varphi^*) + \int_\Omega S((\varphi-\varphi^*)+\nabla (w-w^*))\cdot
((\varphi-\varphi^*)+\nabla (w-w^*))\geq\\
\geq\frac{h^3}{12}\xi_0\int_\Omega |\widehat{\nabla} (\varphi-\varphi^*)|^2+h\sigma_0
\int_\Omega |(\varphi-\varphi^*)+\nabla (w-w^*)|^2.\end{gathered}$$ From the generalized Korn inequality it follows that $\nabla (\varphi-\varphi^*)=0$, so that there exists $b\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\varphi^* = \varphi-b$. By the above inequality we also have that $\nabla (w^*-w)=
\varphi-\varphi^* = b$, and therefore there exists $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $w^* = w +b\cdot x + a$.
An alternative proof of $\nabla (\varphi-\varphi^*)=0$, that better enlightens the mathematical aspects of the Reissner-Mindlin model, is based on a qualitative argument which avoids the use of . Precisely, from , one has that $\widehat{\nabla} (\varphi-\varphi^*)=0$ and $\nabla
(w-w^*)= \varphi^*-\varphi$. Therefore $\varphi-\varphi^*=Wx+b$ for some skew symmetric matrix $W=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&\alpha\\
-\alpha & 0
\end{array}
\right) $ and some constant $b\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\nabla (w^*-w)=Wx+b\in
{\mathbb{C}}^\infty$. Hence we can compute $(w^*-w)_{x_1x_2}=(\alpha
x_2+b_1)_{x_2} =\alpha$, $(w^*-w)_{x_2x_1}=(-\alpha x_1+b_2)_{x_1}
=-\alpha$ and, by the Schwarz theorem, $\alpha=0$, so that $\varphi-\varphi^*=b$.
\[prop:diretto\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with boundary of Lipschitz class with constants $\rho_0$, $M_0$, satisfying -. Let the second order tensor $S
\in L^\infty(\Omega, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$ and the forth order tensor ${\mathbb P}\in L^\infty(\Omega, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2},
{{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$ satisfy the symmetry conditions , and the ellipticity conditions , , respectively. Let $\overline{M}\in H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $\overline{Q}\in H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)$ satisfy the compatibility conditions - respectively. Problem - admits a unique solution $(\varphi,w)\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times
H^1(\Omega)$ normalized by the conditions $$\label{eq:dir6}
\int_\Omega \varphi=0, \qquad \int_\Omega w =0.$$ Moreover $$\label{eq:dir7}
\|\varphi\|_{H^1(\Omega)} + \frac{1}{\rho_0}\|w\|_{H^1(\Omega)}
\leq C\left(\|\overline{M}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}+\rho_0
\|\overline{Q}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\right),$$ with $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$, $s_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\frac{\rho_0}{h}$.
Let us consider the linear space $$\label{eq:dir8}
{\mathcal H} =\left\{(\psi,v)\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1(\Omega)\ |\ \int_\Omega \psi =0, \int_\Omega v =0\right\},$$ which is a Banach space equipped with the norm $$\label{eq:dir9}
\|(\psi,v)\|_{\mathcal H} = \|\psi\|_ {H^1(\Omega)} + \frac{1}{\rho_0}\|v\|_{H^1(\Omega)}.$$ The symmetric bilinear form $$a: {\mathcal H}\times {\mathcal H}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ $$\label{eq:dir9bis}
a((\varphi,w),(\psi,v))=\int_\Omega {\mathbb P}\nabla\varphi\cdot\nabla \psi +S(\varphi+\nabla w)\cdot(\psi+\nabla v),$$ is continuous in ${\mathcal H}\times {\mathcal H}$. Let us see that it is also coercive. By the ellipticity conditions , , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:dir10}
a((\varphi,w),(\varphi,w))\geq \frac{h^3}{12}\xi_0 \int_\Omega |\widehat{\nabla }\varphi|^2
+ h\sigma_0 \int_\Omega |\varphi +\nabla w|^2\geq \\
\geq h^3\min\left\{\frac{\xi_0}{12},\sigma_0\left(\frac{\rho_0}{h}\right)^2\right\}\left(\int_\Omega |\widehat{\nabla }\varphi|^2
+ \frac{1}{\rho_0^2}\int_\Omega |\varphi +\nabla w|^2\right).\end{gathered}$$ On the other hand, from Poincaré and Korn inequalities and , and by the trivial estimate $\|\nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \|\varphi + \nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
+\|\varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$, one has $$\label{eq:dir11}
\|(\varphi,w)\|_{\mathcal H}\leq C\left(\rho_0\|\widehat{\nabla} \varphi\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +
\|\varphi + \nabla w\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right),$$ with $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$ and $s_0$.
From -, one has $$\label{eq:dir12}
a((\varphi,w),(\varphi,w))\geq C\|(\varphi,w)\|_{\mathcal H}^2,$$ where $C$ only depends on $M_0$, $M_1$, $s_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\frac{\rho_0}{h}$.
Therefore the bilinear form is a scalar product inducing an equivalent norm in ${\mathcal H}$, which we denote by $\lvert\lvert\lvert\cdot \rvert\rvert\rvert$.
The linear functional $$F: {\mathcal H}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ $$F(\psi,v)=\int_{\partial\Omega} {\widehat Q} v+ {\widehat M}\cdot \psi$$ is bounded and, by , it satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:dir13}
|F(\psi,v)|\leq C\left(\|\overline{M}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\|\psi\|_
{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}+
\|\overline{Q}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\|v\|_
{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\right)\leq\\
\leq C\left(\|\overline{M}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}+\rho_0
\|\overline{Q}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\right)\|(\psi,v)\|_{\mathcal H}\leq\\
\leq
C\left(\|\overline{M}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}+\rho_0
\|\overline{Q}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\right)\lvert\lvert\lvert(\psi,v)
\rvert\rvert\rvert,\end{gathered}$$ so that $$\label{eq:dir14}
\lvert\lvert\lvert F
\rvert\rvert\rvert_*\leq C\left(\|\overline{M}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}+\rho_0
\|\overline{Q}\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\right),$$ with $C$ only depending on $M_0$, $M_1$, $s_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\frac{\rho_0}{h}$. By the Riesz representation theorem, there exists a unique $(\varphi,w)\in {\mathcal H}$ such that $a((\varphi,w),(\psi,v)) = F(\psi,v)$ for every $(\psi,v)\in {\mathcal H}$, that is holds for every $(\psi,v)\in {\mathcal H}$. Moreover $$\label{eq:dir15}
\lvert\lvert\lvert (\varphi,w)
\rvert\rvert\rvert = \lvert\lvert\lvert F
\rvert\rvert\rvert_*.$$ Let us prove for every $(\psi,v)\in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1(\Omega)$. Given any $\psi \in H^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and any $v\in H^1(\Omega)$, let $$\widetilde{\psi} = \psi-\psi_\Omega, \qquad \widetilde{v} = v+\psi_\Omega\cdot(x-x_\Omega)
-v_\Omega.$$ We have that $\widetilde{\psi}+ \nabla \widetilde{v} =\psi+\nabla v$. Hence, by the compatibility conditions -, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:dir16}
\int_\Omega {\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi\cdot\nabla \psi + S(\varphi+\nabla w)\cdot(\psi+\nabla v) =
\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{M}\cdot\widetilde{\psi}+\overline{Q}\widetilde{v}=\\
=\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{M}\cdot\psi+\overline{Q} v -
\psi_\Omega\cdot\int_{\partial\Omega}(\overline{M}-\overline{Q}x)-v_\Omega
\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{Q} - \psi_\Omega\cdot x_\Omega\int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{Q}
= \int_{\partial\Omega}\overline{M}\cdot\psi+\overline{Q} v.\end{gathered}$$ Finally, follows from , and .
$H^2$ regularity {#sec:reg}
================
Our main result is the following global regularity theorem.
\[theo:global-reg\]
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with boundary of class $C^{1,1}$, with constants $\rho_0$, $M_0$, satisfying , . Let $S \in
C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega}, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$ and $\mathbb P
\in C^{0,1} (\overline{\Omega}, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}, {{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$ satisfy the symmetry conditions , and the ellipticity conditions , . Let $\overline{M} \in
H^{ \frac{1}{2}} (\partial \Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $\overline{Q} \in
H^{ \frac{1}{2}} (\partial \Omega)$ satisfy the compatibility conditions , , respectively. Then, the weak solution $(\varphi, w) \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times
H^1(\Omega)$ of the problem –, normalized by the conditions , is such that $(\varphi, w) \in
H^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times H^2(\Omega)$ and $$\label{eq:reg-1-1}
\|\varphi\|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \frac{1}{\rho_0}
\|w\|_{H^2(\Omega)} \leq C \left (
\|\overline{M}\|_{H^{\frac{1}{2}} (\partial \Omega)} + \rho_0
\|\overline{Q}\|_{H^{\frac{1}{2}} (\partial \Omega)} \right
),$$ where the constant $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $M_1$, $s_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $ \frac{\rho_0}{h}$, $\|S\|_{
C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|\mathbb P \|_{
C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$.
The proof of the theorem is mainly based on the approach to regularity for second order elliptic systems adopted, for instance, in [@Ag65] and [@Ca80]. For the sake of completeness, the main steps of the proof are recalled in the sequel.
Let us introduce the following notation. Let $$\label{eq:reg-2-1}
B_\sigma^+ = \{(y_1,y_2)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2| \ y_1^2+y_2^2 < \sigma^2,
\ y_2 >0\}$$ be the hemidisk of radius $\sigma$, $\sigma >0$, and let $$\label{eq:reg-2-2}
\Gamma_\sigma = \{(y_1,y_2)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2| \ -\sigma \leq y_1 \leq \sigma, \ y_2 =0\}$$ and $$\label{eq:reg-2-3}
\Gamma_\sigma^+ = \partial B_\sigma^+ \setminus
\Gamma_\sigma$$ be the flat and the curved portion of the boundary $\partial
B_\sigma^+$, respectively. Moreover, let $$\label{eq:reg-2-4}
H_{\Gamma_\sigma^+}^1 (B_\sigma^+) = \{ g \in
H^1(B_\sigma^+)| \ g=0 \ \hbox{on } \Gamma_\sigma^+\}.$$ Without loss of generality, hereinafter we will assume $\rho_0=1$. Moreover, the dependence of the constants $C$ on the plate thickness $h$ will be not explicitly indicated in the estimates below.
By the regularity of $\partial \Omega$, we can construct a finite collection of open sets $\Omega_0$, $\{ \Omega_j \}_{j=1}^N$ such that $\Omega = \Omega_0 \cup \left ( \bigcup_{j=1}^N {\cal
T}_{(j)}^{-1}(B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2}}^+) \right )$, $\Omega_0
\subset \Omega_{\delta_0}$, where $\Omega_{\delta_0}=\{x\in\Omega
\ | \ dist(x, \partial \Omega) > \delta_0\}$, $\delta_0>0$ only depends on $M_0$, and $N$ only depends on $M_0$, $M_1$. Here, ${\cal T}_{(j)}$, $j=1,...,N$, is a homeomorphism of $C^{1,1}$ class which maps $\Omega_j$ into $B_\sigma$, $\Omega_j \cap
\Omega$ into $B_\sigma^+$, $\overline{\Omega}_j \cap \partial
\Omega$ into $\Gamma_\sigma$, and $\partial \Omega_j \cap \Omega$ into $\Gamma_\sigma^+$.
The estimate of $(\|\varphi\|_{H^2(\Omega_0)} +
\|w\|_{H^2(\Omega_0)})$ is a consequence of the following local interior regularity result, whose proof can be obtained, for example, by adapting the arguments illustrated in [@Ca80].
\[theo:reg-loc-inter\] Let us denote by $B_\sigma$ the open ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ centered at the origin and with radius $\sigma$, $\sigma >0$. Let $(\varphi,w)
\in H^1(B_\sigma,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1(B_\sigma)$ be such that $$\label{eq:reg-3-3}
a((\varphi,w), (\psi,v))=0, \quad \hbox{for every }
(\psi,v)\in H^1(B_\sigma,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1(B_\sigma),$$ where $$\label{eq:reg-4-1}
a((\varphi,w), (\psi,v))= \int_{B_\sigma} \mathbb P \nabla
\varphi \cdot \nabla \psi + \int_{B_\sigma} S(\varphi
+\nabla w)\cdot (\psi + \nabla v),$$ with $\mathbb P \in C^{0,1}(\overline{B}_\sigma, {\cal L}
({{\mathbb{M}}}^2,{{\mathbb{M}}}^2))$, $S \in C^{0,1}(\overline{B}_\sigma, {\cal L}
({{\mathbb{M}}}^2))$ satisfying the symmetry conditions , and the ellipticity conditions , . Then, $(\varphi,w) \in H^2(B_\sigma, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times H^2(B_\sigma)$ and we have $$\label{eq:reg-4-2}
\|\varphi\|_{H^2( B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2}} )} +
\|w\|_{H^2( B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2}} )} \leq C
\left (
\|\varphi\|_{H^1(B_\sigma)} + \|w\|_{H^1(B_\sigma)}
\right ),$$ where the constant $C>0$ only depends on $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\|S\|_{ C^{0,1}(\overline{B}_\sigma)}$ and $\|\mathbb P \|_{
C^{0,1}(\overline{B}_\sigma)}$.
In order to complete the proof of the regularity estimate, let us control the quantity $(\|\varphi\|_{H^2(\Omega_j \cap \Omega)} +
\|w\|_{H^2(\Omega_j \cap \Omega)})$ for every $j \in \{1,...,N\}$.
For every $v \in H^1_{\partial \Omega_j \cap \Omega}(\Omega_j \cap
\Omega)$ and for every $\psi \in H^1_{\partial \Omega_j \cap
\Omega}(\Omega_j \cap \Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$, the solution $(\varphi, w)$ to – satisfies the weak formulation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-4-3}
\int_{\Omega_j \cap \Omega} \mathbb P(x) \nabla_x \varphi \cdot
\nabla_x \psi dx + \int_{\Omega_j \cap \Omega} S(x) (\varphi
+ \nabla_x w) \cdot (\psi +\nabla_x v) dx =
\\
= \int_{\Omega_j
\cap \partial \Omega} (\overline{Q}v + \overline{M}\cdot \psi)
ds_x.\end{gathered}$$ Let us introduce the change of variables $$\label{eq:reg-5-1}
y={\cal{T}}_{(j)}(x), \quad y \in B_\sigma^+,$$ $$\label{eq:reg-5-2}
x={\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}(y), \quad x \in \Omega_j \cap \Omega,$$ and let us define $$\label{eq:reg-5-3}
\widetilde{w}(y)=w({\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}(y)), \quad
\widetilde{\varphi}_r(y)=\varphi_r({\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}(y)), \
r=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:reg-5-4}
\widetilde{v}(y)=v({\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}(y)), \quad
\widetilde{\psi}_r(y)=\psi_r({\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}(y)), \
r=1,2.$$ Then, the pair $(\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}) \in
H^1(B_\sigma^+, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times H^1(B_\sigma^+)$ satisfies $$\label{eq:reg-5-5}
\widetilde{a}_+((\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}),
(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}))=
\widetilde{{F}}_+(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}), \ \
\hbox{for every } (\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}) \in
H^1_{\Gamma_\sigma^+}(B_\sigma^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times H^1_{\Gamma_\sigma^+}(B_\sigma^+),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-5-6}
\widetilde{a}_+((\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}),
(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}))= \\
= \int_{B_\sigma^+} \widetilde{\mathbb
P}(y) \nabla_y \widetilde{\varphi} \cdot \nabla_y
\widetilde{\psi}dy +
\int_{B_\sigma^+} \widetilde{S}(y)(\widetilde{\varphi}+ L^T
\nabla_y \widetilde{w}) \cdot (\widetilde{\psi} + L^T \nabla_y
\widetilde{v}) dy,\end{gathered}$$ $$\label{eq:reg-5-7}
\widetilde{F}_+( \widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v})=
\int_{\Gamma_\sigma} (\widetilde{{\cal{Q}}} \widetilde{v} +
\widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\cdot \widetilde{\psi})ds_y,$$ with $$\label{eq:reg-5-8}
(L)_{ks}= L_{ks}= \frac{\partial {\cal {T}}_k}{\partial
x_s}, \quad k,s=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:reg-5-9}
\iota= | \det L |, \quad
\iota^*=
\sqrt{ \left ( \frac{\partial {{\cal{T}}^{-1}(y)} }{ \partial y } \right )^T \frac{\partial {{\cal{T}}^{-1}(y)} }{ \partial y }
\left |_{y_1,y_2=0} \right. } ,$$ $$\label{eq:reg-5-10}
(\widetilde{\mathbb P}(y))_{ilrk}=\widetilde{P}_{ilrk}(y)=
\sum_{j,s=1}^2 P_{ijrs}(
{\cal{T}}^{-1}(y))L_{ks}L_{lj} \iota^{-1}, \quad i,l,r,k=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:reg-5-11}
\widetilde{S}(y)=S({\cal{T}}^{-1}(y))\iota^{-1},$$ $$\label{eq:reg-6-1}
\widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}(y)= \overline{Q}({\cal{T}}^{-1}(y))\iota^*,
\quad
\widetilde{{\cal{M}}}(y)=\overline{M}({\cal{T}}^{-1}(y))\iota^*.$$ Since $L \in C^{0,1}(\Omega_j \cap \Omega, {\mathbb{M}}^2)$ is nonsingular and there exist two constants $c_1$, $c_2$, only depending on $M_0$, such that $ 0 < c_1 \leq \iota, \iota^* \leq c_2$ in $\Omega_j$, the fourth order tensor $\widetilde{\mathbb P}$ in has the following properties:
- (major symmetry) for every $2 \times 2$ matrices $A$ and $B$ we have $$\label{eq:reg-Ptilde-sym}
\widetilde{\mathbb P} A \cdot B= A \cdot
\widetilde{\mathbb P} B;$$
- (strong ellipticity) there exists a constant $\kappa_0$, $\kappa_0 >0$ and $\kappa_0$ only depending on $M_0$ and $\xi_0$, such that for every pair of vectors $a$, $b \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and for every $y \in \overline{B}_\sigma^+$ we have $$\label{eq:reg-Ptilde-strell}
\widetilde{\mathbb P}(a \otimes b) \cdot (a \otimes b) \geq
\kappa_0 |a|^2|b|^2;$$
- (regularity) $\widetilde{\mathbb P} \in
C^{0,1}(\overline{B}_\sigma^+, {\cal L} ({{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}, {{\mathbb{M}}}^{2}))$.
The matrix $\widetilde{S}$ defined in is symmetric and there exists a constant $\chi_0$, $\chi_0
>0 $ only depending on $\sigma_0$ and $M_0$, such that for every vector $a \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and for every $y \in \overline{B}_\sigma^+$ we have $$\label{eq:reg-6-2}
\widetilde{S}a \cdot a \geq \chi_0 |a|^2.$$ Moreover, $\widetilde{S} \in C^{0,1}(B_\sigma^+, {{\mathbb{M}}}^2)$.
We now use the regularity up to the flat boundary of the hemidisk $B_1^+$ stated in the next theorem, whose proof is postponed in the Appendix.
\[theo:reg-loc-bound\] Under the above notation and assumptions, let $(\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}) \in H^1(B_\sigma^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)
\times H^1(B_\sigma^+)$ defined in be the solution to . Then $ (\widetilde{\varphi},
\widetilde{w}) \in H^2(B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2} }^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2) \times
H^2(B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2} }^+)$ and we have $$\label{eq:reg-7-1}
\|\widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^2(B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2} }^+)}+ \|\widetilde{w}\|_{H^2(B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2} }^+)}
\leq
C \left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_\sigma)} + \| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2}
}(\Gamma_\sigma)}+
\|\widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_\sigma^+)}+ \|\widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_\sigma^+)}
\right ),$$ where the constant $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$.
Recalling that $\Omega = \Omega_0 \cup \left ( \bigcup_{j=1}^N
{\cal T}_{(j)}^{-1}(B_{ \frac{\sigma}{2}}^+) \right )$, the estimate follows by applying the inverse mapping ${\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}$ to , $j=1,...,N$, and by using the interior estimate .
Three sphere inequality and strong unique continuation {#sec:UC}
======================================================
In the present section we assume that $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ of Lipschitz class with constants $\rho_0$, $M_0$ and we assume that the plate is isotropic with Lamé parameters $\lambda,\mu$. We assume that $\lambda,\mu \in C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})$ and that, for given positive constants $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\gamma_0$, they satisfy the following conditions
$$\label{eq:ser-12}
\mu(x)\geq \alpha_0, \quad 2\mu(x)+3\lambda(x)\geq \gamma_0,$$
and $$\label{eq:ser-13}
\|\lambda\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}+\|\mu\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}\leq \alpha_1.$$
We assume that the *plate shearing matrix* has the form $SI_2$ where $S\in C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})$ is the real valued function defined by $$\label{eq:ser-8}
S=\frac{Eh}{2(1+\nu)},$$ where $$\label{eq:ser-20}
E=\frac{\mu(2\mu+3\lambda)}{\mu+\lambda}, \quad \nu=\frac{\lambda}{2(\mu+\lambda)}$$ and we assume that *plate bending tensor* $\mathbb P$ has the following form $$\label{eq:ser-10}
{\mathbb P} A = B\left[(1-\nu)\widehat{A}+\nu tr(A)I_2\right], \quad \hbox{for every } 2 \times 2 \quad \hbox{matrix } A,$$ where $$\label{eq:ser-11}
B=\frac{Eh^3}{12(1-\nu^2)}.$$ By and and noticing that $S=h\mu$, we have that $$\label{eq:convex-S-ser}
h \sigma_0 \leq S, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,\quad \|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}\leq h \sigma_1$$ and $$\label{eq:convex-P-ser}
\frac{h^3}{12} \xi_0 | \widehat{A} |^2 \leq {\mathbb P}A \cdot A \leq \frac{h^3}{12} \xi_1 | \widehat{A} |^2, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,$$ for every $2\times 2$ matrix $A$, where
$$\label{eq:constants_dependence}
\sigma_0 =\alpha_0, \quad \sigma_1 =\alpha_1, \quad \xi_0=\min\{2\alpha_0, \gamma_0\}, \quad
\xi_1=2\alpha_1.$$
\[theo:three-sphere\]
Under the the above hypotheses on $\Omega$, $S$ and $\mathbb P$, let $(\varphi, w) \in H_{loc}^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times
H_{loc}^2(\Omega)$ be a solution of the system
$ {\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}(S(\varphi+\nabla w))=0,
& \mathrm{in}\ \Omega,
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}({\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi)-S(\varphi+\nabla w)=0, & \mathrm{in}\ \Omega.
\vspace{0.25em}\\
\end{array}
\right. } $ -4.5em $$\begin{aligned}
& & \label{eq:ser-29-10}\\
& & \label{eq:ser-29-11}\end{aligned}$$
Let $\bar x\in\Omega$ and $R_1>0$ be such that $B_{R_1}(\bar x)\subset \Omega$. Then there exists $\theta\in (0,1)$, $\theta$ depends on $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\gamma_0, \frac{\rho_0}{h}$ only, such that if $0<R_3<R_2<R_1$ and $\frac{R_3}{R_1}\leq \frac{R_2}{R_1}\leq \theta$ then we have
$$\label{eq:three-sphere-1}
\int_{B_{R_2}(\bar x)} \left|V\right|^2\leq C\left(\int_{B_{R_3}(\bar x)} \left|V\right|^2\right)^{\tau}\left(\int_{B_{R_1}(\bar x)} \left|V\right|^2\right)^{1-\tau}$$
where $$\label{eq:three-sphere-2}
\left|V\right|^2=|\varphi|^2+\frac{1}{\rho^2_0}|w|^2,$$ $\tau\in(0,1)$ depends on $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\gamma_0, \frac{R_3}{R_1}, \frac{R_2}{R_1}, \frac{\rho_0}{h}$ only and $C$ depends on $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\gamma_0, \frac{R_2}{R_1}, \frac{\rho_0}{h}$ only. In addition, keeping $R_2, R_1$ fixed, we have
$$\label{eq:three-sphere-3}
\tau=\mathcal{O}\left(\left|\log R_3\right|^{-1}\right), \quad \hbox{as } R_3\rightarrow 0.$$
It is not restrictive to assume that $\bar x=0\in \Omega$. In order to prove , first we introduce an auxiliary unknown which allows us to obtain a new system of equations with the Laplace operator as the principal part, then we obtain by applying [@LNW2010 Theorem 1.1]. By and we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:ser-29-20}
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}({\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi)-S(\varphi+\nabla w)=
\\
=\frac{h^3}{12}\left[\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\left(\mu\left(\nabla\varphi+\nabla^T\varphi\right)\right)+
\nabla\left(\frac{2\lambda\mu}{2\mu+\lambda}\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\varphi\right)-\frac{12\mu}{h^2}(\varphi+\nabla w)\right].\end{gathered}$$
Now we denote $$\label{eq:ser-29-21}
a=\frac{2\mu+3\lambda}{4(\lambda+\mu)}, \quad b=\frac{4(\lambda+\mu)}{2\mu+\lambda},$$
$$G=\left(\nabla\varphi+\nabla^T\varphi\right)\frac{\nabla\mu}{\mu}-\left[\frac{\nabla\mu}{\mu}+
\frac{\mu(2\mu+3\lambda)}{2\mu+\lambda}\nabla\left(\frac{1}{\mu}\right)\right]\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\varphi$$
and
$$\label{eq:ser-29-25}
v=b\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\varphi.$$
By we have $$\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}({\mathbb P}\nabla \varphi)-S(\varphi+\nabla w)=\frac{h^3\mu}{12}\left[\Delta\varphi+\nabla(av)+G-\frac{12}{h^2}(\varphi+\nabla w)\right],$$ therefore equation is equivalent to the equation
$$\label{eq:ser-29-30}
\Delta\varphi+\nabla(av)+G-\frac{12}{h^2}(\varphi+\nabla w)=0.$$
Now, noticing that gives $a+\frac{1}{b}=1$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:ser-29-40}
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\left(\Delta\varphi+\nabla(av)\right)=\Delta \left(\frac{v}{b}\right)+\Delta \left(av\right)= \Delta \left(\left(a+\frac{1}{b}\right)v\right)=\Delta v.\end{gathered}$$ Now we apply the divergence operator to both the sides of and by we get $$\label{eq:ser-29-50}
\Delta v+\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}G-\frac{12}{h^2}\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}(\varphi+\nabla w)=0.$$ Finally, observing that by equation we have $$\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}(\varphi+\nabla w)=\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\left(\frac{1}{S}S(\varphi+\nabla w)\right)=\nabla\left(\frac{1}{S}\right)\cdot S(\varphi+\nabla w),$$ by we obtain $$\label{eq:ser-29-60}
\Delta v+\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}G-\frac{12}{h^2}\nabla\left(\frac{1}{S}\right)\cdot S(\varphi+\nabla w)=0.$$ On the other side by we have $$\label{eq:ser-29-61}
\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}(S(\varphi+\nabla w))=S\Delta w+\frac{S}{b}v+\nabla S\cdot\varphi+\nabla S\cdot \nabla w,$$ therefore, by , , and , we have
$$\label{eq:ser-29-70}
\Delta w+\frac{2\mu+\lambda}{4(\lambda+\mu)}v+\frac{\nabla S}{S}\cdot\varphi+\frac{\nabla S}{S}\cdot\nabla w=0.$$
Now, in order to satisfy the homogeneity of norms we define $$\widetilde{w}=w, \quad \widetilde{\varphi}=\rho_0\varphi, \quad \widetilde{v}=\rho^2_0v$$ and $$\widetilde{G}=\rho_0G=\left(\nabla\widetilde{\varphi}+\nabla^T\widetilde{\varphi}\right)\frac{\nabla\mu}{\mu}-\left[\frac{\nabla\mu}{\mu}+
\frac{\mu(2\mu+3\lambda)}{2\mu+\lambda}\nabla\left(\frac{1}{\mu}\right)\right]\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\widetilde{\varphi}.$$
By , , , we have that $\widetilde{w},\widetilde{\varphi},\widetilde{v}$ satisfy the system
$$\label{1-141}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta \widetilde{w}+\frac{2\mu+\lambda}{4\rho^2_0(\lambda+\mu)}\widetilde{v}+\frac{\nabla S}{\rho_0 S}\cdot\widetilde{\varphi}+\frac{\nabla S}{S}\cdot\nabla \widetilde{w}=0, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,\\[2mm]
\Delta\widetilde{\varphi}+\nabla(\frac{a}{\rho_0}\widetilde{v})+\widetilde{G}-\frac{12}{h^2}(\widetilde{\varphi}+\rho_0\nabla \widetilde{w})=0, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,\\[2mm]
\Delta \widetilde{v}+\rho_0\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\widetilde{G}-\frac{12}{h^2}\rho_0\nabla\left(\frac{1}{S}\right)\cdot S(\widetilde{\varphi}+\rho_0\nabla \widetilde{w})=0, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$
The above system has the same form of system (1.5) of [@LNW2010]. As a matter of fact, as soon as we introduce the following notation
$$u=\left(\widetilde{w},\widetilde{\varphi}\right),$$
$$P_1(x,\partial)\widetilde{v}
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{2\mu+\lambda}{4\rho^2_0(\lambda+\mu)}\widetilde{v}\\
\\
\nabla(\frac{a}{\rho_0}\widetilde{v})
\end{array}\right), \quad P_2(x,\partial)u=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\nabla S}{\rho_0 S}\cdot\widetilde{\varphi}+\frac{\nabla S}{S}\cdot\nabla \widetilde{w}\\
\\
\widetilde{G}-\frac{12}{h^2}(\widetilde{\varphi}+\rho_0\nabla \widetilde{w}),
\end{array}\right)$$
$$Q_1(x,\partial)\widetilde{v}
=0, \quad Q_2(x,\partial)u=-\frac{12}{h^2}\rho_0\nabla\left(\frac{1}{S}\right)\cdot S(\widetilde{\varphi}+\rho_0\nabla \widetilde{w}),$$
system is equivalent to
$$\label{ser30-20}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta u+P_1(x,\partial)\widetilde{v}+P_2(x,\partial)u=0, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega,\\[2mm]
\Delta \widetilde{v}+Q_1(x,\partial)\widetilde{v}+Q_2(x,\partial)u+\rho_0\mathrm{{\textrm{div}\,}}\widetilde{G}=0, \quad \hbox{in } \Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$
Notice that, likewise to [@LNW2010], $P_j(x,\partial)$ and $Q_j(x,\partial)$, $j=1,2$, are first order operators with $L^{\infty}$ coefficients. In addition, although $\widetilde{G}$ is slightly different from the term $G$ of [@LNW2010], the proof of Theorem 1.1 (after the scaling $x\rightarrow R_1 x$) of such a paper can be used step by step to derive .
\[sucp\] Assume that $S$, $\mathbb P$ and $\Omega$ satisfy the same hypotheses of \[theo:three-sphere\], let $x_0\in\Omega$ and let $(\varphi, w) \in H_{loc}^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times H_{loc}^2(\Omega)$ be a solution of the system - such that
$$\label{ser30-30}
\|\varphi\|_{L^2(B_r(\bar x))}+\frac{1}{\rho_0}\|w\|_{L^2(B_r(\bar x))}=\mathcal{O}\left(r^N\right), \quad \hbox{as } r\rightarrow 0, \quad \forall N\in\mathbb{N}$$
then $\varphi\equiv 0$, $w\equiv 0$ in $\Omega$
It is standard consequence of the inequality and of the connectedness of $\Omega$. For more details see [@MRV07 Corollary 6.4].
Appendix {#sec:appendix}
========
In this appendix we sketch a proof of Theorem \[theo:reg-loc-bound\].
Without loss of generality, we can assume $\sigma=1$. Our proof consists of two main steps. As first step, we estimate the partial derivatives $ \frac{\partial }{\partial y_1} \nabla
\widetilde{\varphi}$, $ \frac{\partial }{\partial y_1} \nabla
\widetilde{w}$ along the direction $e_1$ parallel to the flat boundary $\Gamma_1$ of $B_1^+$. The second step will concern with the estimate of the partial derivatives $ \frac{\partial
}{\partial y_2} \nabla \widetilde{\varphi}$, $ \frac{\partial
}{\partial y_2} \nabla \widetilde{w}$ along the direction orthogonal to the flat boundary $\Gamma_1$.
*First step.* (Estimate of the tangential derivatives)
Let $\vartheta \in C^\infty_0 ({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ be a function such that $0
\leq \vartheta(y) \leq 1$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\vartheta \equiv 1$ in $B_\rho$, $\vartheta \equiv 0$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \setminus B_{\eta}$, and $|\nabla^k \vartheta| \leq C$, $k=1,2$, where $\rho= \frac{3}{4}$, $\eta=\frac{7}{8}$ and $C>0$ is an absolute constant.
For every functions $\widetilde{\psi} \in H_{\Gamma_1^+}^1(B_1^+,
{\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $\widetilde{v} \in H_{\Gamma_1^+}^1(B_1^+)$, we still denote by $\widetilde{\psi} \in H^1({\mathbb{R}}_+^2, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $\widetilde{v}
\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}_+^2)$ their corresponding extensions to ${\mathbb{R}}_+^2$ obtained by taking $ \widetilde{\psi}=0$, $\widetilde{v}=0$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_+^2 \setminus B_1^+$.
Given a real number $s \in {\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{0\}$, the difference operator in direction $y_1$ of any function $f$ is defined as $$\label{eq:reg-9-1}
(\tau_{1,s} f)(y) = \frac{f(y+se_1)- f(y)}{s}.$$ In the sequel we shall assume $|s| \leq \frac{1}{16}$. We note that if $\widetilde{\varphi} \in H^1(B_1^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $\widetilde{w}
\in H^1(B_1^+)$, then $\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi})
\in H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w}) \in H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+)$.
We start by evaluating the bilinear form $
\widetilde{a}_+((\cdot,\cdot), (\cdot,\cdot))$ defined in with $\widetilde{\varphi}$, $\widetilde{w}$ replaced by $\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi})$, $\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{w})$, respectively. Next, we elaborate the expression of $ \widetilde{a}_+((\cdot,\cdot),
(\cdot,\cdot))$ and, by integration by parts, we move the difference operator in direction $y_1$ from the functions $\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}$, $\vartheta \widetilde{w}$ to the functions $\widetilde{\psi}$, $\widetilde{v}$. After these calculations, we can write $$\label{eq:reg-9-2}
\widetilde{a}_+( (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w})), (\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v})) =
- \widetilde{a}_+( (\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}),
(\vartheta \tau_{1,-s}\widetilde{\psi}, \vartheta \tau_{1,-s}
\widetilde{v})) + \widetilde{r},$$ where the remainder $\widetilde{r}$ can be estimated as follows $$\label{eq:reg-9-3}
|\widetilde{r}| \leq
C
\left (
\|\widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)} + \|\widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)}
\right )
\left (
\|\nabla \widetilde{\psi}\|_{L^2(B_1^+)} + \|\nabla \widetilde{v}\|_{L^2(B_1^+)}
\right ),$$ where the constant $C>0$ depends on $M_0$, $\|P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ only. It should be noticed that a constructive Poincaré inequality for functions belonging to $H^1(B_1^+)$ and vanishing on the portion $\Gamma_1^+$ of the boundary of $B_1^+$ has been used in obtaining , see, for example, [@A-M-R02].
Since $\widetilde{\psi} \in H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $\widetilde{v} \in H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+)$, the functions $\vartheta \tau_{1,-s}\widetilde{\psi}$, $\vartheta
\tau_{1,-s}\widetilde{v}$ are test functions in the weak formulation , so that the opposite of the first term on the right hand side of can be written as $$\label{eq:reg-10-1}
\widetilde{a}_+( (\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}),
(\vartheta \tau_{1,-s}\widetilde{\psi}, \vartheta \tau_{1,-s}
\widetilde{v}))=\widetilde{F}_+ ( \vartheta \tau_{1,-s}
\widetilde{\psi}, \vartheta \tau_{1,-s}
\widetilde{v})$$ and, by using trace inequalities, we have $$\label{eq:reg-10-2}
|\widetilde{F}_+ ( \vartheta \tau_{1,-s}
\widetilde{\psi}, \vartheta \tau_{1,-s}
\widetilde{v})| \leq
C
\left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} \cdot \|\nabla \widetilde{v} \|_{L^2(B_1^+)}+
\| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} \cdot \|\nabla \widetilde{\psi} \|_{L^2(B_1^+)}
\right ),$$ where $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$. By – we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-10-3}
\widetilde{a}_+( (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w})), (\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v})) \leq
\\
\leq
C
\left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)} + \| \widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)}
\right )
\cdot
\\
\cdot
\left (
\|\nabla \widetilde{v} \|_{L^2(B_1^+)}+
\|\nabla \widetilde{\psi} \|_{L^2(B_1^+)}
\right ),\end{gathered}$$ for every $(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}) \in
H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \times H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+)$, where $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $\|\mathbb
P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$.
We choose in the test functions $$\label{eq:reg-11-1}
\widetilde{\psi}=\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}),
\quad \widetilde{v}= \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{w}).$$ The next step consists in estimating from below the quadratic form $ \widetilde{a}_+((\cdot,\cdot), (\cdot,\cdot))$. To perform this estimate, we write $$\label{eq:reg-11-2}
\widetilde{a}_+( (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w})), (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w}))= \widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{\mathbb P}} (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})) +
\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{S}} (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w}) ),$$ where $$\label{eq:reg-11-3}
\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{\mathbb P}} (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}))= \int_{B_1^+} \widetilde{\mathbb P}
\nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})) \cdot \nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})),$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-11-4}
\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{S}} (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w}) )= \\
=\int_{B_1^+} \widetilde{S}
\left ( \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})+ L^T \nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w})) \right ) \cdot \left ( \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})+ L^T \nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w})) \right ).\end{gathered}$$ By , the matrix $\widetilde{S}$ is definite positive, and then $\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{S}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ can be easily estimated from below as follows $$\label{eq:reg-11-5}
\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{S}} (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}), \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w}) )\geq
C \int_{B_1^+} | \tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})+ L^T \nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w})) |^2,$$ where $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$ and $\sigma_0$.
The fourth order tensor $ \widetilde{\mathbb P}$ neither has the minor symmetries nor is strongly convex. Then, in order to estimate from below $\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{\mathbb P}}
(\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}))$, we found convenient apply the inverse transformation ${\cal{T}}_{(j)}^{-1}$ (see ) and use the strong convexity of the tensor $\mathbb P$. To simplify the notation, let $\widetilde{f} \equiv
\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta \widetilde{\varphi}) \in H_{\Gamma_1^+}^1
(B_1^+, {\mathbb{R}}^2)$. We have $$\label{eq:reg-12-1}
\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{\mathbb P}}(\widetilde{f})= \int_{B_1^+}
\widetilde{\mathbb P}(y) \nabla_y \widetilde{f} \cdot \nabla_y
\widetilde{f}dy = \int_{\Omega_j \cap \Omega} \mathbb P(x)
\nabla_x f \cdot \nabla_x f dx \geq C \int_{\Omega_j \cap
\Omega}| \widehat{\nabla}_x f|^2 dx,$$ where $f(x)= \widetilde{f}( {\cal{T}}_{(j)}(x))$ and $C>0$ is a constant only depending on $\xi_0$. By Korn’s inequality on $H_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ (see, for example, Theorem 5.7 in [@A-M-R08]) and by the change of variables $y={\cal{T}}_{(j)}(x)$, we have $$\label{eq:reg-12-2}
\int_{\Omega_j \cap \Omega}| \widehat{\nabla}_x f|^2 dx \geq C
\int_{\Omega_j \cap \Omega}| \nabla_x f|^2 dx =
\int_{B_1^+} |\nabla_y \widetilde{f} L|^2 \iota^{-1}dy \geq C'
\int_{B_1^+} |\nabla_y \widetilde{f}|^2 dy,$$ where $C'>0$ only depends on $M_0$, and in the last step we have taken into account that the matrix $L$ is nonsingular. Then, by and , we have $$\label{eq:reg-13-1}
\widetilde{a}_+^{\widetilde{\mathbb P}}(\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi})) \geq C \int_{B_1^+} | \nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}))|^2,$$ where $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$ and $\xi_0$. Now, by inserting the estimates and in , with $\widetilde{\psi}$, $\widetilde{v}$ as in , and by Poincaré’s inequality in $H^1_{\Gamma_1^+}(B_1^+)$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-14-1}
\| \nabla(\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}))\|_{L^2(B_1^+)} + \|\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{\varphi}) + L^T \nabla (\tau_{1,s}(\vartheta
\widetilde{w}))\|_{L^2(B_1^+)} \leq
\\
\leq
C\left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)} + \| \widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)}
\right )\end{gathered}$$ where $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\|\mathbb
P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$. Taking the limit as $s
\rightarrow 0$ and by the definition of the function $\vartheta$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-14-2}
\left \| \frac{\partial }{\partial y_1} \nabla \widetilde{\varphi} \right \|_{L^2(B_{\rho}^+)}
+ \left \| \frac{\partial \widetilde{\varphi} }{\partial y_1} + L^T \frac{\partial }{\partial y_1} \nabla \widetilde{w} \right \|_{L^2(B_{\rho}^+)} \leq
\\
\leq
C \left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}} \|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}} \|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)} + \| \widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)}
\right )\end{gathered}$$ where $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\|\mathbb
P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$. Therefore, the tangential derivatives $\frac{\partial }{\partial y_1} \nabla
\widetilde{\varphi} $, $\frac{\partial }{\partial y_1} \nabla
\widetilde{w}$ exist and belong to $L^2(B_{\rho}^+)$.
*Second step.* (Estimate of the normal derivatives)
To obtain an analogous estimate of the normal derivatives $\frac{\partial }{\partial y_2} \nabla \widetilde{\varphi} $, $\frac{\partial }{\partial y_2} \nabla \widetilde{w}$ we need to prove the following two facts: $$\label{eq:reg-15-1}
\left | \int_{B^+_\rho} \frac{\partial \widetilde{\varphi}_r}{\partial
y_2}\frac{\partial \widetilde{\psi}}{\partial y_2} \right | \leq C \|
\widetilde{\psi}\|_{L^2(B^+_\rho)}, \quad \hbox{for every }
\widetilde{\psi} \in C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho), \ r=1,2,$$ $$\label{eq:reg-15-2}
\left | \int_{B^+_\rho} \frac{\partial \widetilde{w}}{\partial
y_2}\frac{\partial \widetilde{v}}{\partial y_2} \right | \leq C \|
\widetilde{v}\|_{L^2(B^+_\rho)}, \quad \hbox{for every }
\widetilde{v} \in C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho),$$ for some constant $C>0$ depending only on the data. Since $$\label{eq:reg-15-3}
\widetilde{a}_+((\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{w}),
(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}))= 0, \quad \hbox{for every }
(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}) \in C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho,
{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho),$$ by integration by parts we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-15-4}
\int_{B_\rho^+} {\cal{P}}_{ir} \widetilde{\varphi}_{r,2}
\widetilde{\psi}_{i,2} + \int_{B_\rho^+} {\cal{S}}_{22}
\widetilde{w},_2 \widetilde{v},_2 = \int_{B_\rho^+}
\sum^2_{\overset{i,j,r,s=1}{(j,s)\neq (2,2)}}
(\widetilde{P}_{ijrs}
\widetilde{\varphi}_{r,s}),_j \widetilde{\psi}_i -
\\
- \int_{B_\rho^+}
\left (
\widetilde{S} \widetilde{\varphi} \cdot \widetilde{\psi} -
(\widetilde{S}_{ij} \widetilde{\varphi}_j (L^T)_{ik}),_k \widetilde{v}
+
\widetilde{S}(L^T \nabla \widetilde{w}) \cdot
\widetilde{\psi} - \sum^2_{\overset{i,j=1}{(i,j)\neq (2,2)}}
((L\widetilde{S}L^T)_{ij} \widetilde{w},_j),_i \widetilde{v}
\right ),\end{gathered}$$ for every $(\widetilde{\psi}, \widetilde{v}) \in
C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho,{\mathbb{R}}^2)\times C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho)$, where $$\label{eq:reg-16-1}
{\cal{P}}_{ir} = \widetilde{P}_{i2r2}, \ i,r=1,2, \quad
{\cal{S}}_{22}=(L\widetilde{S}L^T)_{22}.$$ By the properties - of $\widetilde{\mathbb {P}}$ and the definite positiveness of $\widetilde{S}$ (see ), the matrix $({\cal{P}}_{ir})_{i,r=1,2}$ is symmetric and definite positive and ${\cal{S}}_{22}>0$.
Let $\widetilde{v}=0$ in . Then, by using estimate we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-16-2}
\left | \int_{B_\rho^+} {\cal{P}}_{ir} \widetilde{\varphi}_{r,2}
\widetilde{\psi}_{i,2} \right |
\leq
\\
\leq
C
\left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)} + \| \widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)}
\right ) \| \widetilde{\psi}\|_{L^2(B_\rho^+)},\end{gathered}$$ for every $\widetilde{\psi} \in C^\infty_0(B_\rho^+)$, where the constant $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\|\mathbb P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$. This inequality implies the existence in $L^2(B_\rho^+)$ of the derivative $ \frac{\partial
}{\partial y_2} \left ( \sum_{r=1}^2 {\cal{P}}_{ir}
\widetilde{\varphi}_{r,2} \right )$, $i=1,2$. Then, it is easy to see that this condition implies $ \frac{\partial^2
\widetilde{\varphi}_r}{\partial y_2^2} \in L^2(B_\rho^+)$, $r=1,2$.
Similarly, choosing $\widetilde{\psi}=0$ in we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:reg-16-3}
\left | \int_{B_\rho^+} {\cal{S}}_{22}
\widetilde{w},_2 \widetilde{v},_2 \right |
\leq
\\
\leq
C
\left (
\| \widetilde{{\cal{Q}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{{\cal{M}}}\|_{H^{ \frac{1}{2} }(\Gamma_1)} +
\| \widetilde{\varphi}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)} + \| \widetilde{w}\|_{H^1(B_1^+)}
\right ) \| \widetilde{v}\|_{L^2(B_\rho^+)},\end{gathered}$$ for every $\widetilde{v} \in C^\infty_0(B^+_\rho)$, where the constant $C>0$ only depends on $M_0$, $\xi_0$, $\sigma_0$, $\|\mathbb P\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$ and $\|S\|_{C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})}$. As before, this condition implies the existence in $L^2(B_\rho^+)$ of $ \frac{\partial^2
\widetilde{w}}{\partial y_2^2}$.
Finally, from and , the $L^2$-norm of $ \frac{\partial^2 \widetilde{\varphi}_r}{\partial
y_2^2}$, $r=1,2$, and $ \frac{\partial^2 \widetilde{w}}{\partial
y_2^2}$ can be estimated in terms of known quantities, and the proof of Theorem \[theo:reg-loc-bound\] is complete.
[99]{}
S. Agmon, *Lectures on Elliptic Boundary Value Problems*, Mathematical Studies, vol. 2. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N.J.-Toronto-London, 1965.
G. Alessandrini, A. Morassi, E. Rosset, Detecting cavities by electrostatic boundary measurements, Inverse Problems 18 (2002) 1333–1353.
G. Alessandrini, A. Morassi, E. Rosset, The linear constraints in Poincaré and Korn type inequalities, Forum Mathematicum 20 (2008) 557–569.
S. Campanato, *Sistemi ellittici in forma divergenza. Regolarità all’interno.* Quaderni della Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 1980.
G. Duvaut, J.L. Lions, *Inequalities in Mechanics and Physics*, Springer-Verlag, 1976.
K.O. Friedrichs, On the boundary value problems of the theory of elasticity and Korn’s inequality, Annals of Mathematics 48 (1947) 441–471.
J. Gobert, Une inégalité fondamentale de la théorie de l’élasticité, Bulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège 31 (1962) 182–191.
C.L. Lin, G. Nakamura, J.N. Wang, Optimal three-Ball inequalities and quantitative uniqueness for the Lamé system with Lipschitz coefficients, Duke Mathematical Journal 155(1) (2010) 189–204.
A. Morassi, E. Rosset, S. Vessella, Size estimates for inclusions in an elastic plate by boundary measurements Indiana University Mathematical Journal 56 (2007) 2325�-84
R.D. Mindlin, Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates, Journal of Applied Mechanics 18 (1951) 31-�38.
R. Paroni, P. Podio-Guidugli, G. Tomassetti, A justification of the Reissner-Mindlin plate theory through variational convergence, Analysis and Applications 5(2) (2007) 165-182.
E. Reissner, The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates, Journal of Applied Mechanics 12 (1945) A69�-A77.
C. Truesdell, *The Elements of Continuum Mechanics*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966.
[^1]: Dipartimento Politecnico di Ingegneria e Architettura, Università degli Studi di Udine, via Cotonificio 114, 33100 Udine, Italy. E-mail:
[^2]: Dipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, Università degli Studi di Trieste, via Valerio 12/1, 34127 Trieste, Italy. E-mail:
[^3]: Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica “Ulisse Dini”, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Viale Morgagni 67/a, 50134 Firenze, Italy. E-mail:
[^4]: The second author is supported by FRA2014 ‘Problemi inversi per PDE, unicità, stabilità, algoritmi’, Università degli Studi di Trieste, the second and the third author are supported by GNAMPA of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the compactness of operators on the Bergman space of the unit ball and on very generally weighted Bargmann-Fock spaces in terms of the behavior of their Berezin transforms and the norms of the operators acting on reproducing kernels. In particular, in the Bergman space setting we show how a vanishing Berezin transform combined with certain (integral) growth conditions on an operator $T$ are sufficient to imply that the operator is compact. In the weighted Bargmann-Fock space setting we show that the reproducing kernel thesis for compactness holds for operators satisfying similar growth conditions. The main results extend the results of Xia and Zheng to the case of the Bergman space when $1 < p < \infty$, and in the weighted Bargmann-Fock space setting, our results provide new, more general conditions that imply the work of Xia and Zheng via a more familiar approach that can also handle the $1 < p < \infty$ case.'
address:
- |
Joshua Isralowitz, Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
University at Albany\
1400 Washington Ave.\
Albany, NY USA 12222
- |
Mishko Mitkovski, Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Clemson University\
O-110 Martin Hall, Box 340975\
Clemson, SC USA 29634
- |
Brett D. Wick, School of Mathematics\
Georgia Institute of Technology\
686 Cherry Street\
Atlanta, GA USA 30332-0160
author:
- Joshua Isralowitz
- 'Mishko Mitkovski$^\dagger$'
- 'Brett D. Wick$^\ddagger$'
title: Localization and Compactness in Bergman and Fock Spaces
---
[equation]{}[section]{}
\[section\] \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{} \[thm\][Problem]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{}
\[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Example]{}
\[thm\][Definition]{}
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#Intro}
============
The Bargmann-Fock space $\mathcal{F}^p:=\mathcal{F}^p({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is the collection of entire functions $f$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $f(\cdot) e^{- \frac{{\ensuremath{\left\vert\cdot\right\vert}}}{2}} \in L^p({\mathbb{C}}^n, dv)$. It is well known that ${\mathcal{F}}^2$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with reproducing kernel given by $K_z(w)=e^{\overline{z}w}$. As usual, we denote by $k_z$ the normalized reproducing kernel at $z$. For a bounded operator $T$ on ${\mathcal{F}}^p$, the Berezin transform of $T$ is the function defined by $$\tilde{T}(z)={\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}_{\mathcal{F}^2}.$$ It was proved recently by Bauer and the first author that the vanishing of the Berezin transform is sufficient for compactness whenever the operator is in the Toeplitz algebra [@BI]. However, it is generally very difficult to check whether a given operator $T$ is in the Toeplitz algebra, unless $T$ is itself a Toeplitz operator or a combination of a few Toeplitz operators, and as such one would like a “simpler” sufficient condition to guarantee this.
In the recent and interesting paper [@XZ], Xia and Zheng introduced a class of “sufficiently localized” operators on ${\mathcal{F}}^2$ which includes the algebraic closure of the Toeplitz operators. These are the operators $T$ acting on ${\mathcal{F}}^2$ such that there exist constants $2n<\beta<\infty$ and $0<C<\infty$ with $$\label{SL-Fock}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{\mathcal{F}^2}\right\vert}}\leq\frac{C}{\left(1+{\ensuremath{\left\vertz-w\right\vert}}\right)^{\beta}}.$$ It was proved by Xia and Zheng that every bounded operator $T$ from the $C^*$ algebra generated by sufficiently localized operators whose Berezin transform vanishes at infinity, i.e., $$\label{Ber} \lim_{{\ensuremath{\left\vertz\right\vert}}\to
\infty}{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}_{\mathcal{F}^2}=0$$ is compact on $\mathcal{F}^2$. One of their main innovations is providing an easily checkable condition which is general enough to imply compactness from the seemingly much weaker condition .
The aim of this paper is threefold. First, we wish to extend the Xia-Zheng notion of sufficiently localized operators to both a much wider class of weighted Fock spaces (in particular, the class of so-called “generalized Bargmann-Fock spaces" considered in [@SV]) and to a larger class of operators. Note that easily implies $$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{\mathcal{F}^2}\right\vert}} \,dv(w)<\infty;$$ and consequently one should look at generalizations of sufficiently localized operators that allow for weaker integral conditions. Also, note that the ideas in [@XZ] are essentially frame theoretic (see [@I] for a discussion of the ideas in [@XZ] from this point of view) and therefore one can not easily extend these ideas to the non-Hilbert space setting. To remedy this, we will provide a simpler, more direct proof of the main result in [@XZ] which follows a more traditional route and which can be extended to other (not necessarily Hilbert) spaces of analytic functions. In particular, we show that our main result, in an appropriately modified form, holds for the classical Bergman space $A^p$ on the ball (and in Section \[ConcRemSec\] we will discuss the possibility of extending our results to a very wide class of weighted Bergman spaces.)
The extension of the main results in [@XZ] to a larger class of operators and to a wider class of weighted Fock spaces is as follows. Let $d^c = \frac{i}{4} (\overline{\partial} - \partial)$ and let $d$ be the usual exterior derivative. For the rest of the paper let $\phi \in C^2({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ be a real valued function on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $$c \omega_0 < d d^c \phi < C \omega_0$$ holds uniformly pointwise on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ for some positive constants $c$ and $C$ (in the sense of positive $(1, 1)$ forms) where $\omega_0 = d d^c |\cdot |^2$ is the standard Euclidean Kähler form. Furthermore, for $0 < p \leq \infty$, define the generalized Bargmann-Fock space ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ to be the space of entire functions $f$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $fe^{-\phi} \in L^p({\mathbb{C}}^n, dv)$ (for a detailed study of the linear space properties of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ see [@SV]). For operators $T$ acting on the reproducing kernels $K(z, w)$ of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}$, we impose the following conditions. We first assume that $$\label{assump1-Fock}
\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}^n}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}\,dv(w)<\infty, \hspace{.5cm}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}\,dv(w)<\infty,$$ which is enough to conclude that the operator $T$ initially defined on the linear span of the reproducing kernels extends to a bounded operator on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ for $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ (see Section \[Fock\]). To show that the operator is compact, we impose the following additional assumptions on $T$: $$\label{assump-Fock}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}\,dv(w)=0, \hspace{.5cm}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}\,dv(w)=0.$$
\[sufficient\_local\] We will say that a linear operator $T$ on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ is weakly localized (and for convenience write $T \in {{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$) if it satisfies the conditions and .
Note that every sufficiently localized operator on $\mathcal{F}^2$ in the sense of Xia and Zheng obviously satisfies and and is therefore weakly localized in our sense too. Now if $D(z, r)$ is the Euclidean ball with center $z$ and radius $r$, and if $\|T\|_{\text{e}}$ denotes the essential norm of a bounded operator $T$ on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ then the following theorem is one of the main results of this paper:
\[local-Fock\] Let $ 1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be an operator on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ which belongs to the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$. Then there exists $r, C > 0$ (both depending on $T$) such that $$\|T\|_{\text{e}} \leq C \limsup_{|z| \rightarrow \infty} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}\right\vert}}.$$ In particular, if $$\lim_{|z| \rightarrow \infty} \|Tk_z\|_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}} = 0$$ then $T$ is compact on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$.
Now if ${{\mathcal{A}}({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ is the class of sufficiently localized operators on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F} ^2 }}$ then note that an application of Proposition $1.4$ in [@I] in conjunction with Theorem \[local-Fock\] immediately proves the following theorem, which provides the previously mentioned generalization of the results in [@XZ] (see Section \[Fock\] for more details).
\[local-ordinaryFock\] Let $ 1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be an operator on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F} ^p }}$ which belongs to the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$. If $\lim_{|z| \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F} ^2 }}}\right\vert}} = 0$ then $T$ is compact.
Let us note that one can easily write the so called “Fock-Sobolev spaces" from [@CZ] as generalized Bargmann-Fock spaces, so that in particular Theorem \[local-Fock\] immediately applies to these spaces (see [@I] for more details).
To state the main result in the Bergman space setting requires some notation. Let ${\mathbb{B}}_n$ denote the unit ball in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ and let the space $A^p:=A^p({\mathbb{B}}_n)$ denote the classical Bergman space, i.e., the collection of all holomorphic functions on ${\mathbb{B}}_n$ such that $${\ensuremath{\left\|f\right\|}}_{A^p}^p:=\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(z)\right\vert}}^p\,dv(z)<\infty.$$ The function $K_z(w):=(1-\overline{z}w)^{-(n+1)}$ is the reproducing kernel for $A^2$ and $$k_z(w):=\frac{(1-{\ensuremath{\left\vertz\right\vert}}^2)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{(1-\overline{z}w)^{(n+1)}}$$ is the normalized reproducing kernel at the point $z$. We also will let $d\lambda$ denote the invariant measure on ${\mathbb{B}}_n$, i.e., $$d\lambda(z)=\frac{dv(z)}{(1-{\ensuremath{\left\vertz\right\vert}}^2)^{n+1}}.$$
Now let $1 < p < \infty$ and let $\frac1p + \frac{1}{p'} = 1$. We are interested in operators $T$ acting on the reproducing kernels of $A^2$ that satisfy the following conditions. First, we assume that there exists $0 < \delta < \min\{p, p'\}$ such that $$\label{assump1}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)<\infty,
\hspace{.5cm}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)<\infty.$$ These are enough to conclude that the operator $T$ initially defined on the linear span of the reproducing kernels extends to a bounded operator on $A^p$ (see the comments following the proof of Proposition \[MainEst1\]). To treat compactness we make the following additional assumptions on $T$: there exists $0 < \delta < \min\{p, p'\}$ such that $$\label{assump}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w) \rightarrow 0,
\hspace{.5cm}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w) \rightarrow 0$$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$.
\[sufficient\_local\_Bergman\] We say that a linear operator $T$ on $A^p$ is $p$ weakly localized (which we denote by $T \in {{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$) if it satisfies conditions and .
Note that the condition $0 < \delta < \min\{p, p'\}$ implies that both $1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}$ and $1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}$ are strictly between $\frac{n - 1}{n + 1}$ and $1$. Furthermore, note that when $p = p' = 2$, we have that $ \frac{n - 1}{n + 1} < 1 - \frac{\delta}{(n + 1)} < 1$ precisely when $0 < \delta < 2$. Thus, in this case we can rewrite condition in the following simpler way: there exists $\frac{n-1}{n + 1} < a < 1$ where $$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)<\infty,
\hspace{.5cm}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)<\infty.$$ Of course, one can similarly rewrite condition when $p = 2$.
We prove the following result.
\[local-Bergman1\] Let $1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be an operator on $A^p$ which belongs to the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. If $$\lim_{{\ensuremath{\left\vertz\right\vert}}\to 1}{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}=0$$ then $T$ is compact.
It will be clear that the method of proof also will work for the weighted Bergman space $A^p _\alpha$, and we leave this to the interested reader to verify.
Note that this result is known through deep work of Suárez, [@Sua] in the case of $A^p$ when the operator $T$ belongs to the Toeplitz algebra generated by $L^\infty$ symbols (see also [@MSW] for the case of weighted Bergman spaces.) We will prove below that the Toeplitz algebra on $A^p$ generated by $L^\infty$ symbols is a subalgebra of the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. In particular, the results of this paper provide a considerably simpler proof of the main results in [@MSW; @Sua] for the $p \neq 2$ situation (though it should be noted that a similar simplification when $p = 2$ was provided in [@MW]).
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section \[Bergman\] we provide the extension of the the Xia and Zheng result to the Bergman space on the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}_n$, and in particular we prove Theorem \[local-Bergman1\]. In Section \[Fock\] we prove Theorems \[local-Fock\] and \[local-ordinaryFock\] which provides an extension of the Xia and Zheng result in the case of the generalized Bargmann-Fock spaces. Finally in Section \[ConcRemSec\] we will briefly discuss some interesting open problems related to these results.
Bergman Space Case {#Bergman}
==================
Let $\varphi_z$ be the Möbius map of ${\mathbb{B}}_n$ that interchanges $0$ and $z$. It is well known that $$1-{\ensuremath{\left\vert\varphi_z(w)\right\vert}}^2=\frac{(1-{\ensuremath{\left\vertz\right\vert}}^2)(1-{\ensuremath{\left\vertw\right\vert}}^2)}{{\ensuremath{\left\vert1-\overline{z}w\right\vert}}^{2}},$$ and as a consequence we have that $$\label{Magic} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}=\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_{\varphi_z(w)}\right\|}}_{A^2}}.$$
Using the automorphism $\varphi_z$, the pseudohyperbolic and Bergman metrics on ${\mathbb{B}}_n$ are defined by $$\rho(z,w):={\ensuremath{\left\vert\varphi_z(w)\right\vert}}\quad\textnormal{ and }\quad \beta(z,w):=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1+\rho(z,w)}{1-\rho(z,w)}.$$ Recall that these metrics are connected by $\rho=\frac{e^{2\beta}-1}{e^{2\beta}+1}=\tanh\beta$ and it is well-known that these metrics are invariant under the automorphism group of ${\mathbb{B}}_n$. We let $$D(z,r):=\{w\in{\mathbb{B}}_n:\beta(z,w)\leq
r\}=\{w\in{\mathbb{B}}_n: \rho(z,w)\leq s=\tanh r\},$$ denote the hyperbolic disc centered at $z$ of radius $r$. Recall also that the orthogonal (Bergman) projection of $L^2({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)$ onto $A^2$ is given by the integral operator $$P(f)(z):=\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\langle{K_w},{K_z}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}f(w)dv(w).$$ Therefore, for all $f\in A^2$ we have $$\label{BergResOfId} f(z)=\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\langlef,{k_w}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}{k_w}(z)\,d\lambda(w).$$
As usual an important ingredient in our treatment will be the Rudin-Forelli estimates, see [@Zhu] or [@MW]. Recall the standard Rudin-Forelli estimates: $$\label{propA6} \int_{\mathbb{B}_n}
{\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleK_z,K_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}^{\frac{r+s}{2}}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^s_{A^2}{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^r_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)}\leq C = C(r,s) <
\infty, \; \; \forall z \in \mathbb{B}_n$$ for all $r>\kappa>s>0$, where $\kappa=\kappa_n:=\frac{2n}{n+1}$. We will use these in the following form: For all $\frac{n-1}{n+1}<a<1$ we have that $$\label{rf.n} \int_{\mathbb{B}_n}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\leq C = C(a) < \infty, \; \; \forall z
\in \mathbb{B}_n.$$ To see that this is true in the classical Bergman space setting, for a given $\frac{n-1}{n+1}<a<1$ set $r=1+a$ and $s=1-a > 0$. Then $r+s=2$, and since $a>\frac{n-1}{n+1}$ we have that $r=1+a>\frac{2n}{n+1}$. Furthermore since $0 < a < 1$ we have that $0 < s < 1 \leq \frac{2n}{n + 1}$. By plugging this in we obtain .
We will also need the following uniform version of the Rudin-Forelli estimates.
\[lm-rfloc\] Let $\frac{n-1}{n+1}<a<1$. Then $$\label{rfloc}
\lim_{R\to\infty}\sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}_n}\int_{D(z,R)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)= 0.$$
Notice first that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{D(z,R)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)&=&\int_{D(0,R)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_{{\varphi}_z(w)}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_{{\varphi}_z(w)}\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\\ &=& \int_{D(0,R)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}^a\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\\ &=& \int_{D(0,R)^c}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleK_z,K_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}^a}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1+a}_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\\ &=& \int_{D(0,R)^c}
\frac{dv(w)}{{\ensuremath{\left\vert1-\bar{w}z\right\vert}}^{(n+1)a}(1-{\ensuremath{\left\vertw\right\vert}}^2)^{\frac{n+1}{2}(1-a)}}\\
&=&\int_{R'}^{1}\int_{\mathbb{S}_n}\frac{r^{2n-1}d\xi dr}{{\ensuremath{\left\vert1-zr\overline{\xi}\right\vert}}^{(n+1)a}(1-r^2)^{\frac{n+1}{2}(1-a)}}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last integral $R=\log\frac{1+R'}{1-R'}$. Notice that $R'\to1$ when $R\to\infty$ and note that the last integral can be written as $$\int_{R'}^{1}I_{(n+1)a-n}(rz)\frac{r^{2n-1} dr}{(1-r^2)^{\frac{n+1}{2}(1-a)}},$$ where $$I_{c}(z):=\int_{\mathbb{S}_n}\frac{d\xi}{{\ensuremath{\left\vert1-zr\overline{\xi}\right\vert}}^{c+n}}.$$ By standard estimates (see [@Zhu]\*[p. 15]{} for example), we have that $$I_{(n+1)a-n}(rz)\lesssim
\begin{cases}
1, \hspace{.5cm} \mbox{if } \hspace{.2cm} (n+1)a-n<0 \\
\log\frac{1}{1-|rz|^2}, \hspace{.5cm} \text{if } \hspace{.2cm} (n+1)a-n=0 \\
\frac{1}{(1-|rz|^2)^{(n+1)a-n}}, \hspace{.5cm} \text{if } \hspace{.2cm} (n+1)a-n>0,
\end{cases}$$ which gives us that
$$\int_{D(z,R)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\lesssim \begin{cases}
\int_{R'}^1 \frac{r^{2n-1}}{(1-r^2)^{\frac{n+1}{2}(1-a)}}dr, \hspace{.5cm} \mbox{if } \hspace{.2cm} (n+1)a-n<0 \\
\int_{R'}^1 \log\frac{1}{1-r^2}\frac{r^{2n-1}}{(1-r^2)^{\frac12}}dr\, \hspace{.5cm} \text{if } \hspace{.2cm} (n+1)a-n=0 \\
\int_{R'}^1 \frac{r^{2n-1}}{(1-r^2)^{(n+1)a-n+\frac{n+1}{2}(1-a)}}dr, \hspace{.5cm} \text{if } \hspace{.2cm} (n+1)a-n>0
\end{cases}$$
Since $a < 1$, it is easy to see that all the functions appearing on the right hand side are integrable on $(0,1)$. Therefore, we obtain the desired conclusion by taking the limit as $R\to \infty$ (which is the same as $R'\to 1$).
First, we want to make sure that the class of weakly localized operators is large enough to contain some interesting operators. This is indeed true since every Toeplitz operator with a bounded symbol belongs to this class.
\[T-Berg\] Each Toeplitz operator $T_u$ on $A^p$ with a bounded symbol $u(z)$ is in ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ for any $1 < p < \infty$.
Clearly it is enough to show that $$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_u k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w) \rightarrow 0,
\hspace{.5cm}
\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_{\overline{u}} k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{a} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w) \rightarrow 0$$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$ for all $\frac{n - 1}{n + 1} < a < \infty$.
By definition $$T_uk_z(w)=P(uk_z)(w)=\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\langleK_x,K_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}u(x)k_z(x)\,dv(x).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_uk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} & \leq &
\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertu(x)\right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\,d{\lambda}(x)\\
& \leq & \left\Vert u\right\Vert_{\infty}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\,d{\lambda}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Now for $z,x\in{\mathbb{B}}_n$, set $$I_z(x):= {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} \int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)$$ First note that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_uk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w) &\leq& \left\Vert
u\right\Vert_{\infty}
\int_{D(z,r)^c}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\,d{\lambda}(x)\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\\
&=& \left\Vert u\right\Vert_{\infty}
\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w){\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\,d{\lambda}(x)\\
& = & \left\Vert u\right\Vert_{\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n} I_z(x) \,d{\lambda}(x)\\ &=& \left\Vert
u\right\Vert_{\infty}\left(\int_{D(z,\frac{r}{2})}+\int_{D\left(z,\frac{r}{2}\right)^c}\right)I_z(x)\,d\lambda(x).\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the first integral notice that for $x\in D\left(z,\frac{r}{2}\right)$ we have $D(z,r)^c\subset D\left(x,\frac{r}{2}\right)^c$. Therefore, the first integral is no greater than
$$\int_{D(z,\frac{r}{2})}\int_{D(x,\frac{r}{2})^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w){\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\,d{\lambda}(x).$$ It is easy to see that the last expression is no greater than $C(a)
A\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)$, where $$A(r)=\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w),$$ and $C(a)$ is just the bound from the standard Rudin-Forelli estimates .
Estimating the second integral is simpler. The second integral is clearly no greater than
$$\int_{D\left(z,\frac{r}{2}\right)^c}\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_w,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w){\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\,d{\lambda}(x).$$ By the standard Rudin-Forelli estimates the inner integral is no greater than $$C(a)\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_x\right\|}}^a_{A^2}},$$ where the constant $C(a)$ is independent of $z$ and $x$. So, the whole integral is bounded by $C(a)A\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)$. Therefore
$$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n} \int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_uk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^a}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^a}\,d{\lambda}(w)\leq \left\Vert
u\right\Vert_{\infty}\left(C(a)A\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)+C(a)A\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)\right).$$ Applying the uniform Rudin-Forelli estimates in Lemma \[lm-rfloc\] completes the proof since $2C(a)\left\Vert
u\right\Vert_{\infty}A\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)\to 0$ as $r\to\infty$.
We next show that the class of weakly localized operators forms a $*$-algebra.
\[C\*-Berg\] If $1 < p < \infty$ then ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ is an algebra. Furthermore, ${{\mathcal{A}}_2({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ is a $*-$algebra.
It is trivial that $T\in {{\mathcal{A}}_2({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ implies $T^*\in{{\mathcal{A}}_2({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. It is also easy to see that any linear combination of two operators in ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ must be also in ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. It remains to prove that if $T, S\in {{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$, then $TS\in {{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. To that end, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{D(z,r)^c} & {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTSk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w) \\ & = \int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleSk_z,T^*k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\\
\\ &=
\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}{\ensuremath{\left\langleSk_z,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,T^*k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\,d{\lambda}(x)\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)\\
&\leq
\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,T^*k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{d{\lambda}(w)}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleSk_z,k_x\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p'(n + 1)}}
\,d{\lambda}(x).\\ \end{aligned}$$ Proceeding exactly as in the proof of the previous Proposition and using the conditions following from $T, S\in {{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ in the place of the local Rudin-Forelli estimates (and replacing $a$ with ${1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}})$ we obtain that $$\lim_{r\to\infty}\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTSk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} _{A^2}}\,d{\lambda}(w)=0.$$ The corresponding condition for $(TS)^*$ is proved in exactly the same way.
We next show that every weakly localized operator can be approximated by infinite sums of well localized pieces. To state this property we need to recall the following proposition proved in [@MW]
\[Covering\_Bergman\] There exists an integer $N>0$ such that for any $r>0$ there is a covering ${\mathcal{F}}_r=\{F_j\}$ of ${\mathbb{B}}_n$ by disjoint Borel sets satisfying
1. every point of ${\mathbb{B}}_n$ belongs to at most $N$ of the sets $G_j:=\{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n: d(z, F_j)\leq r\}$,
2. $\textnormal{diam}_d\, F_j \leq 2r$ for every $j$.
We use this to prove the following proposition, which is similar to what appears in [@MW], but exploits condition .
\[MainEst1\] Let $1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be in the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. Then for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists $r>0$ such that for the covering ${\mathcal{F}}_r=\{F_j\}$ (associated to $r$) from Proposition \[Covering\_Bergman\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\| TP-\sum_{j}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }\right\|}}_{A^p\to L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv) } < \epsilon. \end{aligned}$$
By Proposition \[C\*-Berg\] in conjunction with Proposition \[Covering\_Bergman\] and a simple approximation argument, we may assume that $T \in {{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. Now define $$S=TP-\sum_{j}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }.$$ Given $\epsilon$ choose $r$ large enough so that $$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - {\frac{2\delta}{p' (n + 1) }} }_{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - {\frac{2\delta}{p' (n + 1) }} }_{A^2}}\,d\lambda(w)<\epsilon$$ and $$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n}\int_{D(z,r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_z\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p (n + 1) }} _{A^2}}{{\ensuremath{\left\|K_w\right\|}}^{1 - \frac{2\delta}{p (n + 1) }} _{A^2}}
\,d\lambda(w)<\epsilon.$$ Now for any $z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n$ let $z \in F_{j_0}$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\vertSf(z)\right\vert}} & \leq &
\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n}\sum_{j}1_{F_j(z)}1_{G_j^c}(w) {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{A^2} \right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(w)\right\vert}} \,dv(w)\\
& = & \int_{G_{j_0} ^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{A^2} \right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(w)\right\vert}} \,dv(w)\\
& \leq & \int_{D(z,r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{A^2} \right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(w)\right\vert}} \,dv(w).\end{aligned}$$
To finish the proof, we will estimate the operator norm of the integral operator on $L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)$ with kernel $1_{D(z, r) ^c} (w)|\langle T^*K_z, K_w\rangle_{A^2}| $ by using the classical Schur test. To that end, let $h(w) = \|K_w\|_{A^2} ^{\frac{2\delta}{p p '(n + 1)}}$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n} 1_{D(z, r) ^c} (w)|\langle T^* K_z, K_w\rangle_{A^2}| h(w) ^{p'} \, dv(w) & = \int_{D(z, r)^c} |\langle T^* K_z, K_w\rangle_{A^2}| \|K_w\|_{A^2} ^{\frac{2\delta}{p (n + 1) }} \, dv(w) \\ & = \int_{D(z, r)^c} |\langle T^* k_z, k_w\rangle_{A^2}| \|K_z\| \|K_w\|_{A^2} ^{\frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1) } - 1 } \, d\lambda(w) \\ & \leq \epsilon \|K_z\|_{A^2} ^{\frac{2\delta}{p(n + 1)}} = \epsilon h(z) ^{p'}. \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we have that $$\int_{{\mathbb{B}}_n} 1_{D(z, r) ^c} (w)|\langle T^* K_z, K_w\rangle_{A^2}| h(z) ^p \, dv(z) \leq \epsilon h(w) ^p$$ which completes the proof.
It should be noted that a very similar Schur test argument actually proves that condition implies that $T$ is bounded on $A^p$.
We can now prove one of our main results whose proof uses the ideas in [@MW]\*[Theorem 4.3]{} and [@I]\*[Lemma 5.3]{}. First, for any $w \in {\mathbb{B}}_n$ and $1 < p < \infty$, let $k_w ^{(p)}$ be the “$p$ - normalized reproducing kernel" defined by $$k_w ^{(p)} (z) = \frac{K(z, w) }{\|K_w\|^\frac{2}{p'} }.$$ Clearly we have that $k_w ^{(2)} = k_w$ and an easy computation tells us that $\|k_w ^{(p)}\|_{A^p} \approx 1$ (where obviously we have equality when $p = 2$).
\[essBerg\] Let $1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be in the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$. Then there exists $r, C > 0$ (both depending on $T$) such that $$\|T\|_{\text{e}} \leq C \limsup_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} |\langle Tk_z ^{(p)} , k_w ^{(p')} \rangle_{A^2}|$$ where $\|T\|_{\text{e}}$ is the essential norm of $T$ as a bounded operator on $A^p$.
Since $P : L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv) \rightarrow A^p$ is a bounded projection, it is enough to estimate the essential norm of $T = TP$ as an operator on from $A^p$ to $L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)$.
Clearly if $\|TP\|_\text{e} = 0$ then there is nothing to prove, so assume that $\|TP\|_\text{e} > 0.$ By Proposition \[MainEst1\] there exists $r>0$ such that for the covering ${\mathcal{F}}_r=\{F_j\}$ associated to $r$ (from Proposition \[Covering\_Bergman\]) $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\|TP- \sum_{j}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }\right\|}}_{A^p\to
L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)} < \frac{1}{2} \|TP\|_\text{e}. \end{aligned}$$
Since $\sum_{j< m}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }$ is compact for every $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have that $\|TP\|_{\text{e}}$ (as an operator from $A^p$ to $L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)$) can be estimated in the following way:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\|TP\right\|}}_\text{e} &\leq {\ensuremath{\left\|TP- \sum_{j < m}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }\right\|}}_{A^p\to L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)}\\ &\leq
{\ensuremath{\left\|TP- \sum_{j}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }\right\|}}_{A^p\to L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)}+{\ensuremath{\left\|T_m\right\|}}_{A^p \rightarrow L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)} \\ & \leq \frac{1}{2} \|TP\|_\text{e} + {\ensuremath{\left\|T_m\right\|}}_{A^p \rightarrow L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)}, \end{aligned}$$
where $$T_m = \sum_{j\geq m}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }.$$ We will complete the proof by showing that there exists $C > 0$ where $$\limsup_{m\to\infty}{\ensuremath{\left\|T_m\right\|}}_{A^p\to
L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)}\lesssim C \limsup_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} |\langle Tk_z ^{(p)}, k_w ^{(p')} \rangle_{A^2}| + \frac{1}{4}{\ensuremath{\left\|TP\right\|}}_\text{e}.$$
If $f\in A^p$ is arbitrary of norm no greater than $1$, then
$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\|T_m f\right\|}}_{A^p}^p &= \sum_{j\geq m}{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}^p\\ &= \sum_{j\geq m}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}^p}{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}^p}{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}^p \leq
N\sup_{j\geq m}{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} }Tl_j\right\|}}_{A^p}^p \end{aligned}$$
where $$l_j:=\frac{P M_{1_{G_j} }f}{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}}.$$
Therefore, we have that
$${\ensuremath{\left\|T_m\right\|}}_{A^p\to L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)}\lesssim \sup_{j\geq m}\sup_{{\ensuremath{\left\|f\right\|}}_{A^p} \leq 1}\left\{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} } Tl_j\right\|}}_{A^p}:
l_j=\frac{PM_{1_{G_j} }f}{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}}\right\}$$ and hence
$$\limsup_{m\to \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\|T_m\right\|}}_{A^p\to L^p({\mathbb{B}}_n, dv)}\lesssim \limsup_{j\to\infty}\sup_{{\ensuremath{\left\|f\right\|}}_{A^p}\leq
1}\left\{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} } Tl_j\right\|}}_{A^p}: l_j=\frac{PM_{1_{G_j} }f}{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j} }f\right\|}}_{A^p}}\right\}.$$
Now pick a sequence $\{f_j\}$ in $A^p$ with ${\ensuremath{\left\|f_j\right\|}}_{A^p}\leq 1$ such that $$\limsup_{j\to \infty}\sup_{{\ensuremath{\left\|f\right\|}}\leq 1}\left\{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} } Tg\right\|}}_{A^p}: g=\frac{PM_{1_{G_j}}f}{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j}
}f\right\|}}_{A^p}}\right\}-\frac{1}{4} \|TP\|_{\text{e}} \leq \limsup_{j\to\infty}{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} } Tg_j\right\|}}_{A^p},$$ where $$g_j=\frac{P M_{1_{G_j}
}f_j}{{\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{G_j}
}f_j\right\|}}_{A^p}}= \frac{\int_{G_j} {\ensuremath{\left\langlef, k_w ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2} k_{w} ^{(p)} \,d\lambda(w)}{\left(\int_{G_j}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlef, k_u ^{(p')} \right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} ^p \, d\lambda (u)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}} = \int_{G_j} \widetilde{a}_j (w) \, k_w ^{(p)} \, d\lambda(w)$$ where $$\widetilde{a}_j (w) = \frac{{\ensuremath{\left\langlef, k_w ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2} }{\left(\int_{G_j}{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlef, k_u ^{(p')} \right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} ^p \, d\lambda (u)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}.$$
Finally, by the reproducing property and Hölder’s inequality, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{j \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\|M_{1_{F_j} } T g_j\right\|}}_{A^p} ^p & \leq \limsup_{j \rightarrow \infty} \int_{F_j} \left( \int_{G_j} {\ensuremath{\left\vert\widetilde{a}_j (w) \right\vert}} {\ensuremath{\left\vertTk_w ^{(p)} (z)\right\vert}} \, d\lambda(w) \right)^p \, dv(z) \\ & = \limsup_{j \rightarrow \infty} \int_{F_j} \left( \int_{G_j} {\ensuremath{\left\vert\widetilde{a}_j (w) \right\vert}} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_w ^{(p)},k_z ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} \, d\lambda(w) \right)^p \, d\lambda(z) \\ & \leq \limsup_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-} } \sup_{w \in D(z, 3r)} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z ^{(p)}, k_w ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}^p \left( \sup_j \lambda(G_j) ^p \int_{G_j} {\ensuremath{\left\vert\widetilde{a}_j (w) \right\vert}} ^p \, d\lambda(w) \right) \\ & \leq C(r) \limsup_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-} } \sup_{w \in D(z, 3r)} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z ^{(p)}, k_w ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}^p \end{aligned}$$ since by Proposition \[Covering\_Bergman\] we have that $z \in F_j$ and $w \in G_j$ implies that $d(z, w) \leq 3r$ and $\lambda(G_j) \leq C(r)$ where $C(r)$ is independent of $j$.
We will finish this section off with a proof of Theorem \[local-Bergman1\]. First, for $z\in{\mathbb{B}}_n$, define $$U_z ^{(p)} f(w):= f(\varphi_z(w)) (k_z (w))^\frac{2}{p}$$ which via a simple change of variables argument is clearly an isometry on $A^p$. As was shown in [@Sua], an easy computation tells us that there exists a unimodular function $\Phi(\cdot, \cdot)$ on ${\mathbb{B}}_n \times {\mathbb{B}}_n$ where $$\label{TransOpForm} (U_z ^{(p)})^* k_w ^{(p')} = \Phi(z, w) k_{\phi_z (w)} ^{(p')}.$$
With the help of the operators $U_z ^{(p)}$, we will prove the following general result which in conjunction with Theorem \[essBerg\] proves Theorem \[local-Bergman1\]. Note that proof is similar to the proof of [@I]\*[Proposition 1.4]{}.
\[BerVanProp\] If $T$ is any bounded operator on $A^p$ for $1 < p < \infty$ then the following are equivalent
- $\lim_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} |\langle Tk_z ^{(p)} , k_w ^{(p')} \rangle_{A^2}| = 0$ for all $r > 0$,
- $\lim_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} |\langle Tk_z ^{(p)} , k_w ^{(p')} \rangle_{A^2}| = 0$ for some $r > 0$,
- $\lim_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} = 0 $.
Trivially we have that $(a) \Rightarrow (b)$, and the fact that $(b) \Rightarrow (c)$ follows by definition and setting $z = w$. We will complete the proof by showing that $(c) \Rightarrow (a)$.
Assume to the contrary that ${\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}}$ vanishes as $|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}$ but that $$\limsup_{|z| \rightarrow 1^{-}} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z ^{(p)}, k_w ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} \neq 0$$ for some fixed $r > 0$. Thus, there exists sequences $\{z_m\}, \{w_m\} $ and some $0 < r_0 < 1$ where $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} |z_m| = 1$ and $|w_m| \leq r_0$ for any $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and where $$\label{BerPropAssump} \limsup_{m \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langle Tk_{z_m} ^{(p)}, k_{\varphi_{z_m} (w_m)} ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} > \epsilon$$ for some $\epsilon > 0$. Furthermore, passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} w_m = w \in {\mathbb{B}}_n$. Note that since $|w_m| \leq r_0 < 1$ for all $m$, we trivially have $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} k_{w_m} ^{(p')} = k_w ^{(p')} $ where the convergence is in the $A^{p'}$ norm.
Let $\mathcal{B}(A^p)$ be the space of bounded operators on $A^p$. Since the unit ball in $\mathcal{B}(A^p)$ is $\operatorname{WOT}$ compact, we can (passing to another subsequence if necessary) assume that $$\widehat{T} = \operatorname{WOT}- \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} U_{z_m} ^{(p)} T (U_{z_m} ^{(p')})^*.$$ Thus, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{m \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langle Tk_{z_m} ^{(p)}, k_{\varphi_{z_m} (w_m)} ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} & =
\limsup_{m \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langle U_{z_m} ^{(p)} T (U_{z_m} ^{(p')})^* k_{0} ^{(p)} , k_{ w_m} ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} \\ & = \limsup_{m \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langle U_{z_m} ^{(p)} T (U_{z_m} ^{(p')})^* k_{0} ^{(p)} , k_{ w} ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} \\ & = {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langle\widehat{T} k_0, k_w\right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} .\end{aligned}$$ However, for any $z \in {\mathbb{B}}_n$ $${\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langle\widehat{T} k_z ^{(p)}, k_z ^{(p')}\right\rangle}}\right\vert}} = \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleU_{z_m} ^{(p)} T (U_{z_m} ^{(p')})^* k_z ^{(p)}, k_z ^{(p')}\right\rangle}} \right\vert}} \approx \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT k_{\varphi_{z_m} (z) } ^{(p)}, k_{\varphi_{z_m}(z)} ^{(p')} \right\rangle}}_{A^2}\right\vert}} = 0$$ since by assumption ${\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_z\right\rangle}}\right\vert}}$ vanishes as $|z| \rightarrow {1^{-}}$. Thus, since the Berezin transform is injective on $A^p$, we get that $\widehat{T} = 0$, which contradicts (\[BerPropAssump\]) and completes the proof.
Generalized Bargmann-Fock space case {#Fock}
====================================
In this section we will prove Theorems \[local-Fock\] and \[local-ordinaryFock\]. Some parts of the proofs are essentially identical to proof of Theorem \[local-Bergman1\] and so we will we only outline the necessary modifications.
For this section, let $$D(z,r):=\left\{w\in{\mathbb{C}}^n:{\ensuremath{\left\vertw-z\right\vert}}<r\right\}$$ denote the standard Euclidean disc centered at the point $z$ of radius $r>0$. For $z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$, we define $$U_z f(w):= f(z-w) k_z(w),$$ which via a simple change of variables argument is clearly an isometry on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F} ^p }}$ (though note in general that it is not clear whether $U_z$ even maps ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ into itself). Recall also that the orthogonal projection of $L^2({\mathbb{C}}^n,
e^{-2\phi} dv)$ onto ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}$ is given by the integral operator $$P(f)(z):=\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}{\ensuremath{\left\langle{K_w},{K_z}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}f(w)\,e^{-2\phi(w)} dv.$$ Therefore, for all $f\in {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ we have $$\label{FockResOfId} f(z)=\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}{\ensuremath{\left\langlef,\widetilde{{k_w}}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\widetilde{{k_w}}(z)\,dv(w)$$ where $\widetilde{{k_w}}(z) := {K_w}(z) e^{-\phi(w)}$. Note that $|K(z, z)| \approx e^{2\phi(z)}$ (see [@SV]) so that $$\label{EquivOfNormRepKer} |\widetilde{{k_w}}(z)| \approx |{k_w}(z)|.$$
The following analog of Lemma \[lm-rfloc\] is simpler to prove in this case.
$$\label{rfloc-Fock} \lim_{R\to\infty}\sup_{z\in\mathbb{C}^n}\int_{D(z,R)^c}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}\,dv(w)= 0.$$
To prove this, simply note that there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that ${\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \leq e^{-\epsilon|z - w|}$ for all $z, w \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$. The proof of this is then immediate since $$\int_{D(z,R)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}\,dv(w)\leq \int_{D(0,R)^{c}} e^{-\epsilon|w|} dv(w)$$ which clearly goes to zero as $R\to\infty$.
As in the Bergman case, ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ contains all Toeplitz operators with bounded symbols. Also, as was stated in the introduction, any $T \in {{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ is automatically bounded on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ for all $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. To prove this, note that it is enough to prove that $T$ is bounded on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^\infty }}$ by complex interpolation (see [@I]). To that end, we only prove that $T$ is bounded on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}$ since the proof that $T$ is bounded on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^\infty }}$ is similar. If $T \in {{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ and $f \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}$, then the reproducing property gives us that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\vertTf(z)\right\vert}} e^{- \phi(z)} & \approx {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlef,T^*k_z\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \\ & \lesssim \int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} {\ensuremath{\left\vertf(u)\right\vert}} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^* k_z,k_u\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \, e^{- \phi(u)} \, dv(u). \end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Fubini’s theorem, we have that $${\ensuremath{\left\|Tf\right\|}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}} \leq \int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} {\ensuremath{\left\vertf(u)\right\vert}} \left( \int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^* k_z,k_u\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \, dv(z) \right) e^{- \phi(u)} \, dv(u) \lesssim {\ensuremath{\left\|f\right\|}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}}.$$
In addition, ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ satisfies the following two properties:
\[T-Fock\] Each Toeplitz operator $T_u$ on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$ with a bounded symbol $u(z)$ is weakly localized.
Since ${\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \leq e^{-\epsilon|z - w|}$ for some $\epsilon > 0$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_u k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} & \lesssim \|u\|_{L^\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_z,k_x\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langlek_x,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \, dx \\ & \lesssim \|u\|_{L^\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} e^{- \epsilon |z - x|} e^{-\epsilon |x - w |} \, dx. \end{aligned}$$ Now if $|z - w| \geq r$ then by the triangle inequality we have that either $|z - x| \geq r/2$ or $|x - w| \geq r/2$ so that $$\int_{D(z, r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT_u {k}_z,{k}_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}} \, dw \lesssim e^{-\frac{\epsilon r}{2}} \|u\|_{L^\infty} \int_{D(z, r)^c} \int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} e^{- \frac{\epsilon}{2} |z - x|} e^{-\frac{\epsilon}{2} |x - w |} \, dx \,dw \lesssim e^{-\frac{\epsilon r}{2}} \|u\|_{L^\infty}$$
Note that $T_u$ is sufficiently localized even in the sense of Xia and Zheng by [@XZ]\*[Proposition 4.1]{}. Also note that a slight variation of the above argument shows that the Toeplitz operator $T_\mu \in {{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ if $\mu$ is a positive Fock-Carleson measure on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ (see [@SV] for precise definitions).
\[C\*-Fock\] ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ forms a $*$-algebra.
We will omit the proof of this proposition since it is proved in exactly the same way as it is in the Bergman space case (where the only difference is that one uses (\[FockResOfId\]) in conjunction with (\[EquivOfNormRepKer\]) instead of (\[BergResOfId\])).
We next prove that operators in the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$ can also be approximated by infinite sums of well localized pieces. To state this property we need to recall the following proposition proved in [@MW]
\[Covering\] There exists an integer $N>0$ such that for any $r>0$ there is a covering ${\mathcal{F}}_r=\{F_j\}$ of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ by disjoint Borel sets satisfying
1. every point of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ belongs to at most $N$ of the sets $G_j:=\{z\in\mathbb{C}^n: d(z, F_j)\leq r\}$,
2. $\textnormal{diam}_d\, F_j \leq 2r$ for every $j$.
We use this to prove the following proposition, which is similar to what appears in [@MW], but exploits condition (and is proved in a manner that is similar to the proof of [@I]\*[Lemma 5.2]{}). Note that for the rest of this paper, ${\ensuremath{L_\phi ^p}}$ will refer to the space of measurable functions $f$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $f e^{- \phi} \in L^p({\mathbb{C}}^n, dv)$.
\[MainEst2\] Let $1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be in the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$. Then for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists $r>0$ such that for the covering ${\mathcal{F}}_r=\{F_j\}$ (associated to $r$) from Proposition \[Covering\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\| TP-\sum_{j}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }\right\|}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}\to
{\ensuremath{L_\phi ^p}}} < \epsilon. \end{aligned}$$
Again by an easy approximation argument we can assume that $T \in {{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$. Furthermore, we first prove the theorem for $p = 2$.
Define $$S=TP-\sum_{j}M_{1_{F_j} }TPM_{1_{G_j} }.$$ Given $\epsilon$ choose $r$ large enough so that $$\sup_{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n}\int_{D(z,r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}
dv(w)<\epsilon \quad\textnormal{ and }\quad \sup_{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n}\int_{D(z,r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}
dv(w)<\epsilon.$$ Now for any $z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$, pick $j_0$ such that $z \in F_{j_0}$. Then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\vertSf(z)\right\vert}} & \leq &
\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}\sum_{j}1_{F_j} (z)1_{G_j^c}(w) {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(w)\right\vert}} e^{-2\phi(w)} \, dv(w)\\
& = & \int_{G_{j_0} ^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}} \right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(w)\right\vert}} e^{-2\phi(w)} \, dv(w) \\
& \leq & \int_{D(z,r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}} \right\vert}}{\ensuremath{\left\vertf(w)\right\vert}} e^{-2\phi(w)}\, dv(w).\end{aligned}$$
To finish the proof when $p = 2$, we will estimate the operator norm of the integral operator on ${\ensuremath{L_\phi ^2}}$ with kernel $1_{D(z, r)^c} (w) {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}} \right\vert}}$ using the classical Schur test. To that end, let $h(z) = e^{\frac{1}{2} \phi(z)}$ so that $$\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} 1_{D(z, r)^c} (w) {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}} \right\vert}}h(w)^2 e^{-2\phi(w)} \, dv(w) \approx h(z)^2 \int_{D(z, r)^c} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleT^* k_z,k_w\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}} \right\vert}} \, dv(w) \lesssim \epsilon h(z) ^2.$$ Similarly, we have that $$\int_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} 1_{D(z, r)^c} (w) {\ensuremath{\left\vert {\ensuremath{\left\langleT^*{K_z},{K_w}\right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}h(z)^2 e^{-2\phi(z)} \, dv(z) \lesssim \epsilon h(w) ^2$$ which finishes the proof when $p = 2$.
Now assume that $1 < p < 2$. Since $T$ is bounded on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}$, we easily get that $${\ensuremath{\left\|\sum_j M_{1_{F_j}} TP M_{1_{G_j}}\right\|}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{L_\phi ^1}}} < \infty$$ which by complex interpolation proves the proposition when $1 < p < 2$. Finally when $2 < p < \infty$, one can similarly get a trivial ${\ensuremath{L_\phi ^1}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}$ operator norm bound on $$\left(\sum_j M_{1_{F_j}} TP M_{1_{G_j}}\right)^* = \sum_j P M_{1_{G_j}} T^* P M_{1_{F_j}}$$ since $T^*$ is bounded on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^1 }}$. Since $({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }})^* = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}_\phi ^q }}$ when $1 < p < \infty$ where $q$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$ (see [@SV]), duality and complex interpolation now proves the proposition when $2 < p < \infty$.
Because of (\[EquivOfNormRepKer\]), the proof of the next result is basically the same as the proof of Theorem \[essBerg\] and therefore we skip it.
\[essFock\] Let $1 < p < \infty$ and let $T$ be in the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$. Then there exists $r, C > 0$ (both depending on $T$) such that $$\|T\|_{\text{e}} \leq C \limsup_{|z| \rightarrow\infty} \sup_{w \in D(z, r)} {\ensuremath{\left\vert{\ensuremath{\left\langleTk_z, k_w \right\rangle}}_{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}}\right\vert}}$$ where $\|T\|_{\text{e}}$ is the essential norm of $T$ as a bounded operator on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^p }}$.
As was stated in the beginning of this section, the operator $U_z$ for $z \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$ is an isometry on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F} ^p }}$. Furthermore, since a direct calculation shows that $${\ensuremath{\left\vert U_z k_w (u)\right\vert}} \approx {\ensuremath{\left\vertk_{z - w} (u)\right\vert}},$$ the proof of Theorem \[local-ordinaryFock\] now follows immediately by combining Theorem \[essFock\] with [@I]\*[Proposition 1.4]{}.
Concluding remarks {#ConcRemSec}
==================
The reader should clearly notice that the proof of Theorem \[essBerg\] did *not* in any way use the existence of a family of “translation" operators $\{U_z ^{(p)} \}_{z \in {\mathbb{B}}_n}$ on $A^p$ that satisfies $$\label{TransOpForm2} {\ensuremath{\left\vert(U_z ^{(p)})^* k_w ^{(p')}\right\vert}} \approx {\ensuremath{\left\vertk_{\phi_z (w)} ^{(p')}\right\vert}}$$ (and moreover, one can make a similar remark regarding Theorem \[essFock\]). In particular, a trivial application of Hölder’s inequality in conjunction with the above remark implies that one can prove the so called “reproducing kernel thesis" for operators in the norm closure of ${{\mathcal{A}}_p({\mathbb{B}}_n)}$ (respectively, ${{\mathcal{A}}_\phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)}$) *without* the use of any “translation" operators. It would therefore be interesting to know if our results can be proved for the weighted Bergman spaces on the ball that were considered in [@BO] for example. Moreover, it would be interesting to know whether one can use the ideas in this paper to modify the results in [@MW] to include spaces where condition A.5 on the space of holomorphic functions at hand is not necessarily true (note that it is precisely this condition that allows one to easily cook up “translation operators").
It would also be very interesting to know whether “translation" operators are in fact crucial for proving Proposition \[BerVanProp\] and its generalized Bargmann-Fock space analog (again see [@I]\*[Proposition 1.4]{}). More generally, it would be fascinating to know precisely how these translation operators fit into the “Berezin transform implies compactness" philosophy since at present the answer to this seems rather mysterious.
As was noted earlier, the techniques in [@XZ] are essentially frame theoretic, and therefore are rather different than the techniques used in this paper. In particular, a crucial aspect of [@XZ] involves a localization result somewhat similar in spirit to Proposition \[MainEst2\] and which essentially involves treating a “sufficiently localized" operator $T$ as a sort of matrix with respect to the frame $\{k_\sigma\}_{\sigma \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{2n}}$ for ${\mathcal{F}}^2$. Also, note that the techniques in [@XZ] were extended in [@I] to the generalized Bargmann-Fock space setting to obtain results for ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}$ that are similar to (but slightly weaker than) the results obtained in this paper. Because of these considerable differences in localization schemes, it would be interesting to know if one can combine the localization ideas from this paper with that of [@I; @XZ] to obtain new or sharper results on ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}_\phi ^2 }}$ (or even just new or sharper results on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F} ^2 }}$).
[^1]: $\dagger$ Research supported in part by National Science Foundation DMS grant \# 1101251.
[^2]: $\ddagger$ Research supported in part by National Science Foundation DMS grants \# 1001098 and \# 0955432.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider $C^1$ dynamical systems having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point or periodic orbit and prove existence and uniqueness results for ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ globally defined linearizing semiconjugacies, of which Koopman eigenfunctions are a special case. Our main results both generalize and sharpen Sternberg’s $C^k$ linearization theorem for hyperbolic sinks, and in particular our corollaries include uniqueness statements for Sternberg linearizations and Floquet normal forms. Additional corollaries include existence and uniqueness results for ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ Koopman eigenfunctions, including a complete classification of $C^\infty$ eigenfunctions assuming a $C^\infty$ dynamical system with semisimple and nonresonant linearization. We give an intrinsic definition of “principal Koopman eigenfunctions” which generalizes the definition of Mohr and Mezić for linear systems, and which includes the notions of “isostables” and “isostable coordinates” appearing in work by Ermentrout, Mauroy, Mezić, Moehlis, Wilson, and others. Our main results yield existence and uniqueness theorems for the principal eigenfunctions and isostable coordinates and also show, e.g., that the (a priori non-unique) “pullback algebra” defined in [@mohr2016koopman] is unique under certain conditions. We also discuss the limit used to define the “faster” isostable coordinates in [@wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase] in light of our main results.'
address:
- 'Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104'
- 'Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, Robotics Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109'
author:
- 'Matthew D. Kvalheim'
- Shai Revzen
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Existence and uniqueness of global Koopman eigenfunctions for stable fixed points and periodic orbits
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider $C^1$ dynamical systems $\Phi\colon Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point or periodic orbit. Here $Q$ is a smooth manifold and either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$; when ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, a common example is that of $t\mapsto \Phi^t(x_0)$ being the solution to the initial value problem $$\frac{d}{dt}x(t) = f(x(t)),\qquad x(0) = x_0$$ determined by a complete $C^1$ vector field $f$ on $Q$. Our main contributions are existence and uniqueness results regarding globally defined ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ linearizing semiconjugacies $\psi\colon Q\to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ which, by definition, make the diagram $$\label{eq:cd-gen-efunc}
\begin{tikzcd}
&Q \arrow{r}{\Phi^t}\arrow{d}{\psi}&Q\arrow{d}{\psi}\\
&{\mathbb{C}}^m\arrow{r}{e^{tA}}&{\mathbb{C}}^m
\end{tikzcd}$$ commute for some $A\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m\times m}$ and all $t\in {\mathbb{T}}$. By ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ with $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and $0\leq \alpha \leq 1$ we mean that $\psi\in C^k(Q,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ and that all $k$-th partial derivatives of $\psi$ are locally $\alpha$-Hölder continuous in local coordinates.
Linearizing semiconjugacies are also known as linearizing [*factors*]{} or [*factor maps*]{} in the literature and can be viewed as a further generalization of the [*generalized Koopman eigenfunctions*]{} of [@mezic2019spectrum; @korda2019optimal]. We note that such semiconjugacies are distinct from those in the diagram $$\label{eq:cd-param-method}
\begin{tikzcd}
&Q \arrow{r}{\Phi^t}&Q\\
&{\mathbb{C}}^m\arrow{r}{e^{tA}}\arrow{u}{K}&{\mathbb{C}}^m\arrow{u}{K}
\end{tikzcd}$$ obtained from by flipping the vertical arrows. Existence results for semiconjugacies of the type in were obtained by [@cabre2003parameterization1; @cabre2003parameterization2; @cabre2005parameterization3] in the context of proving invariant manifold results using the parameterization method.
Our main result for the case of a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point both generalizes and sharpens Sternberg’s linearization theorem [@sternberg1957local Thms 2,3,4] which provides conditions ensuring the existence of a linearizing local $C^k$ diffeomorphism defined on a neighborhood of the fixed point; the results of [@lan2013linearization; @kvalheim2018global] show that this local diffeomorphism can be extended to a global $C^k$ diffeomorphism $\psi \colon Q\to {\mathbb{R}}^n\subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ making commute. Under Sternberg’s conditions, a corollary of our main result is that this global linearizing diffeomorphism is uniquely determined by its derivative at the fixed point. Additionally, we sharpen Sternberg’s result from $C^k$ to ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ linearizations. For the case of a globally attracting hyperbolic periodic orbit of a flow, our main result also yields a similar existence and uniqueness corollary for Floquet normal forms.
Our main results also imply several existence and uniqueness corollaries relevant to the “applied Koopmanism” literature, which has experienced a surge of interest initiated by [@dellnitz1999approximation; @mezic2004comparison; @mezic2005spectral]—motivated largely by data-driven applications— more than 70 years after Koopman’s seminal work [@koopman1931hamiltonian].[^1] Existence and uniqueness results are desirable since, in analyzing the theoretical properties of any algorithm for computing some quantity, it is desirable to know whether the computation is well-posed [@hadamard1902problemes], and in particular whether the quantity in question *exists* and is *uniquely determined*. Our results yield precise conditions under which various quantities in this literature—including targets of numerical algorithms—exist and are unique, and are especially relevant to work on [*principal eigenfunctions*]{} and [*isostables*]{} for point attractors [@mohr2016koopman; @mauroy2013isostables] and to work on [*isostable coordinates*]{} for periodic orbit attractors in [@wilson2016isostable; @shirasaka2017phase; @wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase]. Isostables and isostable coordinates are useful tools for nonlinear model reduction, and it has been proposed that these objects could prove useful in real-world applications such as treatment design for Parkinson’s disease, migraines, cardiac arrhythmias [@wilson2016isostable-pde], and jet lag [@wilson2014energy].
We give an intrinsic definition of principal eigenfunctions for nonlinear dynamical systems which generalizes the definition for linear systems in [@mohr2016koopman]. We provide existence and uniqueness results for ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunctions, and we also show that the (a priori non-unique) “pullback algebra” defined in [@mohr2016koopman] is unique under certain conditions. For the case of periodic orbit attractors, principal eigenfunctions essentially coincide with the notion of isostable coordinates defined in [@wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase], except that the definition in these references involves a limit which might not exist except for the “slowest” isostable coordinate. Our techniques shed light on this issue, and our results imply that this limit does in fact always exist for the “slowest” isostable coordinate if the dynamical system is at least smoother than $C^{1,\alpha}_{\textnormal{loc}}$ with $\alpha > 0$. In fact our results imply—assuming that there is a unique and algebraically simple “slowest” real Floquet multiplier—that any corresponding “slowest” $C^1$ isostable coordinate is always unique modulo scalar multiplication for a $C^1$ dynamical system, without the need for any nonresonance or spectral spread assumptions; furthermore, such a unique isostable coordinate always exists if the dynamics are at least smoother than $C^{1,\alpha}_{\textnormal{loc}}$ with $\alpha > 0$. Similarly, if instead there is a unique and algebraically simple “slowest” complex conjugate pair of Floquet multipliers, then any corresponding “slowest” complex conjugate pair of isostable coordinates are always unique modulo scalar multiplication for a $C^1$ dynamical system, and such a unique pair always exists if the dynamics are $C^{1,\alpha}_{\textnormal{loc}}$ with $\alpha > 0$. As a final application of our main results, we give a complete classification of $C^\infty$ eigenfunctions for a $C^\infty$ dynamical system with semisimple (diagonalizable over ${\mathbb{C}}$) and nonresonant linearization, generalizing known results for analytic dynamics and analytic eigenfunctions [@mauroy2013isostables; @mezic2019spectrum].
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In §\[sec:main-results\] we state Theorems \[th:main-thm\] and \[th:main-thm-per\], our two main results, without proof. We also state a proposition on the uniqueness of linearizing factors which does not assume any nonresonance conditions. As applications we derive in §\[sec:applications\] several results which are essentially corollaries of this proposition and the two main theorems. §\[sec:app:stern-floq\] contains existence and uniqueness theorems for global Sternberg linearizations and Floquet normal forms. In §\[sec:app-p-eigs\] we define principal Koopman eigenfunctions and isostable coordinates for nonlinear systems and show how Theorems \[th:main-thm\] and \[th:main-thm-per\] yield corresponding existence and uniqueness results. We then discuss the relationship between various notions defined in [@mohr2016koopman] and our definitions, and we also discuss the convergence of the isostable coordinate limits in [@wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase]. §\[sec:app-classify\] contains our classification theorem for $C^\infty$ eigenfunctions of $C^\infty$ dynamical systems with a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point or periodic orbit. Finally, §\[sec:proofs-main-results\] contains the proofs of Theorems \[th:main-thm\] and \[th:main-thm-per\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The majority of this work was performed while Kvalheim was a postoctoral researcher at the University of Michigan. Both authors were supported by ARO grants W911NF-14-1-0573 and W911NF-17-1-0306 to Revzen. We thank George Haller, David Hong, Igor Mezić, Jeff Moehlis, Corbinian Schlosser, and Dan Wilson for helpful discussions and comments. We owe special gratitude to Alexandre Mauroy and Ryan Mohr for their careful reading of the manuscript and valuable feedback; in particular, one of Mauroy’s comments led to a sharpening of the uniqueness statements of Theorems \[th:main-thm\] and \[th:main-thm-per\] and Propositions \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] and \[prop:koopman-cka-per\], and Mohr found an error in Definition \[def:nonres\].
Main results {#sec:main-results}
============
Before stating our main results, we give two definitions which are essentially asymmetric versions of some appearing in [@sternberg1957local; @sell1985smooth]. When discussing eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a linear map or matrix in the remainder of the paper, we are always discussing eigenvalues and eigenvectors of its complexification, although we do not always make this explicit.
\[def:nonres\]Let $X \in {\mathbb{C}}^{d\times d}$ and $Y \in {\mathbb{C}}^{n\times n}$ be matrices with eigenvalues $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_d$ and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n$, respectively, repeated with multiplicities. For any $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, we say that $(X,Y)$ is [*$k$-nonresonant*]{} if, for any $i\in \{1,\ldots, d\}$ and any $m=(m_1,\ldots, m_n) \in {\mathbb{N}}^n_{\geq 0}$ satisfying $2\leq m_1 + \cdots + m_n \leq k$, $$\label{eq:nonres-lem}
\mu_i \neq \lambda_1^{m_1}\cdots \lambda_n^{m_n}.$$ (Note this condition vacuously holds if $k = 1$.) We say $(X,Y)$ is [*$\infty$-nonresonant*]{} if $(X,Y)$ is $k$-nonresonant for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$.
For the definition below, recall that the spectral radius $\rho(X)$ of a matrix is defined to be the largest modulus (absolute value) of the eigenvalues of (the complexification of) $X$.
\[def:nonres-spread\] Let $X\in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,{\mathbb{C}})$ and $Y\in {\mathsf{GL}}(n,{\mathbb{C}})$ be invertible matrices with the spectral radius $\rho(Y)$ satisfying $\rho(Y) < 1$. We define the spectral spread $\nu(X,Y)$ to be $$\label{eq:spread-def}
\nu(X,Y)\coloneqq \max_{\substack{\mu \in \textnormal{spec}(X)\\ \lambda \in \textnormal{spec}(Y)}}\frac{\ln(|\mu|)}{\ln(|\lambda|)}.$$
Finally, here we recall the definition of ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{k,\alpha}$ functions.
\[def:ckal-funcs\] Let $M,N$ smooth manifolds of dimensions $m$ and $n$, let $\psi\in C^k(M,N)$ a $C^k$ map $\psi\colon M\to N$ with $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}$, and let $0\leq \alpha \leq 1$. We will say that $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{k,\alpha}(M,N)$ if for every $x\in M$ there exist charts $(U_1,\varphi_1)$ and $(U_2,\varphi_2)$ containing $x$ and $\psi(x)$ such that all $k$-th partial derivatives of $\varphi_2 \circ \psi \circ \varphi_1^{-1}$ are Hölder continuous with exponent $\alpha$. If the domain and codomain $M$ and $N$ are clear from context, we will write ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{k,\alpha}$ instead of ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{k,\alpha}(M,N)$.
Using the chain rule and the fact that compositions and products of locally $\alpha$-Hölder continuous functions are again locally $\alpha$-Hölder, it follows that the property of being ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ on a manifold does not depend on the choice of charts in Definition \[def:ckal-funcs\].
Given a differentiable map $F\colon M\to N$ between smooth manifolds, in the remainder of this paper we use the notation ${\mathsf{D}}_x F$ for the derivative of $F$ at the point $x\in M$. (Recall that the derivative ${\mathsf{D}}_x F\colon {\mathsf{T}}_x M \to {\mathsf{T}}_{F(x)}N$ is a linear map between tangent spaces [@lee2013smooth], which can be identified with the Jacobian of $F$ evaluated at $x$ in local coordinates.) In particular, given a dynamical system $\Phi\colon Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ and fixed $t \in {\mathbb{T}}$, we write ${\mathsf{D}}_{x}\Phi^t\colon {\mathsf{T}}_{x}Q\to {\mathsf{T}}_{\Phi^t(x)}Q$ for the derivative of the time-$t$ map $\Phi^t\colon Q\to Q$ at the point $x\in Q$. Given $i \geq 2$, we similarly use the notation ${\mathsf{D}}_{x}^iF$ for the $i$-th derivative of $F$, which can be identified with the linear map ${\mathsf{D}}_{x}^i F\colon ({\mathsf{T}}_{x}M)^{\otimes i} \to {\mathsf{T}}_{F(x)}N$ from the $i$-th tensor power $({\mathsf{T}}_{x}M)^{\otimes i}$ to ${\mathsf{T}}_{x}N$ represented in local coordinates by the $(1+i)$-dimensional array of $i$-th partial derivatives of $F$ evaluated at $x$.
We now state our main results, Theorems \[th:main-thm\] and \[th:main-thm-per\], as well as Proposition \[prop:uniqueness-without-nonresonance\]. Figure \[def:nonres-spread\] illustrates the condition $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) < k + \alpha$ in Theorem \[th:main-thm\] below.
[Th]{}[ThmMain]{}\[th:main-thm\] Let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ be a $C^{1}$ dynamical system having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0\in Q$, where $Q$ is a smooth manifold and either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. Let $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and $e^{A}\in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,
{\mathbb{C}})$ have spectral radius $\rho(e^{A})<1$, and let the linear map $B\colon {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q\to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ satisfy $$\label{eq:main-th-1}
\forall t \in {\mathbb{T}}\colon B {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^t = e^{tA} B.$$
***Uniqueness.*** Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, assume that $(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1)$ is $k$-nonresonant, and assume that either $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) < k + \alpha$ or $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) \leq k$. Then any $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying $$ \psi \circ \Phi^1 = e^{A} \psi, \qquad {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \psi = B$$ is unique, and if $B\colon {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ and $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ are real, then $\psi\colon Q\to {\mathbb{R}}^m \subset {\mathbb{C}}^m$ is real.
***Existence**.* If furthermore $\Phi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ and $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) < k + \alpha$, then such a $\psi$ exists and additionally satisfies $$\label{eq:main-th-3}
\forall t \in {\mathbb{T}}\colon \psi \circ \Phi^t = e^{tA} \psi.$$ In fact, if $P$ is any “approximate linearizing factor” satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}P = B$ and $$\label{eq:main-th-4}
P \circ \Phi^1 = e^A P + R$$ with ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}^i R = 0$ for all integers $0\leq i < k+\alpha$, then $$\label{eq:main-th-5}
\psi = \lim_{t\to \infty} e^{-tA} P \circ \Phi^t,$$ in the topology of $C^{k,\alpha}$-uniform convergence on compact subsets of $Q$.
Definitions \[def:nonres\] and \[def:nonres-spread\] are not independent. In particular, if $(X,Y)$ is $(\ell-1)$-nonresonant and $\nu(X,Y) < \ell$, then it follows that $(X,Y)$ is $\infty$-nonresonant. Hence an equivalent statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] could be obtained by replacing $k$-nonresonance with $\infty$-resonance everywhere (alternatively, for the existence statement only $(k-1)$-nonresonance need be assumed in the case $\alpha = 0$). We prefer to use the stronger-sounding statement of the theorem above since it makes apparent that the set of matrix pairs $(e^A, {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ satisfying its hypotheses are *open* in the space of all matrix pairs. Openness for $k < \infty$ is immediate, and openness for $k = \infty$ follows the fact that $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ is always finite.
\[rem:no-nonres-needed\] The statement regarding the above limit actually holds without any nonresonance assumptions if such an approximate linearizing factor $P$ exists; see Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\] in §\[sec:main-proof-exist\].
In the uniqueness portion of the above theorem and also later in this paper, the point of the condition that either $$\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) < k + \alpha \qquad \textnormal{ or } \qquad \nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) \leq k$$ is to require that $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) < k + \alpha$ be strictly less than $\alpha$ except when $\alpha = 0$, in which case non-strict inequality is allowed to hold. This is relevant for, e.g., the case that $k= 1$ and $\alpha = 0$. Of course the “or” above is inclusive, i.e., we allow both inequalities to hold in the hypotheses of the above theorem and later results.
\[rem:point-cinf-case\] In the case that $k = \infty$, the hypothesis $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1) < k + \alpha$ becomes $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1) < \infty$ which is automatically satisfied since $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ is always finite. Hence for the case $k = \infty$, no assumption is needed on the spectral spread in Theorem \[th:main-thm\]; we need only assume that $(e^A, {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$) is $\infty$-nonresonant. Similar remarks hold for all of the following results which include a condition of the form $\nu({\,\cdot\,},{\,\cdot\,}) < k + \alpha$.
\[rem:main-thm-1-outline\] Here we sketch the proof of the existence statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\], which is somewhat more involved than the uniqueness proof. (The existence proof also yields uniqueness, but under stronger assumptions than the uniqueness statement in Theorem \[th:main-thm\].) Since global asymptotic stability of $x_0$ implies that $Q$ is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ [@wilson1967structure Lem 2.1], we may assume that $Q = {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $x_0 = 0$. For now we consider the case $k < \infty$. First, the $k$-nonresonance assumption implies that we can uniquely solve order by order (in the sense of Taylor polynomials) for $P$ up to order $k$. Once we obtain a polynomial $P$ of sufficiently high order, we derive a fixed point equation for the high-order remainder term $\varphi$, where $\psi = P + \varphi$ is the desired linearizing factor. Given a sufficiently small, positively invariant, compact neighborhood $B$ containing the fixed point, the proof of Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\] shows that the spectral spread condition $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)< k+\alpha$ implies that the restriction $\varphi|_B$ of the desired high-order term is the fixed point of a map $S\colon {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)\to {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ which is a contraction with respect to the standard ${C^{k,\alpha}}$ norm $\norm{{\,\cdot\,}}_{k,\alpha}$ making ${C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ a Banach space (note, however, that $\norm{{\,\cdot\,}}_{k,\alpha}$ must be induced by an appropriate underlying [*adapted norm*]{} [@cabre2003parameterization1 Sec. A.1] on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ to ensure that $S$ is a contraction). In fact, $S$ is the affine map defined by $$\label{eq:contraction}
S(\varphi|_B)\coloneqq -P|_B + e^{-A}\left(P|_B + \varphi|_B\right)\circ \Phi^1.$$ Hence we can obtain $\varphi|_B$ by the standard contraction mapping theorem, thereby obtaining a function $\psi|_B\in {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying $\psi|_B \circ \Phi^1|_B = e^A \psi|_B$. We then extend the domain of $\psi|_B$ using the globalization techniques of [@lan2013linearization; @kvalheim2018global] to obtain a globally defined function $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying $\psi \circ \Phi^1 = e^A \psi$. Using an argument of Sternberg [@sternberg1957local Lem. 4] in combination with the uniqueness statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\], we show that the function $\psi$ satisfies , i.e., $\psi$ is actually a linearizing factor for $\Phi^t$ for *all* $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. We extend the result to the case that $k = \infty$ using a bootstrapping argument.
Our proof of the existence portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\], outlined above, was inspired by Sternberg’s proof of his linearization theorem [@sternberg1957local Thms 2, 3, 4] and also has strong similarities with the techniques used to prove the existence of semiconjugacies of the type using the parameterization method [@cabre2003parameterization1; @cabre2003parameterization2; @cabre2005parameterization3]. We repeat here an observation of [@cabre2003parameterization1 Sec. 3] and [@cabre2005parameterization3 Rem. 5.5] which is also relevant for numerical computations of linearizing semiconjugacies of the type (such as Koopman eigenfunctions) based on our proof of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]. Consider $P$ satisfying , $B$ and $S$ as in Remark \[rem:main-thm-1-outline\], and an initial guess $\psi_0|_B = P|_B + \varphi_0|_B$ for a local linearizing factor. If $${\textnormal{Lip}(S)}\leq \kappa < 1\qquad \norm{S(\varphi_0|_B)-\varphi_0|_B}\leq \delta,$$ then the standard proof of the contraction mapping theorem implies the estimate $$\label{eq:a-posteriori}
\norm{\varphi|_B - \varphi_0|_B} \leq \delta/(1-\kappa),$$ where $\varphi|_B$ is such that $\psi|_B = P|_B + \varphi|_B$ is the unique actual local linearizing factor. Thus equation furnishes an upper bound on the distance between the initial guess $\varphi_0|_B$ and the true solution $\varphi|_B$, and can be used for [*a posteriori estimates*]{} in numerical analysis.
Theorem \[th:main-thm\] gave conditions ensuring existence and uniqueness of linearizing factors under spectral spread and nonresonance conditions. Before stating Theorem \[th:main-thm-per\], we state a result on the uniqueness of linearizing factors which does not assume any nonresonance conditions. Proposition \[prop:uniqueness-without-nonresonance\] follows immediately from Lemma \[lem:psi-identically-0\] (used to prove the uniqueness statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]) and the fact that $Q$ is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^{\dim(Q)}$ as mentioned above.
\[prop:uniqueness-without-nonresonance\] Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, and let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ be a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ dynamical system having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0\in Q$, where $Q$ is a smooth manifold and either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. Let $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and $e^{A}\in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,
{\mathbb{C}})$ have spectral radius $\rho(e^{A})<1$ and satisfy either $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k + \alpha$ or $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) \leq k$. Let $\varphi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfy ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}^i \varphi = 0$ for all $0\leq i \leq k$ and $$\varphi \circ \Phi^1 = e^{A} \varphi.$$
Then it follows that $\varphi \equiv 0$. In particular, if $\varphi = \psi_1 - \psi_2$, then $$\psi_1 = \psi_2.$$
[Th]{}[ThmMainPer]{}\[th:main-thm-per\] Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, and let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{R}}\to Q$ be a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ flow having a globally attracting hyperbolic $\tau$-periodic orbit with image $\Gamma\subset Q$, where $Q$ is a smooth manifold. Fix $x_0\in \Gamma$ and let $E^s_{x_0}$ denote the unique ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau$-invariant subspace complementary to ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0} \Gamma$. Let $m\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and $e^{\tau A}\in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,
{\mathbb{C}})$ have spectral radius $\rho(e^{\tau A})<1$, and let the linear map $B\colon E^s_{x_0} \to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ satisfy $$\label{eq:main-th-per-1}
B {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}} = e^{\tau A} B.$$
***Uniqueness.*** Assume that $(e^{\tau A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$ is $k$-nonresonant, and assume that either $\nu(e^{\tau A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) < k + \alpha$ or $\nu(e^{\tau A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) \leq k$. Then any $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:main-th-per-2}
\forall t\in {\mathbb{R}}\colon \psi \circ \Phi^t = e^{t A} \psi, \qquad {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \psi|_{E^s_{x_0}} = B$$ is unique, and if $B\colon E^s_{x_0}\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ and $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ are real, then $\psi\colon Q\to {\mathbb{R}}^m \subset {\mathbb{C}}^m$ is real.
***Existence.*** If furthermore $\nu(e^{\tau A},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) < k + \alpha$, then such a unique $\psi$ exists.
Applications {#sec:applications}
============
In this section, we give some applications of Theorems \[th:main-thm\] and \[th:main-thm-per\] and Proposition \[prop:uniqueness-without-nonresonance\]. §\[sec:app:stern-floq\] contains results on Sternberg linearizations and Floquet normal forms. §\[sec:app-p-eigs\] gives applications to principal Koopman eigenfunctions and isostable coordinates. §\[sec:app-classify\] contains the classification theorems for $C^\infty$ eigenfunctions of a $C^\infty$ dynamical system.
Sternberg linearizations and Floquet normal forms {#sec:app:stern-floq}
-------------------------------------------------
The following result is an improved statement of Sternberg’s linearization theorem for hyperbolic sinks [@sternberg1957local Thms 2,3,4]; it includes uniqueness of the linearizing conjugacy, it sharpens Sternberg’s $C^k$ linearization result to a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ linearization result, and the linearization is globally defined on all of $Q$ rather than on some neighborhood of $x_0$. Our technique for globalizing the domain of the linearization is essentially the same as those used in [@lan2013linearization; @kvalheim2018global].
\[prop:sternberg\] Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$. Let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ be a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ dynamical system having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0\in Q$, where $Q$ is a smooth manifold and either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. Assume that $\nu({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1) < k + \alpha$, and assume that $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1)$ is $k$-nonresonant.
Then there exists a unique diffeomorphism $\psi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:sternberg-lin}
\forall t \in {\mathbb{T}}\colon \psi \circ \Phi^t = {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^t \psi, \qquad {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\psi = {\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q}.$$ (In writing ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\psi = {\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q}$, we are making the standard and canonical identification ${\mathsf{T}}_{0}({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q)\cong {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0} Q$.)
Identifying ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0} Q$ with ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by choosing a basis, we apply Theorem \[th:main-thm\] with $e^{tA} = {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^t$ and $B = {\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0} Q}$ to obtain a unique $\psi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0} Q)$ satisfying and ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \psi = {\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q}$. It remains only to show that $\psi$ is a diffeomorphism. To do this, we separately show that $\psi$ is injective, surjective, and a local diffeomorphism.
By continuity, ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \psi = {\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q}$ implies that ${\mathsf{D}}_x \psi$ is invertible for all $x$ in some neighborhood $U \ni x_0$. Since $Q = \bigcup_{t\geq 0}\Phi^{-t}(U)$ by asymptotic stability of $x_0$, and the chain rule imply that ${\mathsf{D}}_{x}\psi$ is invertible for all $x\in Q$. Hence $\psi$ is a local diffeomorphism.
To see that $\psi$ is injective, let $U$ be a neighborhood of $x_0$ such that $\psi|_U\colon U\to \psi(U)$ is a diffeomorphism, and let $x,y \in Q$ be such that $\psi(x) = \psi(y)$. By asymptotic stability of $x_0$, there is $T > 0$ such that $\Phi^T(x),\Phi^T(y)\in U$, and implies that $\psi\circ \Phi^T(x) = \psi \circ \Phi^T(y)$. Injectivity of $\psi|_U$ then implies that $\Phi^T(x) = \Phi^T(y)$, and injectivity of $\Phi^T$ then implies that $x = y$. Hence $\psi$ is injective.
To see that $\psi$ is surjective, fix any $y\in {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q$ and let the neighborhood $U$ be as in the last paragraph. Asymptotic stability of $0$ for ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi \colon {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q$ implies that there is $T > 0$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^T y \in \psi(U)$, so there exists $x\in U$ with ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^T y = \psi(x)$. Hence $y = {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^{-T}\psi(x) = \psi \circ \Phi^{-T}(x)$, where we have used . It follows that $\psi$ is surjective. This completes the proof.
The following is an existence and uniqueness result for the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ Floquet normal form of a stable hyperbolic periodic orbit of a flow. The result is proved using a combination of Proposition \[prop:sternberg\] and stable manifold theory [@fenichel1974asymptotic; @fenichel1977asymptotic; @hirsch1977; @de1995irwin] specialized to the theory of isochrons [@isochrons].
\[prop:floq-norm-form\] Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$. Let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{R}}\to Q$ be a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ flow having a globally attracting hyperbolic $\tau$-periodic orbit with image $\Gamma \subset Q$, where $Q$ is a smooth manifold. Fix $x_0 \in \Gamma$ and let $E^s_{x_0}\subset {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q$ denote the unique ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau$-invariant subspace complementary to ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}\Gamma$. Assume that $\nu({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) < k + \alpha$, and assume that $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$ is $k$-nonresonant.
Then if we write ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}=e^{\tau A}$ for some complex linear $A\colon (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}}\to (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}}$, there exists a unique proper ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ embedding $\psi = (\psi_\theta, \psi_z) \colon Q\to S^1 \times (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\psi_\theta(x_0) = 1$, $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\psi_z)|_{E^s_{x_0}} = (E^s_{x_0} \hookrightarrow (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}})$, and $$\label{eq:floquet}
\forall t \in {\mathbb{T}}\colon \psi_\theta \circ \Phi^t(x) = e^{2\pi i \frac{t}{\tau}}\psi_\theta(x), \qquad \psi_z\circ \Phi^t(x) = e^{tA} \psi_z(x),$$ where $S^1\subset {\mathbb{C}}$ is the unit circle. If $A\colon E^s_{x_0}\to E^s_{x_0}$ is real, then $\psi_z\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q, E^s_{x_0})$ is real, and the codomain-restricted map $\psi \colon Q \to S^1 \times E^s_{x_0}\subset S^1\times (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a diffeomorphism.
Theorem \[th:main-thm-per\] implies that a map $\psi_z\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,(E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}})$ satisfying the conclusions above exists. Letting ${W^s}_{x_0}$ denote the global strong stable manifold (isochron) through $x_0$, we have ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}{W^s}_{x_0}= E^s_{x_0}$ and that $\Phi^\tau({W^s}_{x_0}) = {W^s}_{x_0}$. Additionally, ${W^s}_{x_0}$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ manifold since it is the stable manifold for the fixed point $x_0$ of the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ diffeomorphism $\Phi^\tau$ [@de1995irwin Thm 2.1]. Proposition \[prop:sternberg\] then implies that $\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}\colon {W^s}_{x_0}\to E^s_{x_0} \subset (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a diffeomorphism.[^2]
Since the vector field generating $\Phi$ intersects ${W^s}_{x_0}$ transversely, a standard argument [@hirsch1974differential p. 243] together with the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ implicit function theorem [@eldering2013normally Cor. A.4] imply that a real-valued ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ “time-to-impact ${W^s}_{x_0}$” function can be defined on a neighborhood of any point. Using these facts, one can show that the function $\psi_\theta\colon Q\to S^1$ defined via $\psi_\theta({W^s}_{x_0})\equiv 1$ and $\psi_\theta(\Phi^t({W^s}_{x_0})) \equiv e^{2\pi i \frac{t}{\tau}}$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ function. This function $\psi_\theta$ clearly satisfies $\psi_\theta(x_0) = 1$ and . $\psi_\theta$ is unique among all continuous functions satisfying these equalities, since if $\tilde{\psi}_\theta$ is any other such function, then asymptotic stability of $\Gamma$ implies that the quotient $(\psi_\theta/\tilde{\psi}_\theta)$ is constant on $Q$, and since $(\psi_\theta/\tilde{\psi}_\theta)(x_0) = 1$ it follows that $\tilde{\psi}_\theta \equiv \psi_\theta$.
Since the kernels $\ker ({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\psi_z) = {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}\Gamma$ and $\ker({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\psi_\theta) = E^s_{x_0}$ are transverse, $\psi$ is an immersion, and $\psi$ is injective since the restriction of $\psi_z$ to any level set ${W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)}$ of $\psi_{\theta}$ is the composition of injective maps $e^{tA} \circ \psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} \circ \Phi^{-t}|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)}}$. $\psi$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ embedding since, if $(\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}})^{-1}\colon E^s_{x_0}\to {W^s}_{x_0}$ is the inverse of $\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$, then $\psi^{-1}\colon \psi(Q)\to Q$ $$\label{eq:psi-inv-def}
\psi^{-1}(\theta,z)\coloneqq \Phi^{\frac{\arg(\theta)}{2\pi}\tau}\circ (\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}})^{-1}( e^{-\frac{\arg(\theta)}{2\pi}\tau A}z)$$ is the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ inverse of $\psi$. Since it is clear from that $\psi^{-1}$ is the restriction to $\psi(Q)$ of a continuous function $G\colon S^1\times (E^s_{x_0})_{\mathbb{C}}\to Q$ (given by the same formula), it follows that $\psi$ is a proper map [@lee2011topological Prop. 4.93(e)]. That $\psi^{-1}$ is ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ follows since $(\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}})^{-1}$ is, and because the definition of $\psi^{-1}$ is independent of the branch of $\arg({\,\cdot\,})$ used since $\Phi^\tau \circ (\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}})^{-1} \circ e^{- \tau A} = (\psi_z|_{{W^s}_{x_0}})^{-1}$. Hence $\psi$ is a proper ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ embedding, and the same argument shows that $\psi$ is a diffeomorphism onto $S^1\times E^s_{x_0}$ if $A$ is real. This completes the proof.
Principal Koopman eigenfunctions, isostables, and isostable coordinates {#sec:app-p-eigs}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given a $C^1$ dynamical system $\Phi\colon Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$, where $Q$ is a smooth manifold and either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, we say that $\psi \colon Q\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is a Koopman [*eigenfunction*]{} if $\psi$ is not identically zero and satisfies $$\label{eq:koopman-efunc}
\forall t \in {\mathbb{T}}\colon \psi \circ \Phi^t = e^{\mu t} \psi$$ for some $\mu \in {\mathbb{C}}$. The following are intrinsic definitions of principal eigenfunctions and the principal algebra which extend the definitions for linear systems given in [@mohr2016koopman Def. 2.2–2.3]; a more detailed comparison is given later in Remark \[rem:mohr-mezic\]. The condition $\psi|_M \equiv 0$ was motivated in part by the definition of a certain space ${\mathcal{F}}_{A_c}$ of functions in [@mauroy2016global p. 3358].
\[def:principal-eigenfunction\] Suppose that $\Phi$ has a distinguished, closed, invariant subset $M\subset Q$. We say that an eigenfunction $\psi \in C^1(Q)$ is a [*principal*]{} eigenfunction if $$\label{eq:p-eig-def}
\psi|_M \equiv 0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \forall x\in M\colon {\mathsf{D}}_x\psi \neq 0.$$ We define the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal algebra ${\mathcal{A}}^{k,\alpha}_{\Phi}$ to be the complex subalgebra of ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ generated by all ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunctions.
In the case that $\Phi|_{M\times {\mathbb{T}}}$ is minimal (has no proper, closed, nonempty invariant subsets)— can be replaced by the weaker condition $$\label{eq:p-eig-def-weaker}
\exists x\in M\colon \psi(x) =0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \exists y\in M\colon {\mathsf{D}}_y\psi \neq 0.$$ This will be the case in the sequel, in which we will consider only the cases that $M$ is either a fixed point or periodic orbit.
Differentiating and using the chain rule immediately yields Propositions \[prop:p-eig-evec-point\] and \[prop:p-eig-evec-cycle\], which have appeared in the literature (see e.g. the proof of [@mauroy2016global Prop. 2]). In these results, $d$ denotes the exterior derivative and ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^* Q$ denotes the cotangent space to $x_0$; $d\psi(x_0)$ corresponds to ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\psi$ after making the canonical identification ${\mathbb{C}}\cong {\mathsf{T}}_{\psi(x_0)}{\mathbb{C}}$.
\[prop:p-eig-evec-point\] Let $x_0$ be a fixed point of the $C^1$ dynamical system $\Phi\colon Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$. If $\psi$ is a principal Koopman eigenfunction for $\Phi$ satisfying with $\mu\in {\mathbb{C}}$, then for any $t\in {\mathbb{T}}$, it follows that $d \psi(x_0)\in (T_{x_0}^* Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$ is an eigenvector of the (complexified) adjoint $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^t)^*$ with eigenvalue $e^{\mu t}$.
\[prop:p-eig-evec-cycle\] Let $\Gamma$ be the image of a $\tau$-periodic orbit of the $C^1$ dynamical system $\Phi\colon Q\times {\mathbb{R}}\to Q$. If $\psi$ is a principal Koopman eigenfunction for $\Phi$ satisfying with $\mu\in {\mathbb{C}}$, then for any $x_0 \in \Gamma$, it follows that $d\psi(x_0)\in(T_{x_0}^* Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$ is an eigenvector of the (complexified) adjoint $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau)^*$ with eigenvalue $e^{\mu \tau}$; in particular, $e^{\mu \tau}$ is a Floquet multiplier for $\Gamma$.
Notice that, for a dynamical system having a globally attracting compact invariant set $M$, any continuous eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu \in {\mathbb{C}}$ must have $|e^{\mu}|\leq 1$. If this attracting set $M$ is furthermore a hyperbolic fixed point, then there is the stronger conclusion that either $\mu = 0$ or $|e^{\mu}|< 1$. With this observation, Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] below is now immediate from Theorem \[th:main-thm\] and Proposition \[prop:p-eig-evec-point\]. We remind the reader of Remark \[rem:point-cinf-case\] which points out that, in the case $k = \infty$, no spectral spread conditions are needed because all inequalities of the form $\nu({\,\cdot\,},{\,\cdot\,}) < \infty$ trivially hold.
\[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] Let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ be a $C^{1}$ dynamical system having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0\in Q$, where either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. Fix $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup\{+\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, fix $\mu \in {\mathbb{C}}$, and let $\psi_1\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ be any Koopman eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu \in {\mathbb{C}}$.
***Uniqueness of Koopman eigenvalues and principal eigenfunctions.*** Assume that either\
$\nu(e^{\mu},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1) < k + \alpha$ or $\nu(e^{\mu},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1) \leq k$.
1. \[item:uniq-thm-1\] Then there exists $m = (m_1,\ldots,m_n)\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}^n$ such that $$e^{\mu} = e^{m\cdot \lambda},$$ where $e^{\lambda_1},\ldots,e^{\lambda_n}$ are the eigenvalues of ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^1$ repeated with multiplicities and $\lambda\coloneqq (\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)$.
2. \[item:uniq-thm-2\] Additionally assume that $\psi_1$ is a principal eigenfunction so that $e^{\mu} \in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$, and assume that $(e^\mu,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ is $k$-nonresonant. Then $\psi_1$ is uniquely determined by $d \psi_1(x_0)$, and if $\mu$ and $d\psi_1(x_0)$ are real, then $\psi\colon Q\to {\mathbb{R}}\subset {\mathbb{C}}$ is real. In particular, if $e^{\mu}$ is an algebraically simple eigenvalue of (the complexification of) ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$ and if $\psi_2$ is any other principal eigenfunction satisfying with the same $\mu$, then there exists $c\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $$\psi_1 = c\psi_2.$$
***Existence of principal eigenfunctions.*** Assume that $\Phi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$, that $e^{\mu}\in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$, that $(e^\mu,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ is $k$-nonresonant, and that $\nu(e^\mu,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)<k+\alpha$. Let $w\in ({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^* Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$ be any eigenvector of the (complexified) adjoint $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)^*$ with eigenvalue $e^\mu$.
1. Then there exists a unique principal eigenfunction $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ satisfying with $\mu$ and satisfying $d\psi(x_0) = w$.
2. In fact, if $P$ is any “approximate eigenfunction” satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}P = w$ and $$\label{eq:Koop-main-approx}
P \circ \Phi^1 = e^\mu P + R$$ with ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}^i R = 0$ for all integers $0\leq i < k+\alpha$, then $$\label{eq:Koop-main-converge}
\psi = \lim_{t\to \infty} e^{-\mu t} P \circ \Phi^t,$$ in the topology of $C^{k,\alpha}$-uniform convergence on compact subsets of $Q$.
Given $P\colon Q\to {\mathbb{C}}$, in the Koopman literature the [*Laplace average*]{} $$\psi\coloneqq \lim_{T\to\infty} \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T e^{-\mu t} P\circ\Phi^t\, dt$$ is used to produce a Koopman eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu$ as long as the limit exists [@mauroy2013isostables; @mohr2014construction]. Since convergence of the limit clearly implies convergence of the Laplace average to the same limiting function, Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] gives sufficient conditions under which the Laplace average of $P$ exists and is equal to a unique ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunction satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}P = w$.
\[rem:isostable\]
It follows from the discussion after [@mauroy2013isostables Def. 2] that the definition of [*isostables*]{} given in that paper—for $\Phi$ having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0$ with ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$ having a unique eigenvalue $e^{\mu_1}$ (or complex conjugate pair of eigenvalues) of largest modulus—is equivalent to the following. Isostables as defined in [@mauroy2013isostables] are the level sets of the modulus $|\psi_1|$ of a principal eigenfunction $\psi_1$ satisfying with $\mu = \mu_1$. Because $e^{\mu_1}$ is the “slowest” eigenvalue of ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$, Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] implies that any such $\psi_1\in C^1(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ is unique modulo scalar multiplication for a $C^1$ dynamical system without any further assumptions (since $\nu(e^\mu,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1) = 1$), and such a unique eigenfunction exists if $\Phi\in C^{1,\alpha}_{\textnormal{loc}}$ for some $\alpha > 0$ (since $\nu(e^\mu,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1) = 1 < 1 + \alpha$ for any $\alpha > 0$). Since the complex conjugate $\bar{\psi}_1$ is a principal eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu = \bar{\mu}_1$, it follows that the isostables as defined in [@mauroy2013isostables] are unique even if $\mu_1 \in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus {\mathbb{R}}$. A uniqueness proof for analytic isostables under the additional assumptions of $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1, {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ $\infty$-nonresonance and an analytic vector field was given in [@mauroy2013isostables]. For the special case that the eigenvalue of largest modulus is real, unique, and algebraically simple, in [@mauroy2013isostables p. 23] these authors do point out that uniqueness of $C^1$ isostables follows from the fact that the isostables are the unique $C^1$ global strong stable manifolds—leaves of the unique global strong stable foliation—over an attracting, normally hyperbolic, $1$-dimensional, inflowing invariant “slow manifold”, and this argument works even if the dynamical system is only $C^1$ (see [@kvalheim2018global] for detailed information on the global stable foliation of an inflowing invariant manifold). The slow manifold is itself generally non-unique without further assumptions, but this does not affect the isostable uniqueness argument. However, as pointed out in [@mauroy2013isostables p. 23], this argument does not work when the eigenvalue of largest modulus is not real, because in this case the isostables can no longer be interpreted as strong stable manifolds (e.g., the relevant slow manifold is now $2$-dimensional, so the dimension of the codimension-1 isostables is too large by $1$).
For the case that ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$ and $\Phi$ has an attracting hyperbolic periodic orbit, several authors have investigated various versions of [*isostable coordinates*]{} without restricting attention to the “slowest” isostable coordinate. The authors in [@wilson2016isostable Eq. 5] defined a “finite-time” approximate version of [*isostable coordinates*]{} which provide an approximation of our principal eigenfunctions. Subsequently, [@shirasaka2017phase Sec. 2] defined a version of “exact” isostable coordinates (termed [*amplitudes*]{} and [*phases*]{}) directly in terms of Koopman eigenfunctions, and in particular our Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-per\] and Theorem \[th:classify-per\] can be used to directly infer existence, uniqueness and regularity properties of these coordinates under relatively weak assumptions. It appears that [@wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase] intended to define a different version of “exact” isostable coordinates close in spirit to the approximate version in [@wilson2016isostable]. However, these definitions [@wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase Eq. 24, Eq. 58] are given in terms of a limit which might not exist for principal eigenfunctions other than the “slowest”, as we show in Example \[ex:koop-converge\] below. In any case, it appears that principal Koopman eigenfunctions provide a means for defining all of the isostable coordinates for a periodic orbit attractor which does not require such limits.
\[rem:mohr-mezic\] Given a nonlinear dynamical system $\Phi\colon Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ with a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0$, Mohr and Mezić defined the principal eigenfunctions for the associated linearization ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi\colon {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q\times {\mathbb{T}}\to {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q$ to be those of the form $v\mapsto w(v)$ where $w\in ({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^* Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$ is an eigenvector of the complexified adjoint $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)^*\colon ({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^*Q)_{\mathbb{C}}\to ({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^*Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$ [@mohr2016koopman Def. 2.2], and they defined the principal algebra ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}$ to be the subalgebra of $C^0({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ generated by the principal eigenfunctions [@mohr2016koopman Def. 2.3]. Mohr and Mezić do not define principal eigenfunctions or the principal algebra for the nonlinear system itself but, given a topological conjugacy $\tau\colon {\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}Q \to Q$ between $\Phi$ and ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi$, they define the [*pullback algebra*]{} $$\label{eq:pullback-algebra}
\left({\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}\right) \circ \tau^{-1} \coloneqq \{\varphi \circ \tau^{-1}\colon \varphi \in {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}\}.$$ Assuming that $\Phi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$, Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] implies that the relationship between the concepts in our Definition \[def:principal-eigenfunction\] and those of [@mohr2016koopman] is as follows. If $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ is $k$-nonresonant and either $\nu({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)< k + \alpha$ or $\nu({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)\leq k$, our principal eigenfunctions for ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$ coincide precisely with their principal eigenfunctions $w\in ({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^*Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$. This implies that our principal algebra ${\mathcal{A}}^{k,\alpha}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}$ coincides with their ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}$. Next, notice that the pullback algebra is generated by the functions $w \circ \tau^{-1}$ where $w\in ({\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}^*Q)_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a principal eigenfunction of the linearization. If we further assume that the conjugacy $\tau$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ diffeomorphism, then the chain rule implies that each $w \circ \tau^{-1}$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunction for $\Phi$, and therefore $\left({\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}\right)\circ \tau^{-1} = {\mathcal{A}}^{k,\alpha}_{\Phi}$. In particular, under the above hypotheses it follows that $\left({\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1}\right)\circ \tau^{-1}$ is independent of $\tau$ and generated by at most $n$ ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunctions for $\Phi$. This is perhaps surprising since depends on the a priori non-unique conjugacy $\tau$; here the assumption that $\tau$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ diffeomorphism is essential.
For a globally attracting hyperbolic $\tau$-periodic orbit of a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ flow with image $\Gamma$, stable manifold theory [@fenichel1974asymptotic; @fenichel1977asymptotic; @hirsch1977; @isochrons; @de1995irwin] can be used to show that the global strong stable manifold (isochron) ${W^s}_{x_0}$ through $x_0\in \Gamma$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ submanifold of $Q$, and $\Phi^\tau({W^s}_{x_0}) = {W^s}_{x_0}$. Furthermore, any eigenfunction $\varphi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({W^s}_{x_0},{\mathbb{C}})$ of $\Phi^\tau|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ satisfying $\varphi \circ \Phi^\tau|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} = e^{\mu \tau}\varphi$ admits the unique extension to an eigenfunction $\psi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ given by $$\psi|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{t}(x_0)}}\coloneqq e^{\mu t} \varphi \circ \Phi^{-t}|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)}}$$ for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. This observation combined with Propositions \[prop:p-eig-evec-cycle\] and \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] yields the following result.
\[prop:koopman-cka-per\] Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, and let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{R}}\to Q$ be a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ flow having a globally attracting hyperbolic $\tau$-periodic orbit with image $\Gamma \subset Q$. Fix $x_0\in \Gamma$ and let $E^s_{x_0}$ denote the unique ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau$-invariant subspace complementary to ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0} \Gamma$. Let $\psi_1\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ be any Koopman eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu \in {\mathbb{C}}$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$.
***Uniqueness of Koopman eigenvalues.*** Assume that either $\nu(e^{\mu\tau },{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) < k + \alpha$ or\
$\nu(e^{\mu\tau },{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) \leq k$.
1. Then there exists $m = (m_1,\ldots,m_n)\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}^n$ such that $$\mu \in m\cdot \lambda + \frac{2\pi j}{\tau}{\mathbb{Z}},$$ where $e^{\lambda_1\tau},\ldots,e^{\lambda_n\tau}$ are the eigenvalues of ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0} \Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}$ repeated with multiplicities and $\lambda \coloneqq (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n)$.
2. Additionally assume that $\psi_1$ is a principal eigenfunction so that $e^{\mu \tau} \in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$, and assume that $(e^{\mu\tau}, {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$ is $k$-nonresonant. Then $\psi_1$ is uniquely determined by $d \psi_1(x_0)$, and if $\mu$ and $d\psi_1(x_0)$ are real, then $\psi\colon Q\to {\mathbb{R}}\subset {\mathbb{C}}$ is real. In particular, if $e^{\mu}$ is an algebraically simple eigenvalue of (the complexification of) ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$ and if $\psi_2$ is any other principal eigenfunction satisfying with the same $\mu$, then there exists $c\in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $$\psi_1 = c\psi_2.$$
***Existence of principal eigenfunctions.*** Assume that $e^{\mu \tau} \in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$, that $(e^{\mu\tau}, {\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$ is $k$-nonresonant, and that $\nu(e^{\mu\tau },{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}) < k + \alpha$. Let $w\in (E^s_{x_0})^*_{\mathbb{C}}$ be any eigenvector of the (complexified) adjoint $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})^*$ with eigenvalue $e^{\mu \tau}$. Then there exists a unique principal eigenfunction $\psi_1\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ for $\Phi$ satisfying with $\mu$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$ and satisfying $d\psi_1(x_0)|_{E^s_{x_0}}= w$.
A well-known example of Sternberg shows that, even for an analytic diffeomorphism $\Phi^1$ of the plane having the globally attracting fixed point $0$, there need not exist a $C^2$ principal eigenfunction corresponding to $e^{\mu}\in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1)$ if $(e^{\mu},{\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1)$ is not $2$-nonresonant [@sternberg1957local p. 812]. Concentrating now on the issue of uniqueness of principal eigenfunctions, the following example shows that our nonresonance and spectral spread conditions are both necessary for the uniqueness statements of Propositions \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] and \[prop:koopman-cka-per\].
\[ex:thm-sharp\] Consider $\Phi = (\Phi_1,\Phi_2)\colon {\mathbb{R}}^2\times {\mathbb{T}}\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined by $$\label{eq:example-theorem-sharp-maps}
\begin{split}
\Phi^t_1(x,y) &= e^{-t} x\\
\Phi^t_2(x,y) &= e^{-(k+\alpha)t}y
\end{split}$$ where $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, $0\leq \alpha \leq 1$, and either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. $\Phi$ is a linear dynamical system, so clearly the eigenvalues of ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1$ are $e^{-1}$ and $e^{-(k+\alpha)}$. Furthermore, for any irrational $\alpha\in [0,1]$, $(e^{-(k+\alpha)},{\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1)$ is $\infty$-nonresonant. However, if we define $\sigma_\alpha(x)\coloneqq |x|$ for $\alpha > 0$ and $\sigma_{\alpha}(x)\coloneqq x$ for $\alpha = 0$, then for any $k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and $\alpha \in [0,1]$ both $$\label{eq:ex-h1}
h_1(x,y)\coloneqq y$$ and $$\label{eq:ex-h2}
h_2(x,y)\coloneqq y + \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k+\alpha}$$ are $C^{k,\alpha}$ principal eigenfunctions satisfying with the same value $$\mu = -(k+\alpha).$$ In particular this shows that ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{k,\alpha}$ principal Koopman eigenfunctions are not unique (modulo scalar multiplication) even if the $\infty$-nonresonance condition is satisfied. Since here $h_2 \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{C}})$ and $\nu(e^{-(k+\alpha)},{\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1) = k + \alpha$, this shows that the spectral spread condition $\nu(e^{-(k+\alpha)},{\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1) < k + \alpha$ is both necessary and sharp for the principal eigenfunction uniqueness statement of Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] to hold in the case that $\alpha > 0$. (Note that Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] *does* imply that ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}}^{k',\alpha'}$ principal eigenfunctions are unique for any $k'+\alpha' > k+\alpha$.) If instead $k = 1$ and $\alpha = 0$, then $h_1$ and $h_2$ are both $C^1$ eigenfunctions satisfying with the same value $\mu = -(k+\alpha),$ but now these eigenfunctions are distinguished by their derivatives at the origin, which is consistent with the case that $\nu(e^{-1},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1) = 1$ in the uniqueness statement of Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\]. On the other hand, if $k = 2$ and $\alpha = 0$ so that $(e^{-2},{\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1)$ is not $2$-nonresonant, and show that analytic eigenfunctions are not unique despite the fact that the spectral spread certainly satisfies $\nu(e^{-2},{\mathsf{D}}_0\Phi^1) < \infty$. Hence the nonresonance condition is also necessary for the principal eigenfunction uniqueness statement of Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] to hold. Finally, by taking ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, changing the state space ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ above to ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times S^1$, and prescribing $S^1$ with the decoupled dynamics $\Phi_3^t(x,y,\theta)\coloneqq \theta + t \mod 2\pi$ yields an example showing that the spectral spread and nonresonance conditions are both necessary for the uniqueness statement in Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-per\] to hold as well.
\[ex:koop-converge\] Existence of the limit in is not automatic if the “approximate eigenfunction” $P$ is not an approximation to sufficiently high order. In fact fix $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, $\alpha \in [0,1]$, and $r,\epsilon \in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$. Define $\sigma_\alpha(x)\coloneqq |x|$ for $\alpha > 0$ and $\sigma_{\alpha}(x)\coloneqq x$ for $\alpha = 0$, and consider the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ dynamical system $\Phi\colon {\mathbb{R}}^2\times {\mathbb{T}}\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined by $$\begin{split}
\Phi_1^t(x,y)&= e^{-t}x\\
\Phi_2^t(x,y)&= e^{-rt}(y-\epsilon \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k + \alpha}) + \epsilon e^{-(k + \alpha)t} \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k+\alpha},
\end{split}$$ where either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. To see that $\Phi$ is indeed a dynamical system (i.e., that $\Phi$ satisfies the group property $\Phi^{t+s}=\Phi^t\circ \Phi^s$), define the diagonal linear system $\widetilde{\Phi}^t(x,y) = (e^{-t} x, e^{-rt}y)$ and the $C^{k,\alpha}$ diffeomorphism $H\colon {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ via $H(x,y) \coloneqq (x, y + \epsilon \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k + \alpha})$, and note that $\Phi^t = H \circ \widetilde{\Phi}^t \circ H^{-1}$. In other words, $\Phi$ is obtained from a diagonal linear dynamical system via a $C^{k,\alpha}$ change of coordinates; note also that this change of coordinates can be made arbitrarily close to the identity by taking $\epsilon$ arbitrarily small. We note that $\nu(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1) = r$ and that, for any choice of $\epsilon$, the analytic function $P(x,y)\coloneqq y$ satisfies $$P \circ \Phi^1 = e^{-r} P + R$$ where ${\mathsf{D}}^j_{(0,0)}R = 0$ for all integers $0\leq j < k+\alpha$. However, $$\label{eq:ex-diverge}
\begin{split}
\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{rt} P \circ \Phi^t(x,y) &= y- \epsilon \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k + \alpha} + \epsilon \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k + \alpha} \lim_{t\to\infty} e^{(r-(k + \alpha))t}\\
&=
\begin{cases}
y-\epsilon \sigma_{\alpha}(x)^{k + \alpha} & 0 < r < k + \alpha \\
y & r = k + \alpha\\
+\infty & r > k + \alpha
\end{cases}
\end{split}$$ for any $x \neq 0$ and $\epsilon > 0$. We see that the limit diverges whenever $\nu(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1) = r > k+\alpha$, but the limit converges when $r\leq k + \alpha$. For the case that $r$ is not an integer, this is consistent with Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] which guarantees that the limit converges if $\Phi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$, if $\nu(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1) < k+\alpha$, and if $(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1)$ is $k$-nonresonant. When $r$ is not an integer and $r = k + \alpha$, convergence is also guaranteed by Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] for this specific example, because then (i) $(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1)$ is $\infty$-nonresonant, (ii) $\Phi$ is linear and hence $C^\infty$, and (iii) Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] guarantees that this limit always exists if $\Phi\in C^\infty$ and $(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1)$ is $\infty$-nonresonant because the spectral spread condition $\nu(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1) < \infty$ always holds. As alluded to in Remark \[rem:no-nonres-needed\], the preceding reasoning can actually be applied even without the assumption that $r$ is not an integer if Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\] is used instead of Proposition \[prop:koopman-cka-fix\] as the tool of inference. We emphasize that the divergence in is associated purely with the spectral spread condition since, e.g., we can choose $r > 0$ so that $(e^{-r},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1)$ is $\infty$-nonresonant and take $\alpha = 0$ so that $\Phi$ is analytic.
Note that by taking ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, changing the state space ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times S^1$, and prescribing $S^1$ with the decoupled dynamics $\Phi_3^t(x,y,\theta)\coloneqq \theta + t \mod 2\pi$ yields a corresponding example with a globally attracting hyperbolic periodic orbit $\{(0,0)\}\times S^1$. In this case, for this example [@wilson2018greater; @monga2019phase Eq. 24, Eq. 58] would attempt to *define* the isostable coordinate (principal eigenfunction in our terminology) $\psi_2$ satisfying with $\mu_2 \coloneqq -r$ via the limit , but shows that this limit does not exist if $r > k + \alpha$. This phenomenon should be compared with the explanation in the preceding paragraph based on our general results.
![The top two plots show an orbit of superimposed on contours of $h_1$ and $h_2$, with ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, $k = 2$, and $\alpha =\pi-3$. The bottom semilogy plot shows $h_1$ and $h_2$ evaluated along the orbit as a function of a $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Both curves are lines with the same slope, illustrating that $h_1$ and $h_2$ decrease at the same exponential rate along trajectories.[]{data-label="fig:ck-sharpness"}](figs/h1 "fig:"){width="0.33\columnwidth"} ![The top two plots show an orbit of superimposed on contours of $h_1$ and $h_2$, with ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, $k = 2$, and $\alpha =\pi-3$. The bottom semilogy plot shows $h_1$ and $h_2$ evaluated along the orbit as a function of a $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Both curves are lines with the same slope, illustrating that $h_1$ and $h_2$ decrease at the same exponential rate along trajectories.[]{data-label="fig:ck-sharpness"}](figs/h2 "fig:"){width="0.33\columnwidth"} ![The top two plots show an orbit of superimposed on contours of $h_1$ and $h_2$, with ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, $k = 2$, and $\alpha =\pi-3$. The bottom semilogy plot shows $h_1$ and $h_2$ evaluated along the orbit as a function of a $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Both curves are lines with the same slope, illustrating that $h_1$ and $h_2$ decrease at the same exponential rate along trajectories.[]{data-label="fig:ck-sharpness"}](figs/semilogy-plots "fig:"){width="0.33\columnwidth"}
Classification of all $C^\infty$ Koopman eigenfunctions {#sec:app-classify}
-------------------------------------------------------
To improve the readability of Theorems \[th:classify-point\] and \[th:classify-per\] below, we introduce the following multi-index notation. We define an $n$-dimensional multi-index to be an $n$-tuple $i = (i_1,\ldots, i_n)\in {\mathbb{N}}^n_{\geq 0}$ of nonnegative integers, and define its sum to be $|i|\coloneqq i_1+\cdots + i_n.$ For a multi-index $i\in {\mathbb{N}}^n_{\geq 0}$ and $z = (z_1,\ldots, z_n)\in {\mathbb{C}}^n$, we define $z^{[i]}\coloneqq z_1^{i_1}\cdots z_n^{i_n}.$ Given a ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-valued function $\psi = (\psi_1,\ldots, \psi_n)\colon Q\to {\mathbb{C}}^n$, we define $\psi^{[i]}\colon Q\to {\mathbb{C}}$ via $\psi^{[i]}(x)\coloneqq (\psi(x))^{[i]}$ for all $x\in Q$. We also define the complex conjugate of $\psi = (\psi_1,\ldots, \psi_n)$ element-wise: $\bar{\psi}\coloneqq (\bar{\psi}_1,\ldots, \bar{\psi}_n).$
\[th:classify-point\] Let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{T}}\to Q$ be a $C^{\infty}$ dynamical system having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point $x_0\in Q$, where either ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ or ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. Assume that ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1$ is semisimple and that $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1,{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^1)$ is $\infty$-nonresonant.
Letting $n = \dim(Q)$, it follows that there exists an $n$-tuple $$\psi = (\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n)$$ of $C^\infty$ principal eigenfunctions such that every $C^\infty$ Koopman eigenfunction $\varphi$ is a (finite) sum of scalar multiples of products of the $\psi_i$ and their complex conjugates $\bar{\psi}_i$: $$\label{eq:th-classify-expansion}
\varphi = \sum_{|i|+|\ell| \leq k}c_{i,\ell}\psi^{[i]}\bar{\psi}^{[\ell]}$$ for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and some coefficients $c_{i,\ell}\in {\mathbb{C}}$.
By Proposition \[prop:sternberg\], there exists a proper $C^\infty$ embedding $Q\hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^n$ which maps $Q$ diffeomorphically onto an ${\mathbb{R}}$-linear subspace, maps $x_0$ to $0$, and semiconjugates $\Phi$ to the diagonal linear flow $\Theta^t(z_1,\ldots,z_n)=(e^{\lambda_1 t} z_1,\ldots, e^{\lambda_n t} z_n)$. Identifying $Q$ with its image under the embedding, we may view $Q$ as a $\Theta$-invariant submanifold of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ and $\Phi = \Theta|_{Q\times {\mathbb{T}}}$. Let $\varphi \in C^\infty(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ be any $C^\infty$ Koopman eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu\in {\mathbb{C}}$. Write $z = (z_1,\ldots,z_n)\in {\mathbb{C}}^n$. For any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, by Taylor’s theorem we may write $$\label{eq:classify-point-expansion}
\begin{split}
\varphi(z) &= \sum_{|i|+|\ell|\leq k} c_{i,\ell}z^{[i]}\bar{z}^{[\ell]}+ R_k(z)
\eqqcolon P_k(z) + R_k(z)
\end{split}$$ where $R_k(0) = {\mathsf{D}}_0 R_k = \cdots = {\mathsf{D}}_0^k R_k$ and the coefficients $c_{i,\ell}$ are independent of $k$. Defining $\lambda\coloneqq (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n)$ and writing the eigenfunction equation $\varphi \circ \Phi^1 = e^{\mu} \varphi$ in terms of the expansion yields $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{|i| + |\ell| \leq k} e^{i\cdot \lambda + \ell\cdot \bar{\lambda}}c_{i,\ell}z^{[i]}\bar{z}^{[\ell]} + R_k\circ \Phi^1(z)
= \sum_{|i| + |\ell| \leq k} e^{\mu} c_{i,\ell}z^{[i]}\bar{z}^{[\ell]} + R_k(z).
\end{aligned}$$ Equating coefficients of $z^{[i]}\bar{z}^{[\ell]}$ implies that we must have $c_{i,\ell} = 0$ whenever $e^{\mu} \neq e^{i\cdot \lambda + \ell\cdot \bar{\lambda}},$ which implies that $P_k$ is equal to a sum of products of the principal eigenfunctions of the form $\psi_j(z)\coloneqq z_j$, $\bar{\psi}_j(z) = \bar{z}_j$ such that each such product $z^{[i]}\bar{z}^{[\ell]}$ is itself an eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu$, and therefore $P_k$ is also an eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu$. It follows that the same is true of $R_k = \psi - P_k$. If we choose $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ sufficiently large so that $k > \nu(e^{\mu},{\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^1)$, Proposition \[prop:uniqueness-without-nonresonance\] implies that $R_k\equiv 0$, so it follows that $\psi = P_k$. This completes the proof.
For a globally attracting hyperbolic $\tau$-periodic orbit of a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ flow with image $\Gamma$, let ${W^s}_{x_0}$ be the global strong stable manifold (isochron) through the point $x_0\in \Gamma$. As discussed in the proof of Proposition \[prop:floq-norm-form\], there is a unique (modulo scalar multiplication) continuous eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu = \frac{2\pi}{\tau}$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, and this eigenfunction is in fact $C^\infty$ for a $C^\infty$ flow. In the theorem below, let $\psi_\theta$ be the unique such eigenfunction satisfying $\psi_\theta|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}\equiv 1$, where ${W^s}_{x_0}$ is the global strong stable manifold (isochron) through the point $x_0$ in the theorem statement. Explicitly, $\psi_\theta$ is given by $$\psi_\theta|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)}} = e^{i\frac{2\pi}{\tau} t}$$ for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. This defines $\psi_\theta$ on all of $Q$ since $Q = \bigcup_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}}{W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)}$, and the definition makes sense since ${W^s}_{\Phi^{j\tau}(x_0)} = {W^s}_{x_0}$ for all $j\in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
\[th:classify-per\] Let $\Phi\colon Q \times {\mathbb{R}}\to Q$ be a $C^{\infty}$ dynamical system having a globally attracting hyperbolic $\tau$-periodic orbit with image $\Gamma\subset Q$. Fix $x_0 \in \Gamma$ and denote by $E^s_{x_0}$ the unique $\tau$-invariant subspace complementary to ${\mathsf{T}}_{x_0}\Gamma$. Assume that ${\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}}$ is semisimple and that $({\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}},{\mathsf{D}}_{x_0}\Phi^\tau|_{E^s_{x_0}})$ is $\infty$-nonresonant.
Letting $n + 1= \dim(Q)$, it follows that there exists an $n$-tuple $$\psi = (\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n)$$ of $C^\infty$ principal eigenfunctions such that every $C^\infty$ Koopman eigenfunction $\varphi$ is a (finite) sum of scalar multiples of products of integer powers of $\psi_\theta$ with products of the $\psi_i$ and their complex conjugates $\bar{\psi}_i$: $$\varphi = \sum_{|\ell|+|m|\leq k}c_{\ell,m}\psi^{[\ell]}\bar{\psi}^{[m]} \psi_\theta^{j_{\ell,m}}$$ for some $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, some coefficients $c_{\ell,m} \in {\mathbb{C}}$, and $j_{\ell,m} \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
Let ${W^s}_{x_0}$ be the $C^\infty$ global strong stable manifold through $x_0$. We remind the reader of the facts $Q = \bigcup_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}}{W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)}$, ${W^s}_{\Phi^t(x_0)} = \Phi^t({W^s}_{x_0})$ which are implicitly used in the remainder of the proof.
First, we note that every eigenfunction $\chi\in C^\infty({W^s}_{x_0},{\mathbb{C}})$ of $F^j(x)\coloneqq \Phi^{j\tau}|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}(x)$ satisfying with $\mu\in {\mathbb{C}}$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ admits a unique extension to an eigenfunction $\tilde{\chi}\in C^\infty(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ of $\Phi$ satisfying with $\mu$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$; this unique extension $\tilde{\chi}$ is defined via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:th-classify-per-extension-formula}
\tilde{\chi}|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}} = e^{-\mu t} \chi \circ \Phi^t|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}} \end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. $\chi$ is a principal eigenfunction if and only if its extension $\tilde{\chi}$ is.
Next, let $\varphi\in C^\infty(Q,{\mathbb{C}})$ be an eigenfunction satisfying with $\mu$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$. Theorem \[th:classify-point\] implies that $\varphi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ is equal to a sum of products of principal eigenfunctions $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n,\bar{\chi}_1,\ldots, \bar{\chi}_n$ of $\Phi^\tau|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ of the form: $$\label{eq:classify-per-expand-1}
\varphi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} = \sum_{|\ell|+|m| \leq k}c_{\ell,m}\chi^{[\ell]}\bar{\chi}^{[m]}$$ for some $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, where $\chi = (\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_n)$. Let $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots \lambda_n) \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$ be such that each $\chi_j$ satisfies $\chi_j \circ \Phi^\tau|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} = e^{\lambda_j \tau}\chi_j$. The proof of Theorem \[th:classify-point\] showed that $$\label{eq:th-classify-per-exp-equal}
e^{\mu \tau} = e^{(\ell\cdot \lambda + m\cdot \bar{\lambda})\tau}$$ for all $\ell,m\in {\mathbb{N}}^{n}_{\geq 1}$ such that $c_{\ell,m} \neq 0$, so for such $\ell,m$ we have $$\label{eq:th-classify-per-log-equal}
\mu = \ell\cdot \lambda + m\cdot \bar{\lambda}+ i \frac{2\pi}{\tau} j_{\ell,m}$$ for some $j_{\ell,m} \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. By the previous paragraph, we may uniquely write $\chi = \psi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} = (\psi_1|_{{W^s}_{x_0}},\ldots,\psi_n|_{{W^s}_{x_0}})$ for principal eigenfunctions $\psi_i$ of $\Phi$ satisfying with $\lambda_i$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$.
Using ,, and the extension formula , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}&= \sum_{|\ell|+|m| \leq k} c_{\ell,m}e^{-\mu t}\cdot \left(\chi^{[\ell]}\bar{\chi}^{[m]}\right) \circ \Phi^t|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}\\
&= \sum_{|\ell|+ |m|\leq k} c_{\ell,m}e^{-\mu t}\cdot \left(\psi^{[\ell]}\bar{\psi}^{[m]}\right)|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} \circ \Phi^t|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}\\
&= \sum_{|\ell|+ |m|\leq k} c_{\ell,m} e^{-(i\frac{2\pi}{\tau}j_{\ell,m})t} \left(\psi^{[\ell]}\bar{\psi}^{[m]}\right)|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}\\
&= \sum_{|\ell|+|m|\leq k} c_{\ell,m} \left(\psi^{[\ell]}\bar{\psi}^{[m]}\psi_\theta^{j_{\ell,m}}\right)|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$ as desired. To obtain the last equality we used the fact that $\psi_\theta|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}\equiv 1$, so the extension formula implies that $\psi_\theta|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}\equiv e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{\tau}t}$ and hence also $\left(\psi_\theta^{j_{\ell,m}}\right)|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}\equiv e^{-(i\frac{2\pi}{\tau}j_{\ell,m})t}.$ This completes the proof.
Proofs of the main results {#sec:proofs-main-results}
==========================
Proof of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]
--------------------------------
In this section we prove Theorem \[th:main-thm\], which we repeat here for convenience. We prove the uniqueness and existence portions of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] in the following §\[sec:main-proof-uniq\] and §\[sec:main-proof-exist\], respectively.
### Proof of uniqueness {#sec:main-proof-uniq}
In this section, we prove the uniqueness portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]. The proof of uniqueness consists of an algebraic part and an analytic part. The algebraic portion is carried out in Lemmas \[lem:nonresonance-implies-invertible\] and \[lem:jets-zero-maps\], and the analytic portion is carried out in Lemma \[lem:psi-identically-0\].
\[lem:nonresonance-implies-invertible\] Let $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $X\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m\times m}$, and $Y\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$ be such that $(X,Y)$ is $k$-nonresonant. For all $1 < i \leq k$, let ${\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i},{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ denote the space of linear maps from the $i$-fold tensor product $({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i}$ to ${\mathbb{C}}^m$, and define the linear operator $$T_i \colon {\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i},{\mathbb{C}}^m) \to {\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i},{\mathbb{C}}^m), \qquad T_i(P)\coloneqq P Y^{\otimes i} - X P.$$ (By this formula we mean that $T_i(P)$ acts on tensors $\tau \in ({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i}$ via $\tau \mapsto P(Y^{\otimes i}(\tau)) - XP(\tau)$.)
Then for all $1 < i \leq k$, $T_i$ is a linear isomorphism. (The conclusion holds vacuously if $k = 1$.)
Let $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n$ and $\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_m$ respectively be the eigenvalues of $Y$ and $X$ repeated with multiplicity.
First assume that $Y$ and $X$ are both semisimple, i.e., diagonalizable over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Identifying $Y$ with its complexification, let $e_1,\ldots, e_n \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $Y$ and let $e^1, \ldots, e^n \in ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^*$ be the associated dual basis. Let $f_1,\ldots, f_m \in {\mathbb{C}}^m$ be a basis of eigenvectors for $X$. Fix any integer $i$ with $1< i \leq k$, any $p\in \{1,\ldots, m\}$, and any multi-indices $\ell,j\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}^i$; defining $e^{\otimes[\ell]}\coloneqq e^{\ell_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes e^{\ell_i}$ and similarly for $e_{\otimes [j]}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
T_i\left(f_p \otimes e^{\otimes [\ell]}\right)\cdot e_{\otimes [j]} &= \lambda_{j_1}\cdots \lambda_{j_n}\cdot (e^{\otimes[\ell]}\cdot e_{\otimes[j]})f_p
- \mu_p\cdot (e^{\otimes[\ell]}\cdot e_{\otimes[j]}) f_p
\\&= \delta^\ell_j\cdot \left(\lambda_{j_1}\cdots \lambda_{j_i} - \mu_p\right)f_p
\end{aligned}$$ (no summation implied), where the multi-index Kronecker delta $\delta^{\ell}_\ell = 1$ and $\delta^\ell_j = 0$ if $\ell \neq j$. Hence the $f_p \otimes e^{\otimes[\ell]}$ are eigenvectors of $T_i$ with eigenvalues $\left(\lambda_{j_1}\cdots \lambda_{j_i} - \mu_p\right)$, and dimension counting implies that these are all of the eigenvector/eigenvalue pairs. The $k$-nonresonance assumption implies that none of these eigenvalues are zero, so $T_i$ is invertible.
Since the operator $T_i$ depends continuously on the matrices $X$ and $Y$, since eigenvalues of a matrix depend continuously on the matrix, and since semisimple matrices are dense, it follows by continuity that the eigenvalues of $T_i$ are all of the form $\left(\lambda_{j_1}\cdots \lambda_{j_i} - \mu_p\right) \neq 0$ even if one or both of $X$ and $Y$ are not semisimple (c.f. [@nelson1970topics p. 37]). Hence $T_i$ is still invertible in the case of general $X$ and $Y$.
\[lem:jets-zero-maps\] Let $F\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ have the origin as a fixed point. Let $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $X\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m\times m}$ be such that $(X,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F)$ is $k$-nonresonant. Assume that $\psi\in C^k({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfies ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = 0$ and $$\label{eq:lem-uniq-psi-conj}
\psi \circ F = X \psi.$$ Then it follows that $${\mathsf{D}}^i_0 \psi= 0.$$ for all $1 < i \leq k$. (The conclusion holds vacuously if $k = 1$.)
We can restate the conclusion of Lemma \[lem:jets-zero-maps\] in the language of jets [@hirsch1976differential; @golubitsky1985singularities; @smoothInvariant]. If $\psi$ is a linearizing factor such that the $1$-jet $j^1_0(\psi - \psi(0)) = 0$, then automatically the $k$-jet $j^k_0(\psi - \psi(0)) = 0$.
We will prove the lemma by induction on $i$. The base case, ${\mathsf{D}}_0^1 \psi = {\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = 0$, is one of the hypotheses of the lemma. For the inductive step, assume that ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = \cdots = {\mathsf{D}}_0^{i}\psi = 0$ for an integer $i$ satisfying $1 \leq i \leq k-1$. Differentiating $(i+1)$ times using the chain rule and the inductive hypothesis, we obtain[^3] $$\label{eq:lem-chain-rule}
\left({\mathsf{D}}_0^{(i+1)} \psi\right) \left({\mathsf{D}}_0 F\right)^{\otimes (i+1)} - X{\mathsf{D}}_0^{(i+1)} \psi = T_{(i+1)}({\mathsf{D}}_0^{(i+1)}\psi) = 0,$$ where the linear operator $T_{(i+1)} \colon {\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes (i+1)},{\mathbb{C}}^m)\to {\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes (i+1)},{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ is as defined in Lemma \[lem:nonresonance-implies-invertible\] (taking $Y \coloneqq {\mathsf{D}}_0 F$).[^4] In deriving we have used the fact that symmetric tensors are completely determined by their action on tensors of the form $v^{\otimes i}$ [@thomas2014polarization Thm 1]. Lemma \[lem:nonresonance-implies-invertible\] implies that $T_{(i+1)}$ is invertible, so implies that ${\mathsf{D}}_0^{(i+1)}\psi = 0$. This completes the inductive step and the proof.
\[lem:psi-identically-0\] Let $F\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be a diffeomorphism such that the origin is a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point for the dynamical system defined by iterating $F$. Fix $k\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}\cup \{\infty\}$ and $0\leq \alpha \leq 1$. Let $e^A\in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,{\mathbb{C}})$ have spectral radius $\rho(e^A) < 1$ and satisfy either $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k + \alpha$ or $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) \leq k$. Assume $\psi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^m)$ satisfies $$\label{eq:lem-uniq-remainder-conj}
\psi \circ F = e^{A} \psi$$ and $$\label{eq:psi-ders-vanish}
{\mathsf{D}}^i_0 \psi= 0$$ for all $1 \leq i \leq k$. Then $\psi \equiv 0$.
We first observe that since (i) $0$ is asymptotically stable for the iterated dynamical system defined by $F$, (ii) $\psi$ is continuous, and (iii) $\rho(e^{A})<1$, it follows that $\psi(0) = 0$ since $$\label{eq:psi-zero-zero}
0 = \lim_{n\to \infty}e^{nA}\psi(x_0) = \lim_{n\to\infty}\psi(F^n(x_0)) = \psi(0)$$ for any $x_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^n \setminus \{0\}$. The second equality follows from .
For the remainder of the proof, define $x_j \coloneqq F^j(x_0)$ for $j\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and choose $r\in {\mathbb{R}}$ as follows: (i) if $\alpha = 0$ define $r\coloneqq k$, and (ii) if $\alpha > 0$ define $r\in {\mathbb{R}}$ to be any number satisfying $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F)<r< k+\alpha$. Taylor’s theorem for ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ functions [@de1999regularity p. 162] says that $$\psi(x) = \sum_{i=0}^k {\mathsf{D}}_0^i \psi\cdot x^{\otimes i} + R(x),$$ where $\lim_{x\to 0}\frac{R(x)}{\norm{x}^{r}} = 0$. Equations and imply that all of the terms in the sum above vanish, so we obtain $\psi= R$. Using it follows that $e^{j A}\psi = \psi \circ F^j = R\circ F^j $, and since $x_j = F^j(x_0)$ we obtain $$\label{eq:main-thm-1st-eqn}
e^{jA}\psi(x_0) = R(x_j), \qquad \lim_{x\to 0}\frac{R(x)}{\norm{x}^{r}} = 0.$$ Noting that, as $j\to \infty$, $x_j$ approaches the origin tangent to the generalized eigenspace $E_\lambda$ corresponding to some eigenvalue $\lambda$ of ${\mathsf{D}}_0 F$, it follows that $\frac{|\lambda|^j}{\norm{x_j}} \to C \neq 0$.[^5] Dividing both sides of by $\norm{x_j}^{r}$, multiplying by $1=\frac{|\lambda|^{jr}}{|\lambda|^{jr}}$ and taking the limit as $j\to \infty$ therefore yields $$\label{eq:main-thm-2nd-eqn}
\lim_{j\to\infty} e^{jA} \frac{\psi(x_0)}{\norm{x_j}^{r}} = \lim_{j\to \infty} \left(\frac{|\lambda|}{\norm{x_j}}\right)^r \left(\frac{e^{A}}{|\lambda|^{r}}\right)^j\psi(x_0)= C^{r} \lim_{j\to \infty} \left(\frac{e^{A}}{|\lambda|^{r}}\right)^j\psi(x_0) = 0.$$ But $$r \geq \nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) \coloneqq \max_{\substack{\alpha \in \textnormal{spec}(e^A)\\ \beta \in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_0 F)}}\frac{\ln(|\alpha|)}{\ln(|\beta|)}$$ implies that all eigenvalues $\alpha$ of $e^{A}$ satisfy $\ln(|\alpha|) \geq r \ln(|\lambda|)$, with the inequality flipping since all eigenvalues of ${\mathsf{D}}_0 F$ have modulus smaller than one (note that the inequality is actually strict in the case $\alpha > 0$). Exponentiating, this implies that all eigenvalues $\alpha$ of $e^A$ satisfy $|\alpha| \geq |\lambda|^r$, and therefore all eigenvalues of $\frac{e^A}{|\lambda|^r}$ have modulus greater than or equal to $1$.[^6] Hence the diagonal entries in the (upper triangular) Jordan normal form of $(\frac{e^A}{|\lambda|^r})^j$ are bounded below by $1$, so if $\psi(x_0)\neq 0$ then at least one component of $(\frac{e^A}{|\lambda|^r})^j\psi(x_0)$ with respect to the Jordan basis is bounded below uniformly in $j$. It follows that holds if and only if $\psi(x_0) = 0$. Since $x_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\{0\}$ was arbitrary and since we already obtained $\psi(0) = 0$ in , it follows that $\psi \equiv 0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. This completes the proof.
Using Lemmas \[lem:jets-zero-maps\] and \[lem:psi-identically-0\], we now prove the uniqueness portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\].
Since $x_0$ is globally asymptotically stable, the Brown-Stallings theorem [@wilson1967structure Lem 2.1] implies that there is a diffeomorphism $Q\approx {\mathbb{R}}^n$ sending $x_0$ to $0$ where $n = \dim(Q)$, so we may assume that $Q = {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $x_0 = 0$.[^7] Define the diffeomorphism $F\coloneqq \Phi^1$ to be the time-$1$ map. Let $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ be two functions satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi_i = B$ and $\psi_i \circ F = e^{A} \psi_i$ for $i = 1,2$. Then $\psi\coloneqq \psi_1-\psi_2$ satisfies ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = 0$ and $\psi \circ F = e^{A} \psi$. Lemma \[lem:jets-zero-maps\] implies that ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i \psi = 0$ for all $1\leq i \leq k$, and Lemma \[lem:psi-identically-0\] then implies that $\psi_1 - \psi_2 = \psi \equiv 0$. If $A$ and $B$ are real, then we can define $\psi_2\coloneqq \bar{\psi}_1$ to be the complex conjugate of $\psi_1$, and so the preceding implies that $\psi_1 = \bar{\psi}_1$; hence $\psi_1$ is real if $A$ and $B$ are real. This completes the proof of the uniqueness statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\].
### Proof of existence {#sec:main-proof-exist}
In this section, we prove the existence portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]. As with the proof of the uniqueness portion, the proof consists of an algebraic part and an analytic part. The techniques we use in the existence proof are similar to those used in [@sternberg1957local; @cabre2003parameterization1]. The algebraic portion of our proof is carried out in Lemma \[lem:existence-approx-conj\], and the analytic portion is carried out in Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\].
\[lem:existence-approx-conj\] Fix $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ and let $F\in C^k({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ have the origin as a fixed point. Let $X \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m\times m}$ be such that $(X,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F)$ is $k$-nonresonant, and assume $B\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m\times n}$ satisfies $$B {\mathsf{D}}_0 F = X B.$$ Then there exists a unique degree-$k$ symmetric polynomial $P\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ vanishing at $0$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}_0 P = B$ and such that $$\label{eq:poly-conjugacy}
P \circ F = X P + R,$$ where $R$ satisfies ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i R = 0$ for all $0\leq i \leq k$. Furthermore, if $X\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ and $B\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ are real, then this unique polynomial $P\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^m\subset {\mathbb{C}}^m$ is real.
We prove Lemma \[lem:existence-approx-conj\] for the case of finite $k$ only and rely on a bootstrapping method to prove the existence portion for the case $k = \infty$ at the end of this section. We could have proved a $C^\infty$ version of Lemma \[lem:existence-approx-conj\] (at least the existence part) using the fact that every formal power series comprises the derivatives of some $C^\infty$ function [@nelson1970topics p. 34], but choose not to do so.
By Lemma \[lem:nonresonance-implies-invertible\], the linear operator $$T_i \colon {\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i},{\mathbb{C}}^m) \to {\mathcal{L}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i},{\mathbb{C}}^m), \qquad T_i(P_i)\coloneqq P_i ({\mathsf{D}}_0 F)^{\otimes i} - X P_i$$ is invertible for all $1 < i \leq k$. Denoting by ${\textnormal{Sym}}^i({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset ({\mathbb{R}}^n)^{\otimes i}$ the linear subspace of fully symmetric $i$-tensors (the $i$-th symmetric power), symmetry of the tensor $({\mathsf{D}}_0 F)^{\otimes i}$ also implies that $T_i$ restricts to a well-defined automorphism of ${\mathcal{L}}({\textnormal{Sym}}^i({\mathbb{R}}^n),{\mathbb{C}}^m)$.
By Taylor’s theorem we may write $F$ as a degree-$k$ polynomial plus remainder: $F(x) = \sum_{i=1}^k F_i\cdot x^{\otimes i} + R_1$, where $F_1 = {\mathsf{D}}_0 F$ and $\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{R_1(x)}{\norm{x}^k}=0$. Defining $F_{\otimes [j]}\coloneqq F_{j_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes F_{j_\ell}$ for any multi-index $j\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\ell \geq 1}$, we may therefore write as $$\label{eq:poly-replace-with-evaluation}
\sum_{\ell=1}^k\sum_{\substack{j \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}^\ell\\|j|\leq k}} P_\ell \cdot F_{\otimes[j]} \cdot x^{\otimes \ell} = X \sum_{\ell=1}^k P_\ell \cdot x^{\otimes \ell} + R_2 \cdot x^{\otimes \ell},$$ where $j=|(j_1,\ldots,j_\ell)| = \sum_{i=1}^\ell j_i$, $P(x) = \sum_{\ell=1}^k P_\ell \cdot x^{\otimes \ell}$, $P_1 = B$, and $\lim_{x\to 0}\frac{R_2(x)}{\norm{x}^k}=0$. If we require that all tensors $P_\ell$ are symmetric then all tensors appearing in are symmetric, and since symmetric tensors are completely determined by their values on all vectors of the form $x^{\otimes i}$ [@thomas2014polarization Thm 1], this implies that $$\label{eq:poly-replace}
\sum_{\ell=1}^k\sum_{\substack{j \in {\mathbb{N}}^\ell_{\geq 1}\\|j|\leq k}} P_\ell \cdot F_{\otimes[j]} = X \sum_{\ell=1}^k P_\ell + R_2.$$ Since $B{\mathsf{D}}_0 F = X B$ and $P_1 = {\mathsf{D}}_0 P = B$ by assumption, an inductive argument implies that equation holds for some suitable $R_2$ if and only if $$\label{eq:poly-induct}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{i-1}\sum_{\substack{j \in {\mathbb{N}}^\ell_{\geq 1}\\|j|= i}} P_\ell \cdot F_{\otimes[j]} = \underbrace{X P_i - P_i ({\mathsf{D}}_0 F)^{\otimes i}}_{-T_i(P_i)}.$$ for all $0 \leq i \leq k$ (the induction is on $i$, and the base case $0 = XB - B{\mathsf{D}}_0 F $ is one of our hypotheses). Since the left side of belongs to ${\mathcal{L}}({\textnormal{Sym}}^i({\mathbb{R}}^n),{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ and involves only $P_\ell$ for $\ell < i$, and since $T_i$ is invertible, we can can inductively solve for $P_i$ using . Since additionally $T_i|_{{\mathcal{L}}({\textnormal{Sym}}^i({\mathbb{R}}^n),{\mathbb{C}}^m)}$ is a well-defined automorphism of ${\mathcal{L}}({\textnormal{Sym}}^i({\mathbb{R}}^n),{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ as discussed above, it follows that each $P_i\in {\mathcal{L}}({\textnormal{Sym}}^i({\mathbb{R}}^n),{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ which is compatible with our earlier stipulation that each $P_i$ be symmetric (which we used in obtaining equation from ).
Finally, assume that $X\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ is real, and assume by induction that $B = P_1, P_2,\ldots, P_{i-1}$ are real. Taking the complex conjugate of , we find that $P_i$ solves if and only if its complex conjugate $\bar{P}_i$ solves . Invertibility of $T_i$ thus implies that $P_i = \bar{P}_i$, so $P_i\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ and hence also $P = \sum_{i=1}^k P_i$ are real. This completes the proof.
\[lem-make-approx-exact\] Fix $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1} \cup \{\infty\}$, $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, and let $F\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ diffeomorphism such that the origin is a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point for the dynamical system defined by iterating $F$. Let $e^{A} \in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,{\mathbb{C}})$ satisfy $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k + \alpha$, and assume that there exists $P\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ such that $$P\circ F = e^{A} P + R,$$ where $R\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfies ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i R = 0$ for all integers $0\leq i < k+\alpha$ (note the case $\alpha = 0$).
Then there exists a unique $\varphi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i \varphi=0$ for all integers $0 \leq i < k + \alpha$ and such that $\psi\coloneqq P + \varphi$ satisfies $$\psi \circ F = e^{A} \psi.$$ In fact, $$\psi = \lim_{j\to \infty}e^{-jA}P\circ F^j$$ in the topology of $C^{k,\alpha}$-uniform convergence on compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Furthermore, if $e^{A}\in {\mathsf{GL}}(m,{\mathbb{R}})$ is real and $P\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^m)$ is real, then $\varphi,\psi \colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^m \subset {\mathbb{C}}^m$ are real.
\[rem:uniqueness-two-ways\] The uniqueness statement in Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\] follows from the proof of the uniqueness statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] proved in §\[sec:main-proof-uniq\], but we include a self-contained proof below because the methods used to prove existence naturally yield the uniqueness statement of Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\]. However, the hypotheses $F\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ and $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k + \alpha$ assumed here are stronger than needed for the uniqueness statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm\], with the latter condition being stronger if $\alpha = 0$.
We first assume that $k$ is finite, and delay consideration of the case $k = \infty$ until the end of the proof.
*Adapted norms.* Later in the proof we will require that the following bound on operator norms holds (needed following ): $$\label{eq:existence-spread-rewritten}
\norm{e^{-A}}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_0 F}^{k+\alpha}< 1.$$ Due to our assumption that $\nu(e^A,{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k +\alpha$, this bound can always be made to hold by using an appropriate choice of “adapted” norms (which induce the operator norms) on the underlying vector spaces ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${\mathbb{C}}^m$, and so we may (and do) assume that holds in the remainder of the proof.
But first we argue that such norms can indeed be chosen. Let $\lambda \in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_0 F)$ and $\mu\in \textnormal{spec}(e^{A})$ be the eigenvalues of ${\mathsf{D}}_0 F$ and $e^{A}$ with largest and smallest modulus, respectively. For any $\kappa > 0$, there exist adapted norms (both denoted by $\norm{\cdot}$) on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ having the property that the induced operator norms $\norm{e^{A}}$ and $\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_0 F}$ satisfy [@hirsch1974differential p. 279–280], [@cabre2003parameterization1 Sec. A.1]: $$\label{eq:adapted-norm}
|\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_0 F} - |\lambda|| \leq \kappa, \qquad \left|\norm{e^{-A}} - \frac{1}{|\mu|}\right| \leq \kappa.$$ Now since $\frac{\ln(|\mu|)}{\ln(|\lambda|)} \eqqcolon \nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k+\alpha$ and since $|\lambda|<1$, it follows that $\frac{|\lambda|^{k+\alpha}}{|\mu|}<1$. The inequalities implies that $\norm{e^{-A}}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_0 F}^{k+\alpha} \approx \frac{|\lambda|^{k+\alpha}}{|\mu|}$ if $\kappa$ is small, so choosing $\kappa$ sufficiently small yields as claimed. For later use we also note that implies that ${\mathsf{D}}_0 F$ is a strict contraction if $\kappa$ is small enough since $|\lambda| < 1$ for all $\lambda \in \textnormal{spec}({\mathsf{D}}_0 F)$, which in turn implies that $$\label{eq:B-pos-invariant}
F(B)\subset B$$ if $B\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a sufficiently small ball centered at the origin [@hirsch1974differential p. 281].
*Definition of function spaces.* Let $B \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a closed ball centered at the origin. Given any Banach space $X$, let $C^k(B,X)$ be the space of $C^k$ functions $G\in C^k(B,X)$ equipped with the standard norm $$\norm{G}_k\coloneqq \sum_{i=0}^k \sup_{x\in B}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_x^i G}.$$ making $C^k(B,X)$ into a Banach space [@de1999regularity]. Similarly, for a Banach space $Y$, we define the $\alpha$-Hölder constant $[H]_\alpha$ of a map $H\colon B\to Y$ via $$[H]_\alpha \coloneqq \sup_{\substack{x,y\in B\\x \neq y}}\frac{\norm{H(x) - H(y)}}{\norm{x-y}^\alpha},$$ and for $\alpha > 0$ we let ${C^{k,\alpha}}(B,X)$ be the space of $C^k$ functions $G\in {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,X)$ whose $k$-th derivative is uniformly $\alpha$-Hölder continuous equipped with the standard norm $$\norm{G}_{k,\alpha}\coloneqq \norm{G}_k + [{\mathsf{D}}^k G]_\alpha$$ making ${C^{k,\alpha}}(B,X)$ into a Banach space [@de1999regularity].[^8] For $\alpha = 0$, we identify ${C^{k,\alpha}}(B,X)$ with $C^k(B,X)$ and make the special definition $$\norm{{\,\cdot\,}}_{k,0}\coloneqq \norm{{\,\cdot\,}}_k.$$ Let ${\mathcal{F}}\subset {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ denote the subspace of functions $\varphi$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i\varphi = 0$ for all integers $0\leq i < k+\alpha$; ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a closed linear subspace of ${C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$, hence also a Banach space.
*Preliminary estimates.* By the definition of ${\mathcal{F}}$ and the mean value theorem it follows that, for any $\epsilon > 0$, if the radius of $B$ is sufficiently small then for any $\varphi \in {\mathcal{F}}$: $$\label{eq:norm-k-minus-one-bound}
\begin{split}
\norm{\varphi}_{k-1} &\leq \epsilon\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k\varphi}_0\\
\norm{\varphi}_k &\leq (1+\epsilon)\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k\varphi}_0
\end{split}$$ and, if $\alpha > 0$, $$\label{eq:norm-k-bound}
\begin{split}
\norm{\varphi}_{k-1,\alpha} + \norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi}_{0} &\leq \epsilon [{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_{\alpha}\\
\norm{\varphi}_{k,\alpha}&\leq (1+\epsilon) [{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_{\alpha}.
\end{split}$$ [^9]
*Defining a linear contraction mapping on ${\mathcal{F}}$.* Recall that $F\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the diffeomorphism from the statement of the lemma. By , all sufficiently small closed balls $B\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ centered at the origin satisfy $F(B)\subset B$. Additionally, since $F\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $B$ is compact, $F|_B \in {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. It follows that there is a well-defined linear operator $T\colon {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)\to {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ given by[^10] $$T(\varphi)\coloneqq e^{-A}\varphi\circ F.$$ Note that $T({\mathcal{F}})\subset {\mathcal{F}}$, so that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is an invariant subspace for $T$. We claim that there is a choice of $B$ so that $T|_{\mathcal{F}}\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathcal{F}}$ is a contraction with constant $\beta < 1$: $$\label{eq:T-contract}
\norm{T(\varphi)}_{k,\alpha}\leq \beta \norm{\varphi}_{k,\alpha}.$$ To see this, we give an argument essentially due to Sternberg, but which generalizes the proof of [@sternberg1957local Thm 2] to the case of linearizing semiconjugacies and to the ${C^{k,\alpha}}$ setting. Using the notation ${\mathsf{D}}^{\otimes[j]}_x F\coloneqq {\mathsf{D}}^{j_1}_x F \otimes \cdots \otimes {\mathsf{D}}^{j_i}_x F$ for a multi-index $j\in {\mathbb{N}}^i_{\geq 1}$, we compute $$\label{eq:existence-k-der-estimate}
{\mathsf{D}}_x^k (T(\varphi)) = e^{-A} {\mathsf{D}}^k_{F(x)} \varphi \cdot ({\mathsf{D}}_x F)^{\otimes k} + e^{-A} \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\sum_{\substack{j \in {\mathbb{N}}^i_{\geq 1}\\|j|\leq k}} C_{i,j} {\mathsf{D}}^i_{F(x)}\varphi \cdot {\mathsf{D}}^{\otimes[j]}_x F,$$ where the integer coefficients $C_{i,j}\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ are combinatorially determined by Faà di Bruno’s formula for the “higher-order chain rule” [@jacobs2014stare] and are therefore independent of $B$. We choose $B$ sufficiently small that its diameter is less than one, and we note that there exists a constant $N_0$ such that $$\label{eq:fa-di-sum-bound}
\sup_{\norm{x} \leq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\sum_{\substack{j \in {\mathbb{N}}^\ell_{\geq 1}\\|j|\leq k}} C_{i,j} \norm{{\mathsf{D}}^{\otimes[j]}_x F} < N_0.$$ Using and to bound the sum in , it follows that $$\label{eq:contract-k-deriv}
\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k T(\varphi)}_0 \leq \norm{e^{-A}}(\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}^k_0 + \epsilon N_0)\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi}_0.$$
For the case that $\alpha > 0$, we will now use to obtain a bound on $[{\mathsf{D}}_x^k T(\varphi)]_\alpha$ analogous to . In order to do this, we use the estimate $[x\mapsto {\mathsf{D}}^k_{F(x)}\varphi]_\alpha\leq [{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^\alpha$ and the product rule $[fg]_\alpha \leq \norm{f}_0 [g]_\alpha + [f]_\alpha \norm{g}_0$ for Hölder constants (see, e.g., [@eldering2013normally Lem 1.19]) to bound the first term of by $\norm{e^{-A}}\left([{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k+\alpha} + \norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi}_0 \cdot k [{\mathsf{D}}F]_\alpha\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k-1}\right) \leq \norm{e^{-A}}\left(\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k+\alpha} + \epsilon k [{\mathsf{D}}F]_\alpha\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k-1}\right)$, where we have also used to bound the second term in parentheses. Next, we use , the product rule for Hölder constants again, and for $1\leq i \leq k-1$ the estimates $[x\mapsto {\mathsf{D}}^i_{F(x)}\varphi]_\alpha\leq [{\mathsf{D}}^i \varphi]_\alpha\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^\alpha \leq \epsilon [{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^\alpha$ to bound the second term of by $\epsilon N_0 \norm{e^{-A}}[{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha$. This last estimate we used follows from and the fact that we are requiring $B$ to have diameter less than one, so that $[{\mathsf{D}}^i \varphi]_\alpha \leq \norm{{\mathsf{D}}^{i+1}\varphi}_0\leq \epsilon [{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha$. We finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:contract-holder-coeff}
\left[{\mathsf{D}}_x^k T(\varphi)\right]_\alpha
&\leq \norm{e^{-A}}\left(\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k+\alpha} + \epsilon k [{\mathsf{D}}F]_\alpha \norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k-1} + \epsilon N_0\right)[{\mathsf{D}}^k\varphi]_\alpha.
\end{aligned}$$
The estimate and continuity imply that $\norm{e^{-A}}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}F}_0^{k+\alpha} < 1$ if $B$ is sufficiently small. Hence if $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small, the quantities respectively multiplying $\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k\varphi}_0$ and $[{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha$ in and will be bounded above by some positive constant $\beta' < 1$. The discussion preceding and implies that we can indeed take $\epsilon$ this small after possibly further shrinking $B$, so it follows that $\norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k T(\varphi)}_0 < \beta' \norm{{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi}_0$ and, if $\alpha > 0$, also $[D^k T(\varphi)]_\alpha \leq \beta' [{\mathsf{D}}^k \varphi]_\alpha$. We therefore obtain a contraction estimate on the highest derivative and Hölder constant *only*. However, we can combine this observation with the second inequalities from each of the two displays and to obtain in both cases $\alpha = 0$ and $\alpha > 0$ contractions on *all* of the derivatives: $$\norm{T(\varphi)}_{k,\alpha} \leq (1+\epsilon)\beta' \norm{\varphi}_{k,\alpha}.$$ (This technique for the case $\alpha = 0$ was also used in the proof of [@sternberg1957local Thm 2].) Define $\beta \coloneqq (1+\epsilon)\beta'$. Since $\beta' < 1$, if necessary we may shrink $B$ further to ensure that $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small that $\beta < 1$. This shows that $T|_{\mathcal{F}}$ is a contraction and completes the proof of .
*Existence and uniqueness of a linearizing factor defined on $B$.* We will now find a locally-defined linearizing factor $\tilde{\psi}\in {C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ of the form $\tilde{\psi} = P|_B + \tilde{\varphi}$, where $\tilde{\varphi}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ and $P\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ is as in the statement of the lemma. By definition, $\tilde{\psi}$ is linearizing if and only if $\tilde{\psi} = e^{-A} \tilde{\psi}\circ F \eqqcolon T(\tilde{\psi})$, so we need to solve the equation $
P|_B + \tilde{\varphi} = T(P|_B + \tilde{\varphi})$ for $\tilde \varphi$. (We are writing $P|_B$ rather than $P$ because $\tilde{\varphi}$ is a function with domain $B$ rather than ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and also because $T$ is a linear operator defined on functions with domain $B$.) Since $T$ is linear, after rearranging we see that this amounts to solving $$\label{eq:tilde-phi-1}
\left({\textnormal{id}}_{{C^{k,\alpha}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)} - T\right)\tilde{\varphi} = T(P|_B) -P|_B.$$ One of the assumptions of the lemma is that $\left(P\circ F - e^A P\right)|_B \in {\mathcal{F}}$, and this implies that the right hand side of belongs to ${\mathcal{F}}$ since $e^{-A} \cdot {\mathcal{F}}\subset {\mathcal{F}}$. Since $T({\mathcal{F}})\subset {\mathcal{F}}$, it follows that we may rewrite as $$\label{eq:tilde-phi-2}
\left({\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathcal{F}}} - T|_{\mathcal{F}}\right)\tilde{\varphi} = T(P|_B) -P|_B.$$ We showed earlier that $T|_{\mathcal{F}}$ is a strict contraction, i.e., its operator norm satisfies $\norm{T|_{\mathcal{F}}}_{k,\alpha} < 1$. It follows that $({\textnormal{id}}_{\mathcal{F}}- T|_{\mathcal{F}})$ has a bounded inverse given by the corresponding Neumann series, so that has a unique solution $\tilde{\varphi}$ given by $$\label{eq:tilde-phi-neumann}
\tilde{\varphi} = \left({\textnormal{id}}_{{\mathcal{F}}} - T|_{\mathcal{F}}\right)^{-1} \cdot \left(T(P|_B) -P|_B\right) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty (T|_{\mathcal{F}})^n \cdot \left(T(P|_B) -P|_B\right).$$
*Extension to a unique global linearizing factor.* Since $x_0$ is globally asymptotically stable and since $B$ is positively invariant, for every $x\in B$ there exists $j(x)\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}$ such that, for all $j > j(x)$, $F^j(x)\in {\textnormal{int}}(B)$. If $j$ is large enough that $F^j(x)\in {\textnormal{int}}(B)$ and $\ell > j$, then $$e^{-\ell A}\tilde{\psi} \circ F^\ell(x) = e^{-jA}\left( e^{(\ell-j)A} \tilde{\psi} \circ F^{(\ell-j)}\right)|_B \circ F^{j}(x) = e^{-jA} \tilde{\psi} \circ F^j(x),$$ so there is a well-defined map $\psi\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ given by $$\label{eq:psi-const}
\psi(x)\coloneqq e^{-j A}\tilde{\psi}\circ F^{j}(x),$$ where $j\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}$ is any nonnegative integer sufficiently large that $F^j(x)\in {\textnormal{int}}(B)$. Clearly $\psi \circ F = e^{A} \psi$. If $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $F^j(x)\in {\textnormal{int}}(B)$, then $x$ has a neighborhood $U$ with $F^j(U)\subset {\textnormal{int}}(B)$ by continuity, so $\psi|_U$ is given by with $j$ constant on $U$. By the chain rule, this shows that $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Clearly $\psi$ and $\varphi\coloneqq \psi - P$ are uniquely determined by $\psi|_B = P|_B + \varphi|_B = P|_B + \tilde{\varphi}$ which is in turn uniquely determined by $\tilde{\varphi}$, and since $\tilde{\varphi} = \varphi|_B$ is unique it follows that $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are also unique. If $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ and $P\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^m)$ are real, then the complex conjugate $\bar{\psi} = P + \bar{\varphi}$, also satisfies $\bar{\psi} \circ F = e^{A} \bar{\psi}$, so uniqueness implies that $\bar{\psi} = \psi$ and hence $\psi\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ is real.
*Convergence to the global linearizing conjugacy.* We now complete the proof of the lemma by proving the sole remaining claim that $e^{-jA}P\circ F^j \to \psi$ with ${C^{k,\alpha}}$-uniform convergence on compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. To do this, we first inspect the finite truncations of the infinite series in . We see that, since $$\sum_{n=0}^j (T|_{\mathcal{F}})^n \cdot \left(T(P|_B) -P|_B\right) = \sum_{n=0}^j T^{n+1}(P|_B) - T^n(P|_B) = T^{j+1}(P|_B) - P|_B$$ for each $j \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, taking the limit $j\to\infty$ shows that the series in is equal to $-P|_B + \lim_{j\to\infty} T^j(P|_B)$. In other words, $$\label{eq:tilde-psi-converge}
\tilde{\psi} = \lim_{j\to\infty} e^{-j A} P \circ F^j|_B$$ with convergence in $C^{k,\alpha}(B,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$.
Next, let $K\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be any positively invariant compact subset. Since $0$ is globally asymptotically stable and since $B$ contains a neighborhood of $0$, there exists $j_0 > 0$ such that $F^j(K)\subset B$ for all $j > j_0$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{j\to\infty}e^{-j A}P\circ F^j|_K &= \lim_{j\to \infty}e^{-j_0 A} \left(e^{-j A} P\circ F^j|_B \right)\circ F^{j_0}|_K\\
&= e^{-j_0 A} \left(\lim_{j\to \infty} e^{-j A} P\circ F^j|_B \right)\circ F^{j_0}|_K\\
&= e^{-j_0 A} \psi|_B \circ F^{j_0}|_K\\
&= \psi|_K,
\end{aligned}$$ with convergence in $C^{k,\alpha}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$. Since we are considering convergence in $C^{k,\alpha}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ — rather than, e.g., merely pointwise convergence — it is not obvious that we can move the limit inside the parentheses to obtain the second equality. The reason this is valid is that composition maps of the form $g\mapsto f\circ g \circ h$ ($f, h$ fixed, all maps ${C^{k,\alpha}}$) are continuous with respect to the $C^{k,\alpha}$ normed topologies [@de1999regularity Prop. 6.1, Prop. 6.2 (iii)]. Since every compact subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ in contained in some positively invariant compact subset $K$ (e.g., a sublevel set of a Lyapunov function), this completes the proof for the case $k < \infty$.
*Consideration of the case $k = \infty$.* For the case $k = \infty$, repeating the proof above for any $k' < \infty$ such that $\nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F) < k'$ yields unique $C^{k'}$ functions $\varphi\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ and $\psi\coloneqq P + \varphi$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i \varphi = 0$ for all $0\leq i \leq k'$. By uniqueness, these functions $\varphi, \psi$ are independent of $k' > \nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F)$, and since $k'$ is arbitrary it follows that $\varphi,\psi \in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$. Additionally, for any positively invariant compact $K$ we have shown that $e^{-j A}\circ P \circ F^j|_K \to \psi|_K$ in $C^{k'}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ for every $k'\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$, and hence also $e^{-j A}\circ P \circ F^j|_K \to \psi|_K$ in the space $C^\infty(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ whose topology is defined, e.g., by the complete metric $$d(f,g) = \sum _{j=0}^\infty 2^{-j}\frac{\norm{f-g}_{j}}{1+\norm{f-g}_j}$$ making $C^\infty(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ into a Frechét space. Since again every compact subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is contained in some positively invariant compact subset $K$, This completes the proof.
Using Lemmas \[lem:existence-approx-conj\] and \[lem-make-approx-exact\], we now complete the proof of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] by proving the existence portion of its statement.
As in the proof of the uniqueness portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] at the end of §\[sec:main-proof-uniq\], we may assume that $Q = {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $x_0 = 0$. We first consider the case that ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$, and define the time-$1$ map $F\coloneqq \Phi^1$.
First suppose that $k < \infty$. Lemma \[lem:existence-approx-conj\] implies that there exists a polynomial $P$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}_0 P = B$ and $P\circ F = e^{A} P + R$, where $R\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfies ${\mathsf{D}}_0^i R = 0$ for all integers $0\leq i < k + \alpha$.[^11] Furthermore, $P$ and $R$ are real if $e^{A}$ and $B$ are real. Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\] then implies that there exists $\varphi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ such that $\psi = P + \varphi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfies ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = B$, $\psi \circ F = e^{A} \psi$, $e^{-jA}\tilde{P} \circ \Phi^j \to \psi$ $C^{k,\alpha}$-uniformly on compact subsets for any $\tilde{P}$ satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] (such as $P$), and that $\psi$ is real if $A$ and $B$ are real. This completes the proof for the case $k < \infty$.
Now suppose that $k = \infty$. Repeating the proof above for finite $k' > \nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0)$ yields $\psi \in C^{k'}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = B$ and $\psi \circ F = e^{A} \psi$. The proof of the uniqueness portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] in §\[sec:main-proof-uniq\] implies that $\psi$ is independent of $k' > \nu(e^{A},{\mathsf{D}}_0 F)$, so since $k'$ is arbitrary it follows that $\psi \in C^\infty$. Additionally, by Lemma \[lem-make-approx-exact\] we have that $e^{-jA}\tilde{P} \circ \Phi^j|_K \to \psi$ $C^{\infty}$-uniformly on compact subsets for any $\tilde{P}$ satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]. This completes the proof for the case that ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$.
It remains only to consider the case that ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}$, i.e., the case that $\Phi$ is a flow. By the proof of the case ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$, there exists $\tilde{\psi}\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \tilde \psi = B$ and $\tilde \psi \circ \Phi^j = e^{jA} \tilde \psi$ for all $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. By adapting a technique of Sternberg [@sternberg1957local Lem 4], from $\tilde{\psi}$ we will construct a map $\psi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying ${\mathsf{D}}_0 \psi = B$ and $\psi \circ \Phi^t = e^{tA} \psi$ for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$. In fact define $$\psi\coloneqq \int_0^1 e^{-sA}\tilde{\psi}\circ \Phi^s\, ds.$$ By Leibniz’s rule for differentiating under the integral sign and basic estimates, $\psi \in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$, and using the assumption we have that$${\mathsf{D}}_0\psi = \int_0^1 e^{-sA}B {\mathsf{D}}_0 \Phi^s \, ds = \int_0^1 B\,ds = B.$$ To prove that $\psi \circ \Phi^t = e^{tA} \psi $ for all $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\psi \circ \Phi^t &= \int_0^1 e^{-sA} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^{s+t}\,ds
= \int_t^{1+t} e^{(t-s)A} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^s \, ds\\
&= e^{tA} \int_t^1 e^{-sA} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^s \, ds + e^{tA} \int_1^{1+t} e^{-sA} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^s \, ds\\
&= e^{tA} \int_t^1 e^{-sA} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^s \, ds + e^{tA} \int_1^{1+t} e^{-sA} \left(e^{A}\tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^{-1} \right) \circ \Phi^s \, ds\\
&= e^{tA} \int_t^1 e^{-sA} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^s \, ds + e^{tA} \int_0^{t} e^{-sA} \tilde{\psi} \circ \Phi^s \, ds\\
&= e^{tA} \psi
\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Since $\psi$ satisfies $\psi \circ \Phi^1 = e^{A} \psi$, the uniqueness result for the case ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ actually implies that $\psi = \tilde{\psi}$.
Letting $K\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be any positively invariant compact subset, the map $G\colon [0,1] \times C^{k,\alpha}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)\to C^{k,\alpha}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ given by $G(r, f) \coloneqq e^{-r A}f \circ \Phi^r|_K$ is continuous and satisfies $(r,\psi)\mapsto \psi$ for all $r\in [0,1]$, so compactness of $[0,1]$ implies that for every neighborhood $V\subset C^{k,\alpha}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ of $\psi$ there is a smaller neighborhood $U \subset V$ of $\psi$ such that $G([0,1]\times U) \subset V$, i.e., $e^{-rA} \varphi \circ \Phi^r|_K \subset V$ for every $\varphi \in U$ and $r\in [0,1]$. Fix any $P\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem \[th:main-thm\]. By the proof for the case ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{Z}}$ there exists $N \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}$ such that, for all $j > N$, $e^{-jA}P\circ \Phi^j|_K \in U$. By the definition of $U$ it follows that $e^{-tA}P\circ \Phi^t|_K \subset V$ for all $t > N$. Since the neighborhood $V \ni \psi$ was arbitrary, this implies that $$\psi|_K = \lim_{t\to \infty} e^{-tA}P\circ \Phi^t|_K$$ in $C^{k,\alpha}(K,{\mathbb{C}}^m)$. Since every compact subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is contained in some positively invariant compact subset $K$, this proves that $e^{-tA}P\circ \Phi^t|_K \to \psi$ in the topology of $C^{k,\alpha}$-uniform convergence on compact subsets. This completes the proof of Theorem \[th:main-thm\].
Proof of Theorem \[th:main-thm-per\]
------------------------------------
In this section we prove Theorem \[th:main-thm-per\], which we repeat here for convenience. This proof invokes Theorem \[th:main-thm\] and is much shorter because of this.
Let ${W^s}_{x_0}$ be the global strong stable manifold (isochron) through $x_0$ [@kvalheim2018global]. Since ${W^s}_{x_0}$ is the stable manifold for the fixed point $x_0$ of the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ diffeomorphism $\Phi^\tau$, it follows that ${W^s}_{x_0}$ is a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ manifold [@de1995irwin Thm 2.1].
After identifying $E^s_{x_0}$ with ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, the uniqueness portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] applied to $\psi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ implies that $\psi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ is unique for any $\psi$ satisfying the uniqueness hypotheses, and furthermore $\psi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ is real if $A$ and $B$ are real. Since $\psi$ is uniquely determined by $\psi|_{{W^s}_{x_0}}$ and (which is true because $Q = \bigcup_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}}\Phi^t({W^s}_{x_0})$), this implies that $\psi$ is unique and that $\psi$ is real if $A$ and $B$ are real. This completes the proof of the uniqueness statement of Theorem \[th:main-thm-per\].
Under the existence hypotheses, the existence portion of Theorem \[th:main-thm\] similarly implies that there exists a unique $\varphi\in {C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}({W^s}_{x_0},{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ satisfying and $$\label{eq:main-th-per-proof-1}
\forall j \in {\mathbb{Z}}\colon \varphi \circ \Phi^{j\tau}|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} = e^{j\tau A} \varphi.$$ The unique extension of $\varphi$ to a function $\psi \colon Q\to {\mathbb{C}}^m$ satisfying is given by $$\label{eq:main-th-per-proof-2}
\forall t\in {\mathbb{R}}\colon \psi|_{\Phi^{-t}({W^s}_{x_0})}\coloneqq e^{-tA} \varphi \circ \Phi^{t}|_{{W^s}_{\Phi^{-t}(x_0)}}.$$ $\psi$ is well-defined because $\Phi^\tau({W^s}_{x_0})= {W^s}_{x_0}$ and $e^{\tau A} \varphi \circ \Phi^{-\tau}|_{{W^s}_{x_0}} = \varphi$ by . This completes the proof.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper, we proved Theorem \[th:main-thm\] on the uniqueness and existence of ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ linearizing factors for dynamical systems having a global attractor which is a hyperbolic fixed point or periodic orbit. Theorem \[th:main-thm\] both generalizes and sharpens Sternberg’s linearization theorem for hyperbolic sinks [@sternberg1957local]. Besides proving a uniqueness result for Sternberg’s theorem as a corollary, we also obtain a uniqueness corollary for the Floquet normal form of a periodic orbit.
We also derived several corollaries related to Koopman eigenfunctions for dynamical systems having a globally attracting hyperbolic fixed point or periodic orbit. We showed that the so-called isostable coordinates considered in the literature [@mauroy2013isostables; @wilson2016isostable; @mezic2019spectrum] always exist, and are unique in a suitable sense. Additionally, under nonresonance assumptions we completely classified all $C^\infty$ Koopman eigenfunctions if the dynamical system is $C^\infty$. To do this, we gave an intrinsic definition for nonlinear systems of the principal eigenfunctions defined for linear systems in [@mohr2016koopman], and we proved existence and uniqueness results for ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunctions under nonresonance and spectral spread conditions. Under these conditions, we showed that a ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ version of the principal algebra defined by [@mohr2016koopman] for a linear system can be intrinsically defined for a nonlinear system to be the algebra generated by the ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$ principal eigenfunctions, and this intrinsically defined algebra coincides with the conjugacy-pullback algebra considered in [@mohr2016koopman] if the conjugacy used is ${C_{\textnormal{loc}}^{k,\alpha}}$.
We have restricted attention to the case of global attractors which are hyperbolic fixed points or periodic orbits. It would be interesting to consider more general attractors. A natural starting point would be the more general class of normally attracting invariant manifolds [@kvalheim2018global], the special case of normally hyperbolic invariant manifolds which are attracting [@fenichel1971persistence; @hirsch1977; @normallyHypMan; @eldering2013normally], using the Sacker-Sell spectrum [@sacker1978spectral; @sacker1980spectrum] of the induced linear flow on the tangent bundle to replace the role of eigenvalues in our hypotheses. One generalization of Sternberg’s linearization theorem along these lines was considered by Sell in [@sell1983linearization; @sell1985smooth].
[^1]: See, e.g., [@budivsic2012applied; @mauroy2012use; @mauroy2013isostables; @lan2013linearization; @mohr2014construction; @giannakis2015spatiotemporal; @mezic2015applications; @williams2015data; @mauroy2016global; @mohr2016koopman; @brunton2016koopman; @surana2016koopman; @surana2016linear; @arbabi2017ergodic; @arbabi2017study; @kaiser2017data; @mezic2019spectrum; @proctor2018generalizing; @korda2018convergence; @korda2018data; @korda2019optimal; @das2019delay; @bruder2019nonlinear; @dietrich2019koopman; @arbabi2019data].
[^2]: Strictly speaking, Proposition \[prop:sternberg\] was stated for smooth manifolds. Hence in order to apply Proposition \[prop:sternberg\] here (and also in the proofs of Theorems \[th:main-thm-per\] and \[th:classify-per\]) we must first give ${W^s}_{x_0}$ a compatible $C^\infty$ structure, but this can always be done [@hirsch1976differential Thm 2.2.9], so we will not mention this anymore.
[^3]: The “higher-order chain rule,” also known as Faà di Bruno’s formula, gives a general expression for higher-order derivatives of the composition of two functions (see [@jacobs2014stare] for an exposition). Our inductive hypothesis implies that every term in Faà di Bruno’s formula is zero except for those appearing in ; however, it is easy to deduce directly without using the full strength of this formula.
[^4]: Note that here $ \left({\mathsf{D}}_0 F\right)^{\otimes (i+1)}$ denotes the tensor product of ${\mathsf{D}}_0 F$ with itself $i\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 1}$ times, and is distinct from the multi-index notation $({\,\cdot\,})^{[\ell]}$ used in Lemma \[lem:nonresonance-implies-invertible\].
[^5]: If $\Phi \in C^2$ this follows from Hartman’s $C^1$ linearization theorem; for the general case that $\Phi\in C^1$, this follows from the pseudohyperbolic versions of the (un)stable and center-(un)stable manifold theorems [@hirsch1977 Ch. 5].
[^6]: The desire for this conclusion was part of what motivated our definition of the spectral spread $\nu({\,\cdot\,},{\,\cdot\,})$.
[^7]: For example, Wilson states in [@wilson1967structure Thm 2.2] this result for the special case of a flow generated by a $C^1$ vector field, but his argument works equally well for any $C^1$ flow or diffeomorphism having a globally asymptotically stable fixed point.
[^8]: Different $C^k$ and ${C^{k,\alpha}}$ norms are actually used in [@de1999regularity], namely $\sup_k \sup_{x\in B}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_x^i G}$ and $\sup(\sup_k \sup_{x\in B}\norm{{\mathsf{D}}_x^i G}, [G]_\alpha)$, but these two norms are equivalent to the corresponding norms we have chosen.
[^9]: By a $C^\infty$ Lyapunov function for $F$, we mean a $C^\infty$ function $V\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to [0,\infty)$ satisfying $V^{-1}(0) = \{0\}$ and $V\circ F < V$. The existence of a Lyapunov function for the diffeomorphism $F$ follows from the existence of Lyapunov functions for flows. In more detail: letting $\Phi\colon \widetilde{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \times {\mathbb{R}}\to \widetilde{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ denote the suspension flow of $F$ (see e.g. [@smale1967differentiable p. 797] or [@robinson1999ds p. 173]), the fixed point of $F$ corresponds to a globally asymptotically stable periodic orbit with image $\Gamma \subset \widetilde{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ for $\Phi$. We may give the $C^k$ manifold $\widetilde{\mathbb{R}^n}$ a compatible $C^\infty$ structure [@hirsch1976differential Ch. 2]. Then by [@wilson1969smooth Thm 3.2] there exists a $C^k$ function $\tilde{V}\colon \widetilde{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \to [0,\infty)$ satisfying $V^{-1}(0) = \Gamma$ and $V\circ \Phi^t(x) < V(x)$ for all $x\not \in \Gamma$ and $t > 0$. Defining $V_0\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to [0,\infty)$ to be the restriction of $\tilde{V}$ to any of the canonically $C^k$ embedded copies of ${\mathbb{R}}^n\subset \widetilde{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ then yields a $C^k$ Lyapunov function $V_0$ for $F$. Since the set of $C^k$ functions $V$ satisfying $V \circ F < V$ defines an open set in the $C^k$ (strong) Whitney topology, we may approximate $V_0$ by a $C^\infty$ function $V$ which is a Lyapunov function for $F$ [@hirsch1976differential Ch. 2].
[^10]: That ${\mathsf{D}}^k T(\varphi)$ is $\alpha$-Hölder follows from the chain rule, the fact that $F$ and the first $k-1$ derivatives of $\varphi$ are $C^1$ and hence Lipschitz, the fact that the composition of a bounded $\alpha$-Hölder function with a bounded Lipschitz function is again $\alpha$-Hölder, and the fact that the product of bounded $\alpha$-Hölder functions is again $\alpha$-Hölder (see, e.g., [@eldering2013normally Lem 1.19]).
[^11]: Actually we can find $P$ such that ${\mathsf{D}}^i_0 R = 0$ for all integers $0\leq i \leq k$, with the only difference arising when $\alpha = 0$. However, we do not need this in the following.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
- 'LHCb-PAPER.bib'
- 'LHCb-CONF.bib'
- 'LHCb-DP.bib'
- 'LHCb-TDR.bib'
---
=1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The relative dispersion of pairs of inertial particles in incompressible, homogeneous, and isotropic turbulence is studied by means of direct numerical simulations at two values of the Taylor-scale Reynolds number $Re_{\lambda} \sim 200$ and $Re_{\lambda} \sim 400$, corresponding to resolutions of $512^3$ and $2048^3$ grid points, respectively. The evolution of both heavy and light particle pairs is analysed at varying the particle Stokes number and the fluid-to-particle density ratio. For particles much heavier than the fluid, the range of available Stokes numbers is $St
\in [0.1\!:\!70]$, while for light particles the Stokes numbers span the range $St \in [0.1\!:\!3]$ and the density ratio is varied up to the limit of vanishing particle density.\
For heavy particles, it is found that turbulent dispersion is schematically governed by two temporal regimes. The first is dominated by the presence, at large Stokes numbers, of small-scale caustics in the particle velocity statistics, and it lasts until heavy particle velocities have relaxed towards the underlying flow velocities. At such large scales, a second regime starts where heavy particles separate as tracers particles would do. As a consequence, at increasing inertia, a larger transient stage is observed, and the Richardson diffusion of simple tracers is recovered only at large times and large scales. These features also arise from a statistical closure of the equation of motion for heavy particle separation that is proposed, and which is supported by the numerical results.\
In the case of light particles with high density ratios, strong small-scale clustering leads to a considerable fraction of pairs that do not separate at all, although the mean separation increases with time. This effect strongly alters the shape of the probability density function of light particle separations.
author:
- 'J.BEC$^1$, L.BIFER ALE$^{2}$, A.S.LANOTT E$^{3}$, A.SCAGLIARIN I$^{2}$ and F.TOSCHI$^{4}$'
title: Turbulent pair dispersion of inertial particles
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Suspensions of dust, droplets, bubbles, and other finite-size particles advected by incompressible turbulent flows are commonly encountered in many natural phenomena (see, e.g., [@Csanady; @Eaton; @falko_nature; @Abraham; @Shaw; @tbreview]). Understanding their statistical properties is thus of primary importance. From a theoretical point of view, the problem is more complicated than in the case of fluid tracers, i.e. point-like particles with the same density as the carrier fluid. Indeed, when the suspended particles have a finite size and a density ratio different from that of the fluid, they have inertia and do not follow exactly the flow. As a consequence, correlations between particle positions and structures of the underlying flow appear. It is for instance well known that heavy particles are expelled from vortical structures, while light particles tend to concentrate in their cores. This results in the formation of strong inhomogeneities in the particle spatial distribution, an effect often refered to as [*preferential concentration*]{} (see [@Douady; @SE91; @Eaton]). This phenomenon has gathered much attention, as it is revealed by the amount of recently published theoretical work ([@Falkovich-clustering; @simo; @Falkovich-Pumir]), and numerical studies ([@Collins1; @Collins2; @prl_nostro; @vassilicos]). Progresses in the statistical characterization of particle aggregates have been achieved by studying particles evolving in stochastic flows by [@stuart; @mehlig-wilkinson; @bccm05; @olla] and in two-dimensional turbulent flows by [@Boffetta]. Also, single trajectory statistics have been addressed both numerically and experimentally for small heavy particles (see, e.g., [@bec.jfm; @bec.jot; @warhaft; @gerashenko; @zaichik; @warhaft2; @volk]), and for large particles ([@bourgoin; @bodi]). The reader is refered to [@tbreview] for a review.
In this paper we are concerned with particle pair dispersion, that is with the statistics, as a function of time, of the separation distance $\bm R(t) = \bm X_1(t)-\bm X_2(t)$ between two inertial particles, labelled by the subscripts 1 and 2 (see [@cencini; @fouxon; @derevich] for recent studies on that problem). In homogeneous turbulence, it is sufficient to consider the statistics of the instantaneous separation of the positions of the two particles. These are organised in different families according to the values of their Stokes number $St$, and of their density mismatch with the fluid, $\beta$.
For our purposes, the motion of particle pairs, with given $(St,\beta)$ values and with initial separations inside a given spherical shell, $ R = |\bm X_1(t_0)-\bm X_2(t_0)| \in [R_0,R_0+dR_0]$ is followed until particle separation reaches the large scale of the flow. With respect to the case of simple tracers, the time evolution of the inertial particle pair separation $R(t)$ becomes a function not only of the initial distance $R_0$, and of the Reynolds number of the flow, but also of the inertia parameters $(St,\beta)$.
A key question that naturally arises is how to choose the initial spatial and velocity distributions of inertial pairs. Indeed, it is known that heavy (resp. light) particles tend to concentrate preferentially in hyperbolic (resp. elliptic) regions of the advecting flow, with spatial correlation effects that may extend up to the inertial range of scales, as shown in [@prl_nostro]. Moreover, when inertia is high enough, the particle pair velocity difference, $\delta_R V = |\bm V_1(\bm X_1(t),t)-\bm V_2(\bm
X_2(t),t)|$, may not go smoothly to zero when the particle separations decreases, a phenomenon connected to the formation of *caustics*, see [@caus2; @caus1]. In our numerical simulations, particles of different inertia are injected into the flow and let evolve until they reach a stationary statistics for both spatial and velocity distributions. Only after this transient time, pairs of particles with fixed intial separation are selected and then followed in the spatial domain to study relative dispersion.
By reason of the previous considerations, the main issue is to understand the role played by the spatial inhomogeneities of the inertial particle concentration field and by the presence of caustics on the pair separations, at changing the degree of inertia. We remark that these two effects can be treated as independent only in the limit of very small and very large inertia. In the former case, particles tend to behave like tracers and move with the underlying fluid velocity: preferential concentration may affect only their separation. In the opposite limit, particles distribute almost homogeneously in the flow: however, due to their ballistic motion, they can reach nearby positions with very different velocities ([@falko_nature]). In any other case of intermediate inertia, both these effects are present and may play a role in the statistics of inertial pair separation.
It is worth anticipating the two main results of this study:\
(*i*) The separation between heavy particles can be described in terms of two time regimes: a first regime is dominated by inertia effects, and considerable deviations from the tracers case arise in the inertial relative dispersion; in the second one, the tracers behaviour is recovered since inertia is weak and appears only in subdominant corrections that vanish as $1/t$. The crossover between these two regimes defines a new characteristic spatial and temporal scale, connected to both the *size of caustics* and the Stokes number, which influences the particle separation for not too long time-lags and not too large scale.\
(*ii*) The strong clustering properties that are typical of light particles may lead to the fact that many pairs do not separate at all: their statistical weight is clear in the separation probability density function (PDF), which develops a well defined power-law left tail.
It would clearly be also interesting to investigate the dependence upon the Reynolds number of the inertial particle pair separation. Small-scale clustering seems to be poorly dependent on the degree of turbulence of the carrier flow ([@Collins1; @prl_nostro]), while much less is known about the Reynolds number dependence of the caustics statistics. Our numerical data do not allow to explore this question in detail, so that we will restrict ourselves to show data associated to the two Reynolds numbers in all cases when differences are not significative.
In the case of fluid tracers, the standard observables are the time evolutions of the mean square separation and of the separation probability density function, for which well established predictions exist since the pioneering work of [@rich.rev]. We contrast these observables obtained for tracers with the results for heavy and light inertial particles.
The paper is organised as follows. In §\[sec:0\], we briefly recall the basic equations of motion and describe the numerical simulations. In §\[sec:1\], we analyse the stationary distribution of heavy particle velocity differences, conditioned on the particle initial separation, highlighting both the presence of small-scale caustics and the effects of particle inertia at those scales corresponding to the inertial range of turbulence. In §\[sec:2\] we study the behaviour of the mean separation distance of heavy pairs, at changing the Stokes number $St$; we also analyse the influence of the caustics in the initial statistics on the subsequent pair separation evolution. A [*mean-field*]{} model, which is able to capture the main numerical findings, is proposed in the same section. The time evolution of the separation probability density functions is discussed in §\[sec:pdf\] and we present the data for light particles in §\[sec:light\]. In §\[sec:conc\] we summarise the main findings.
Equation of motion and numerical details {#sec:0}
========================================
We present results from direct numerical simulations of turbulent flows seeded with inertial particles. The flow phase is described by the Navier-Stokes equations for the velocity field ${\bm u}(\bm x,t)$ $$\partial_t\bm u + \bm u \cdot \nabla \bm u = -\nabla p +
\nu\nabla^2\bm u +\bm f,\quad \nabla\cdot\bm u = 0\,.
\label{eq:ns}$$ The statistically homogeneous and isotropic external forcing $\bm f$ injects energy in the first low wave number shells, by keeping constant their spectral content (see [@She]).
[cccccccccc]{}\
& $N$ & $Re_{\lambda}$ & $\eta$ & $\delta x$ & $\varepsilon$ & $\nu$ & $\tau_{\eta}$ & $t_{\mathrm{dump}}$ & $\delta t$\
Run I& 512 & 185 & 0.01 & 0.012 & 0.9 & 0.002 & 0.047 & 0.004 & 0.0004\
Run II& 2048 & 400 & 0.0026 & 0.003 & 0.88 & 0.00035 & 0.02 & 0.00115 & 0.000115\
The kinematic viscosity $\nu$ is chosen such that the Kolmogorov length scale $\eta\approx \delta x$, where $\delta x$ is the grid spacing: this choice ensures a good resolution of the small-scale velocity dynamics. The numerical domain is cubic and $2\pi$-periodic in the three directions of space. We use a fully dealiased pseudospectral algorithm with 2$^{\mathrm{nd}}$ order Adam-Bashforth time-stepping (for details see [@bec.jfm; @bec.jot]). We performed two series of DNS: Run I with numerical resolution of $512^3$ grid points, and the Reynolds number at the Taylor scale $Re_\lambda
\approx 200$; Run II with $2048^3$ resolution and $Re_\lambda \approx
400$. Details of the runs can be found in Table \[table\].
The particle phase is constituted by millions of heavy and light particles—the latter only for Run I—with different intrinsic characteristics. Particles are assumed to be with size much smaller than the Kolmogorov scale of the flow, $\eta$, and with a negligible Reynolds number relative to the particle size. In this limit, the equations ruling their dynamics take the particularly simple form: $$\dot {\bm X} \, =\, \bm V \; , \qquad \dot{\bm V} \,=\,
-\frac{1}{\tau_s}\left[\bm V-{\bm u}(\bm X,t)\right] + \beta\, D_t {\bm
u}(\bm X,t) \;,
\label{eq:1}$$ where the dots denote time derivatives. The particle position and velocity are $(\bm X(t),\bm V(t))$, respectively; ${\bm u}({\bm
X}(t),t)$ is the Eulerian fluid velocity evaluated at the particle position, and $D_t {\bm u}$ is the so-called added mass term, which measures the fluid acceleration along particle trajectory. The adimensional constant $\beta= 3\rho_f/(\rho_f + 2 \rho_p)$ accounts for the added mass effect through the density contrast between particles $\rho_p$ and fluid $\rho_f$. The particle response time, appearing in the Stokes drag, is $\tau_s =2 \rho_p a^2 /(9 \rho_f
\nu)$, where $a$ is the particle radius. Particle inertia is quantified by the *Stokes number* that is defined as $St=\tau_s/\tau_\eta$, where $\tau_\eta=(\nu/\varepsilon)^{1/2}$ is the flow Kolmogorov timescale and $\varepsilon$ the average rate of energy injection. Equation (\[eq:1\]) has been derived in [@maxey2] under the assumption of very dilute suspensions, where particle-particle interactions (collisions) and hydrodynamic coupling to the flow can be neglected.
For Run I, we show results for the following set of $(St,\beta)$ families: (*i*) very heavy particles \[$\beta=0$\]: $St=0.0,0.6,1.0,3.3$; (*ii*) light particles \[$\beta=2,3$\]: $St=0.3,1.2,4.1$. For each family the typical number of particle pairs that are followed is around $5 \times 10^4$. For Run II, we show results only for heavy particles but with a larger range of variation in the Stokes number: $St=0.0,0.6,1.0,3.0,10,30,70$. Typical number of particle pairs for each family is $\sim 10^4$. Once injected particles have relaxed to their steady-state statistics, pairs have been selected with the following initial separations: $R_0 \le \eta$ and $R_0 \in [4\!:\!6] \eta$ for both Run I and Run II, and $R_0 \in
[9\!:\!11] \eta$ for Run II only.
Beside the time evolution of particle pairs, we also have instantaneous snapshots of the two phases (fluid and dispersed), with a much higher particle statistics: around $10^6$ per family for Run I, and $10^8$ per family for Run II. These are used to measure the stationary—i.e. not along the trajectories—distribution of particle velocity increments discussed in next section.
Stationary distributions: velocity increments conditioned on particles separation {#sec:1}
=================================================================================
Turbulent pair dispersion for tracers is classically based on the application of similarity theory for Eulerian velocity statistics: depending on the value of space and time scales, velocity increment statistics differently affect the way tracers separate. This results in different regimes for relative dispersion, see e.g. [@sawford].
In the case of inertial particles, the same reasoning holds, so that to analyse the way inertial pairs separate in time, the stationary statistics of particles velocity differences has to be investigated first. A stationary distribution for the typical velocity differences between two inertial particles is obtained by imposing periodic boundary conditions inside the physical volume and then measuring velocities on such a thermalised configuration.
We are interested in the scaling behaviour of velocity increments at varying the degree of inertia and the distance between the particles (in the dissipative or inertial range of the turbulent fluid flow). To fix the notation, we denote by $U_0$ the typical large-scale velocity of the fluid tracers and by $L$ the integral scale of the flow. Moreover we define $$\delta_R V_{St} \,=\, |\bm V_1(\bm X_1(t))-\bm V_2(\bm X_2(t))|,
\label{def:0}$$ as the velocity difference at scale $R$, conditioned on the presence of a pair of particles with Stokes number $St$, separated with a distance $R = |\bm X_1(t_0)-\bm X_2(t_0)|$. Since we are here interested in the case of heavy particles only, the Stokes number is sufficient to identify a given particle family. For convenience, we introduce a specific notation for the tracer stationary velocity statistics: $\delta_R u \,=\, \delta_R V_{(St=0)}$, which is exactly equal to the Eulerian velocity increment at scale $R$.
Recently, [@cencini] have shown that to describe inertial pair dispersion in synthetic flows it is useful to introduce the local or [*scale-dependent*]{} Stokes number, using the ratio between the particle response time and the typical eddy turnover time $\tau_R =
R/\delta_R u$ of the underlying fluid at a given scale: $St(R)=
{\tau_s}/{\tau_R} \sim \tau_s {\delta_R u}/{R}$. For real turbulent flow where different scaling ranges are present, we can equivalently define a scale dependent Stokes number $St(R)$ that recovers the usual definition of the Stokes number $St(R) \simeq St = \tau_s/\tau_{\eta}$ when $R\ll\eta$ and behaves as $St(R)\sim
\tau_s\varepsilon^{1/3}R^{-2/3}$ when $R\gg\eta$. The typical behaviour of $St(R)$ is sketched in Fig. \[fig:stokes\], for two different values of the Stokes number $St=3,70$ and using a Batchelor-like parametrisation of the fluid velocity (see [@meneveau]): $$\label{eq:deltau}
\delta_R u \,=\, U_0 \frac{R}{(\eta^2 + R^2)^{1/3}}.$$
For Stokes numbers, $St$, order unity or larger, there always exists a typical scale where the local Stokes number, $St(R)$, becomes order unity, $$R^*(St) = \eta\, St^{3/2}.$$ Such a scale, which is well in the inertial range if the Stokes number $St$ is sufficiently large, can be considered a rough estimate of the upper bound for the region of scales where inertia plays an important role in the particle dynamics.
{width=".7\textwidth"}
We expect that two main features might be important in characterising the inertial particle stationary velocity statistics $\delta_R V $, with respect to that of tracers $\delta_R u$. The first concerns the small-scale behaviour of the particle velocity statistics. At small scales $R \ll \eta$ and for large-enough Stokes numbers, the presence of caustics makes the particle velocity increments not differentiable. This feature can be accounted for by saying that $$\label{eq:gamma_st}
\delta_R V_{St} \sim
V^{\eta}_{St}\left(\frac{R}{\eta}\right)^{\gamma(St)}; \qquad R \ll
\eta,$$ where the $V^{\eta}_{St}$ is a constant prefactor and the function $\gamma(St)$ gives the typical scaling of caustic-like velocity increments. Indeed we do expect that at changing the inertia of the particles, the statistical weight of caustics might monotonically vary as follows: at small $St$, $\lim_{St\rightarrow 0}\gamma(St) = 1$ , i.e. the value for smooth, differentiable Eulerian statistics of tracers; at large values $St \rightarrow \infty$, it should approach the discontinuous limit $\gamma(St) \rightarrow 0$, valid for particles that do not feel underlying fluid fluctuations at all. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:stokes\] shows the typical shape of the function $\gamma(St)$ that is expected to be valid for turbulent flows.
The second important feature concerns the particle velocity statistics at scales larger than the scale $R^*(St)$ previously defined, but smaller than the integral scale of the fluid flow. For any fixed Stokes number and for a large-enough Reynolds number, we expect that inertia becomes weaker and weaker, by going to larger and larger scales $R \gg R^*(St)$. In such a case, particle velocity increments are expected to approach the underlying fluid velocity increments: $$\delta_R V_{St} \rightarrow V^{0}_{St} \,\delta_R u \sim V^0_{St}
\,U_0 \left(\frac{R}{L}\right)^{1/3}; \qquad R^*(St) \ll R \ll L,
\label{def:VtoU}$$ where for simplicity we have neglected possible intermittent correction to the Kolmogorov 1941 (K41) scaling of the fluid velocity (see [@frisch] for details). Clearly, the Reynolds number has to be sufficiently large to provide a well-developed scaling region $R^*(St) \ll R \ll L$, before approaching the large scale $L$. We emphasise that in (\[def:VtoU\]), an adimensional normalisation factor $V^{0}_{St}$ has been introduced: it takes into account possible filtering effects induced by inertia at large scales. The normalisation is such that $V^{0}_{(St=0)}=1$, while for any Stokes larger than zero $V^{0}_{(St)}\le 1$.\
In Fig. \[fig:1c\] we test the validity of the previous picture by analyzing the typical velocity fluctuation, $\langle |\delta_R V_{St}|\rangle$, at changing Stokes number and for data of Run II at Reynolds number $Re_{\lambda}\sim
400$. At small scales one detect the presence of caustics in the velocity statistics, with a non smooth scaling behaviour below the Kolmogorov scale $\eta$. At scales within the inertial range and when the Stokes number is sufficiently large, the effect of caustics affects also particle velocity statistics, up to a characteristic scale which becomes larger and larger by increasing particle inertia. Beyond this scale, particle velocity increments tend to approach the scaling behaviour of the fluid tracers, but their amplitude is depleted of a factor $1/V^{0}_{St}$, which increases with the Stokes number, as shown in the inset of the right-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:1c\].
{width="110.00000%"}
A similar behaviour is expected for higher order fluctuations, if we neglect the role of intermittency.
It is interesting to consider the scaling behaviour of particle velocity in terms of the underlying velocity statistics, not only at very small or very large separations, but for any value of the scale $R$. This is not straigthforward, since we have to account not only of the fluid Eulerian statistics at the dissipative and inertial range of scales, but also the modifications due to the inertia. This is responsible, as we have seen, for the appeareance of a new relevant scale, and for filtering effects in the velocity amplitude.
To fully characterise particle velocity increments, we notice that the Stokes scale, $R^*(St) $ defines a typical [*Stokes-velocity*]{}: this is the fluid velocity increment at the Stokes scale, $\delta u^*(St)
\sim \delta_{R^*} u$ (see left panel of Fig. \[fig:stokes\]). Previous reasonings can be summarised in the following interpolation formula for the heavy particle velocity increment: $$\label{eq:fit}
\delta_R V_{St}\, \,=\, \,V^{0}_{St} \, (\delta_R u)^{\gamma(St(R))}\,
\left[ (\delta_R u)^2+ c_1\, (\delta u^*(St))^2\right]^{ \left[
1-\gamma(St(R))\right]/2}\,.$$ The above expression is a Batchelor-like parametrisation but in the velocity space, with a transient velocity given by the Stokes velocity, $\delta u^*(St)$.
Once known the large scale normalization function $V^{0}_{St}$, the caustic exponent $\gamma(x)$ (introduced in [@bccm05]) and the reference fluid velocity increment $\delta_R u$, then the formula has one free parameter only. It is the prefactor $c_1$ appearing in front of the Stokes velocity $\delta u^*(St)$, whose value depends again on the inertia of the particles.
{width="60.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:3c\], we show the result of the fit in terms of the expression (\[eq:fit\]), where the caustics scaling exponent has been chosen as $\gamma(x) = \left[1 -2/\pi \, \mbox{atan}(x)\right]$: this functional form provides a good fit to the numerical results. Details of the small-scale caustic statistics will be reported elsewhere.
The qualitative trend is very well captured by the interpolation function proposed. Notice that in (\[eq:fit\]), the argument of $\gamma(St)$ is not the simple Stokes number at the Kolmogorov scale, but the scale-dependent one $St(R)$: $\gamma(St) \rightarrow
\gamma(St(R))$. This further ingredient is needed to take into account the fact that in presence of a rough underlying fluid velocity, as it happens in the inertial range of scales, no simple power law behaviour is expected for the scaling of particle velocity statistics. This was previously remarked in [@cencini], in the study of heavy particle turbulent dispersion in random flows.
Equation (\[eq:fit\]) clearly matches the two limiting behaviours for very small and very large separations. In the former case, inertia dominates the small-scale velocity statistics with respect to the underlying smooth fluid velocity, and caustics lead to a pure power-law behaviour, $$\label{caseA}
\delta_R V \sim (\delta_R u)^{\gamma(St)} \sim V^{0}_{St}
\,\left(\frac{R}{L}\right)^{\gamma(St)}; \qquad R \ll \eta,$$ where the local Stokes number has attained its dissipative limit $St(R) \rightarrow St$.
In the latter case, at very large scales $R \gg R^*(St)$ inertia is subleading, and the typical velocity difference between particles is close to the fluid velocity increment, $$\label{caseC}
\delta_R V_{St} \sim V^{0}_{St} \,\delta_R u; \qquad \eta \ll R^*(St) \ll R.$$ At intermediate scales, for large Stokes, $St \ge 1$, inertia brings a non-trivial dependency via the scale-dependent Stokes number, $St(R)$, and we expect a pseudo power-law scaling: $$\label{caseB}
\delta_R V_{St} \sim (\delta_R u)^{\gamma(St(R))} \sim R^{\gamma(St(R))/3};
\qquad \eta \ll R \ll R^*(St)\,.$$
Summarising, we propose that at changing the Stokes and Reynolds numbers, different regimes governing the particle velocity statistics can be distinguished. The relevance of such regimes of the particle velocity statistics for the associate relative dispersion dynamics can be easily explained with the help of the sketch reported in Fig. \[fig:abc\]. In the parameter space of inertia and scale separation $(St, R)$, we can distinguish three regions depending whether inertia is strong or weak, and whether particle velocity difference is large or not with respect of the fluid velocity difference at comparable scale. In agreement with what commented before, we pose that the curve $St(R^*)=1$ distinguishes the region of weak ($St(R) \le 1$) and strong inertia ($St(R) \ge 1$).
Regime (A) is such that inertia is important since the scale $R^*(St)
\gg \eta$, and moreover the typical particle velocity increments are larger than the fluid increments. In the region (B), inertia is still important but particle velocity increments are depleted with respect to the fluid increments. This typically happens for large Stokes numbers, and in our DNS is visible only for very large separations $R(t)$ of the highest Stokes $St=70$. Finally, regime (C) is characterised by a weak inertia, which appears only in the filtering factor for the velocity large-scale amplitude and possibly in sub-leading corrections to the tracers relative dispersion.
Even for the largest value of the Reynolds and Stokes numbers achieved in our DNS, it is very difficult to disentangle quantitatively the above mentioned regimes, because of the closeness of the three relevant scales, $\eta$, $R^*(St)$, and $L$.
{width="70.00000%"}
Still, the quality of the fit shown in Fig. \[fig:3c\] using the global functional dependence given by Eqn. (\[eq:fit\]) makes us confident that the main physical features are correctly captured. Before closing this section, we note that there is no reason to assume that the functional form entering in the pseudo-power law scaling in the inertial range, $\gamma(St(R))$, in (\[caseB\]) is equal the one characterizing the scaling in the viscous range, $\gamma(St)$, in Eqn. (\[caseA\]). Hint for this observation come from results obtained in [@cencini] for random flows, where a very high statistical accuracy can be achieved: there, depending if the underlying fluid velocity is spatially smooth or rough, a slightly different functional form has been found.
The previous analysis gives us a clear quantitative picture of the scale and velocity ranges where caustics play a role in the particle dynamics. For example, for moderate Stokes numbers, we have important departure from the tracers statistics only for very small scales, i.e. caustics gives a singular contributions to the particle velocity increments inside the viscous range; then, at larger scales, the particle velocity scaling become indistinguishable from the tracer velocities. Clearly, for such Stokes, no important corrections for particle separation evolution is expected with respect to the usual Richardson dispersion observed for tracers. This is because particle pairs tends to separate, and very soon all pairs will attain separations where their velocities are very close to the underlying fluid. On the other hand, for very heavy particles, those with Stokes time falling inside the inertial range of fluid velocity statistics, the contribution from the caustics will be felt also at relatively large scales, up to $ R \sim R^*(St)$. Pair separations attain such scales when the initially large relative velocity difference has relaxed and become smaller than the corresponding fluid one—crossing from region (A) to (B). Notice that at $R \sim
R^*(St)$, we have that $\delta_{R^*}V_{St} \simeq V^0_{St}
\delta_{R^*} u$, i.e. there is a non-trivial effect from inertia. Moreover, for large Stokes, at scales $R > R^*(St)$, particle velocity increments are smaller than the fluid counterparts, indicating an important depletion induced by the Stokes drag on the particle evolution.\
It is clear from the above discussion that new physics should appear for the value of inertia and scales separation of region (B). This regime—that we can not access with the present data—is the one where a new law of pair separation should appear as recently suggested by [@fouxon]. A discussion of the dispersion regimes of inertial particle pairs follows in the next section in terms of the time behaviour of the mean square separation distance.
Dispersion regimes and corrections due to inertia {#sec:2}
=================================================
In this section we analyse the effects of inertia on the mean square separation of heavy particle pairs with a given initial separation distance, $R_0$ at time $t=t_0$, as a function of the Stokes number: $$\langle (R(t))^2 \,|\, R_0,t_0 \rangle_{St} \,=\, \langle |\bm X_1(t)
-\bm X_2(t)|^2 \rangle_{St},
\label{eq:disp}$$ where in the left-hand side the average is performed over all pairs of particles such that $|\bm X_1(t_0) - \bm X_2(t_0)| = R_0$. The study of the relative dispersion of small, neutrally buoyant tracer particles has recently been the subject of renewed interest. This has been motivated by the fact that very accurate—highly resolved in time and space—data have become available, experimentally ([@OM; @bodi.science]) and numerically ([@YB; @bif.2p; @noi.jot]). These studies have confirmed what was known since the works of [@rich.rev] and [@batch.rev], i.e. the existence of different dispersive regimes for tracer pairs in turbulent flows, depending on the value of their initial distance and on the time scale considered.
When released in a statistically homogeneous and isotropic, turbulent flow with an initial separation $R_0$ in the inertial range for fluid velocity, i.e. $\eta \simeq R_0 \ll L$, tracer pairs initially separate according so the so-called Batchelor regime, $$\langle (R(t))^2 | R_0,t_0 \rangle_{St=0} \simeq R_0^2 + C
(\varepsilon R_0)^{2/3}\,t^2; \qquad \tau_{\eta} \ll (t-t_0) \ll
t_B\,,
\label{eq:batch}$$ where $C$ is supposed to be a universal constant, and $\varepsilon$ is the average kinetic energy dissipation of the flow. This [ *ballistic*]{} regime appears because initially tracers separate [*as if*]{} the underlying velocity field were frozen, and it lasts for a time scale that is a function of the initial separation itself, $t_B=
\left(R_0^2/\varepsilon\right)^{1/3}$ (see [@batch.rev; @bodi.science]). After such a transient initial time, the relative separation dynamics forgets the initial conditions and tracers separate explosively with a power law behaviour given by the Richardson law: $$\langle (R(t))^2
| R_0, t_0 \rangle_{(St=0)} \sim g\, t^3; \qquad t_{B} \ll (t-t_0) \ll
T_L\,,
\label{eq:r2rich}$$ where $g$ is known as the Richardson constant. As set out in Monin & Yaglom [@MY], the tracer separation PDF—that will be discussed later—has a similar scaling behaviour in these ranges.
A remarkable fact of the Richardson dispersion (\[eq:r2rich\]) is the disappearance of the dependence on the initial separation $R_0$, an effect also dubbed *intrinsic stochasticity* ([@eve00]), which is just the signature of the non-Lipschitz nature of the velocity field driving the separation between tracers, when their mutual distance is in the inertial range of fluid velocity statistics. The experimental and numerical validation of the previous prediction (\[eq:r2rich\]) has proved to be particularly difficult, the main reason being the strong contamination from viscous and large scale effects in the tracers dynamics. To overcome these problems, a series of techniques have been developed, including the study of [ *doubling time statistics*]{}; i.e. the probability distribution function of the time needed for a pair to double its separation ([@boffi.2d; @bif.2p]). Thanks to these techniques, a fairly good agreement on the value of the Richardson constant has been achieved.
{width="1.\textwidth"}
Here, we want to study how the tracer behaviour is modified by the presence of small-scale caustics in particular and by inertia effects in general, for the case of heavy particle pairs. Standard direct measurements of the moments of separation as a function of time will be considered, while application of doubling time statistics is left for future studies.
In Fig. \[fig:m2\], we show the behaviour for the mean square separation at varying the Stokes number, and for two values of the initial separation. We start with data at the lowest resolution, i.e. Run I at $Re_{\lambda} \simeq 200$, and for moderate Stokes numbers, $St \sim {\cal O}(1)$. Initial distances are chosen equal to $R_0 \le \eta$ (left panel) and $R_0 \in [4\!:\!6]\,\eta$ (right panel).
If the initial distance is small enough (left panel), the presence of caustics in the particle velocity field at initial time gives a very remarkable departure from the tracer behaviour. At increasing the Stokes number, such departure is more and more evident, and it lasts for a time lag which becomes longer and longer. For the highest value of the Stokes number shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:m2\] ($St=3.3$), a sensible difference from the tracer behaviour is observed over almost two decades: $t \in [0.1\!:\!10]\,\tau_{\eta}$. A way to better visualise the departure from the tracer statistics consists in plotting the mean square separation for heavy pairs of different Stokes numbers, normalised to the tracer one, that is $$Q(t) \,=\, \frac{\langle (R(t))^2\rangle_{St}}{ \langle (R(t))^2
\rangle_{(St=0)}}.
\label{eq:defQ}$$ This quantity is shown in the insets of Figure \[fig:m2\]. For heavy pairs starting at $R_0 \simeq \eta$ and with $St=3.3$, the relative difference is as large as $10$ at its maximum for $t \sim
\tau_{\eta}$. However, such effect becomes progressively less important if we start the separation experiment from larger initial distances as shown in the right panel of the same figure. This is because, at these same Stokes numbers, the deviation of particle velocity difference with respect to the underlying fluid, due to caustics, has already decreased. This is equivalent to state that, for these Stokes numbers, the typical size of caustics is smaller than the initial separation $R_0$, and particle pairs therefore separate as fluid tracers do. At larger time lags, whatever the value of the initial separation, the Richardson dispersion regime is recovered.\
{width="1.\textwidth"}
We now consider what happens for larger Stokes numbers. In Fig. \[fig:st70\], we show the results for the mean square separation of $St=10, 30,$ and $70$ and for the large Reynolds number, $Re_{\lambda} \simeq 400$. Both initial distances, $R_0 \in [0\!:\!1]
\eta$ and $R_0 \in [4\!:\!6]\eta$ are displayed. As one can see, for the large value of $St=70$, the tracer-like behaviour is never recovered, and even the separation of pairs starting with the largest distance $R_0$ is affected. The transient regime dominated by the caustics invades the whole inertial range: since particle pairs need a very long time to decrease their initial velocity difference to the value of the fluid increment at the corresponding scale, they separate with a quasi-ballistic behaviour:$ \langle R^2(t)
\rangle_{St} \propto t^2$.\
The above scenario can be interpreted in terms of caustic-[*dimensions*]{}. At any value of the inertia, there exist a spatial length, of the order of the scale $R^*(St)$, which identifies the typical spatial size of caustics, i.e. the range of scales where particle velocity increments are uncorrelated from the underlying fluid velocity field. If the initial pair separation $R_0$ is taken inside this region (left panel of Fig. \[fig:m2\]), particle pair separation starts much faster than for fluid tracers, because of the much more intense velocity differences felt by the pairs inside the caustics. When particle pairs reach a separation larger than $R^*(t)$, they start to be synchronised with the underlying fluid velocity, recovering the typical Richardson dispersion. However, if the initial separation is larger than the caustics size, the evolution of inertial particle pairs is almost indistinguishable from the tracers. Finally, whether or not a Richardson-like behaviour is recovered for very large inertia, may depend on the Reynolds number also. In the limit of larger and larger Reynolds, at fixed Stokes number, one may expect a final recovery of the fluid tracers behaviour even for very heavy particle pairs.
Mean-field approach to heavy particle dispersion {#subsec:mean}
------------------------------------------------
The turbulent relative dispersion of fluid tracers can be easily modelled by applying K41 scaling theory to the fluid velocity increments governing particle separation dynamics (see, e.g., [@bodi.njp]). Indeed, if ${\bm R}(t)$ is the tracer separation vector at a given time, its evolution is completely specified by the equation $$\dot{\bm R}(t)\, =\, {\bm u}({\bm X}_1,t) - {\bm u}({\bm
X}_2,t)\,=\, \delta_R \bm u ({\bm R},t) \,,
\label{eq:tracdisp}$$ together with the initial condition ${\bm R}(t_0)={\bm R}_0$. Hence, we can directly write an equation for the root-mean-square separation $r(t) \,\equiv\, \langle |{\bm R}(t)|^2 \,|\, R_0, t_0 \rangle^{1/2}$ $$\dot{r} = \frac{1}{r}\left\langle \bm R(t) \cdot \delta_R \bm u
({\bm R}(t),t) \,|\, R_0, t_0 \right\rangle, \quad\mbox{with }
r(t_0) = R_0.$$ We next assume the following mean-field closure for the right-hand side: $$\langle \bm R(t) \cdot \delta_R \bm u(\bm R(t),t) \,|\, R_0, t_0
\rangle \approx \langle \bm R^2 \,|\, R_0, t_0 \rangle^{1/2} \,
\langle \hat{\bm R}\cdot\delta_R \bm u \rangle \,=\, r\,
S_1^{\mbox{\tiny/\!/}}(r), \label{eq:c1}$$ where $S_1^{\mbox{\tiny/\!/}}(r)$ is the first-order Eulerian longitudinal structure function of the underlying homogeneous and isotropic turbulent flow. According to K41 phenomenology, this structure function behaves in the inertial range as $S_1^{\mbox{\tiny/\!/}}(r)\simeq C\,\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3}$, where $C$ is an order-unity constant. This closure finally leads to $$\dot{r} = C\,\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3},\quad\mbox{so that}\quad r(t)
= \left[ R_0^{2/3} + (2C/3)\, \varepsilon^{1/3} (t-t_0) \right]^{3/2}.
\label{eq:mf-tracers}$$ Such an approximation gives a complete qualitative picture of the time evolution of the mean square separation between tracers. In particular, it encompasses the two important regimes of relative dispersion: when $(t-t_0)\ll t_B = (3/2C)\,\varepsilon^{-1/3}
R_0^{2/3}$, a Taylor expansion of the solution (\[eq:mf-tracers\]) gives the Batchelor regime $r(t)\simeq R_0 + C\,(\varepsilon
R_0)^{1/3}\,(t-t_0)$, while when $(t-t_0)\gg t_B$, one recovers Richardson’s law $r(t)\simeq (2C/3)^{3/2}\varepsilon^{1/2}\,t^{3/2}$.
In the case of inertial particles, the number of degrees of freedom to describe the dynamics is obviously increased: the separation between two heavy particles obeys $$\ddot{\bm R}(t) \, =\, - \frac{1}{\tau_s}\left[\dot{\bm R}(t) -
\delta_R \bm u ({\bm R},t) \right].
\label{eq:heavydisp}$$ In order to derive [*mean-field*]{} equations one has to track simultaneously the average distance and velocity difference between particles. For this we follow the same spirit as for tracers and introduce the particle velocity structure function $v(t) \,\equiv\,
\langle |\delta_R {\bm V}(t)|^2 \,|\, R_0, t_0 \rangle^{1/2}$, where $\delta_R \bm V(t) \,=\, \dot{\bm R} (t)$ is the velocity difference between the two particles. One can proceed as previously to write from (\[eq:heavydisp\]) exact equations for $r(t)$ and $v(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot r \,&=&\, \frac{1}{r} (v^2 - \dot r^2) - \frac{1}{\tau_s}
\left[ \dot r - \frac{1}{r}\,\langle \bm R \cdot \delta_R \bm u \rangle
\right], \label{eq:rexact}\\ \dot v \,&=&\, -
\frac{1}{\tau_s}\left[ v - \frac{1}{v}\, \langle \delta_R \bm V \cdot
\delta_R \bm u \rangle \right],\label{eq:vexact}\end{aligned}$$ where for the sake of a lighter notation the indication of conditional ensemble averages was dropped. It is worth noticing that the root-mean-square velocity difference $v(t)$ evolves with a dynamics that resembles closely that of heavy particles. However, $v(t)$ does not coincide with the time derivative of the mean distance $r(t)$. It is thus useful to rewrite the above equations introducing a sort of transverse particle velocity component $w$ defined as $$\dot r \,=\, v-w\,. \label{eq:v-w}$$ We can write an exact equation also for the evolution of $w$ $$\dot w \,=\, -\frac{1}{\tau_s} w - (2v-w)\frac{w}{r} -
\frac{1}{\tau_s} \left[\frac{1}{r} \langle \bm R \cdot \delta_R \bm u
\rangle - \frac{1}{v} \langle \delta_R \bm V \cdot \delta_R \bm u
\rangle \right]\,. \label{eq:wexact}$$ Of course, equations (\[eq:vexact\]), (\[eq:v-w\]), and (\[eq:wexact\]) are not closed without supplying the correlation between the particle evolution and the underlying fluid. As in the case of tracers, the first unclosed term appearing in the right-hand side of (\[eq:wexact\]) is approximated by (\[eq:c1\]). The next unclosed term involving the correlation between fluid and particle velocity differences is approximated by $$\langle \delta_R \bm V \cdot \delta_R \bm u \rangle \approx \langle
|\delta_R \bm V|^2\rangle^{1/2} \, \langle |\delta_R \bm u|^2
\rangle^{1/2} \,=\, v \, S_2^{1/2}(r) \,,\label{eq:c2}$$ where $S_2(r)$ denotes the full second-order structure function of the fluid velocity field. When $r$ is in the inertial range, K41 phenomenology implies that $S_2(r) \propto (\varepsilon
r)^{2/3}$. Finally these approximations lead to a closed set of equations for the time evolution of the average separation and velocities $r$, $v$, and $w$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot r \,&=&\, v-w\,,\label{eq:mf1}\\ \dot v \,&=&\,
\frac{1}{\tau_s}[C\,\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3} -v]
\,,\label{eq:mf2}\\ \dot w \,&=&\, -\frac{1}{\tau_s}w
-(2v-w)\,\frac{w}{r}+ \frac{1}{\tau_s} B\,
\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3}\,, \label{eq:mf3}\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ and $C$ are positive order-unity dimensionless constants, reflecting the lack of control on the prefactors of the scaling laws in the closures (\[eq:c1\]) and (\[eq:c2\]). This system of equations is supplemented by the initial conditions $r(t_0)=R_0$, $v(t_0) = \langle |\delta_{R_0} \bm V |^2\rangle^{1/2}$ and $w(t_0)=
v(t_0) - \langle \bm R_0 \cdot \delta_{R_0} \bm V \rangle / R_0$, which clearly depend on the dispersion experiment under consideration. It is worth noticing that this system of equations reduces to the mean-field equation (\[eq:mf-tracers\]) for tracers in the limit of vanishing inertia $\tau_s\to 0$.
Similarly to the case of tracers, the crude approximation (\[eq:mf1\])-(\[eq:mf3\]) of the evolution of the root-mean-square distance between heavy inertial particles is able to capture the main features of the separation time behaviour. In Fig. \[fig:jeremie1-2\], we show the result of the numerical integration of the set of equation (\[eq:mf1\])-(\[eq:mf3\]) obtained by an appropriate choice of the free parameters (see figure caption), together with DNS data from Run II, for two different large values of the Stokes number.
{width="52.00000%"} {width="52.00000%"}
For fixed initial separation and at increasing the intensity of the caustics velocity increments in the initial condition (i.e. at increasing inertia), the transient deviation from the Richardson behaviour become more and more evident at intermediate times (of the order of the Stokes time $\tau_s$, not shown). Clearly such a simple approach can be valid only in a limited region of the phase space, where the initial conditions are, at least, at the edge of the inertial range so that K41 scaling is correct for the fluid velocity second-order increments. Moreover, the matching scale where particle velocity increments become of the order of the fluid increments has to fall in the inertial range too: if this is not the case, then pairs enter the regime where inertia is important but particle relative velocity is small at scales of the dissipative range, and the mean-field closure proposed above becomes inadequate. A detailed quantitative comparison of the realm of applicability of the mean-field approach—including effects of viscous scales and small-scale caustics— will be the object of future work.
Cross-over between relaxation to the fluid velocity and Richardson behaviour {#sub:crossover}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite its simplicity, the mean-field approach described above is able to correctly reproduce the pair dispersion of heavy particles with initial data in the inertial range. We might wonder if one can draw an even simpler qualitative picture of pair dispersion. For this, we consider the behaviour of particle pairs with moderately large Stokes numbers, for which inertia plays an important role for the initial transient and the Richardson behaviour is slowly recovered well inside the inertial range of scales. For simplicity, we assume that the scale where the fluid and particle velocity becomes of the same order, $\delta_R \bm V \sim \delta_R\bm u$, and the scale $R^*(St)$, where inertia ceases to be important, are very close. As it is clear from the sketch of Fig. \[fig:abc\], this may not be always the case because of the effect of the normalisation factor $V^{0}_{St}$ for large Stokes: in the picture, it corresponds to Stokes number with a narrow transient region (B).
The general picture then goes as follows. Initially particles separate almost ballistically during a time which is of the order of (or larger than) the time needed by their initial, caustics-dominated, velocities to relax to the fluid velocity. After that time, particles behave as tracers and reconcile with a standard Richardson dispersion. This is a first order approximation since (*i*) the fluid flow actually correlates to the particle dynamics already at very small times, and (*ii*) inertia effects are present up to large times as previously discussed. Nevertheless, such an approximation should give the two correct qualitative asymptotic behaviours, at small and large time scales. Since we consider moderately large values of the Stokes number, the initial typical particle velocity can be assumed to be much larger than the fluid velocity, i.e. $|\delta_R \bm V|\gg
|\delta_R\bm u|$. Under these hypotheses, there is an initial time interval during which difference between particle velocities obeys $\delta_R \dot{\bm V} \approx -(\delta_R \bm V)/\tau_s$ \[see (\[eq:vexact\])\], and thus $\delta_R \bm V(t) \simeq (\delta_R \bm
V(t_0))\,e^{-(t-t_0)/\tau_s}$. As a consequence, the mean square separation between particles evolves initially as: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle |\bm R^2(t)| \,|\, R_0,t_0 \rangle &=& R_0^2 + 2 \tau_s
\langle \bm R(t_0) \cdot \delta_R \bm V(t_0) \rangle
(1-e^{-(t-t_0)/\tau_s}) \nonumber \\ &&+ \, \tau_s^2 \langle (\delta_R
\bm V(t_0))^2\rangle (1-e^{-(t-t_0)/\tau_s})^2.
\label{eq:crossR} \end{aligned}$$ This should be approximately valid up to a time scale, in the inertial range, where $|\delta_R \bm V| \sim |\delta_R \bm u| \sim (\varepsilon
R)^{1/3}$: it is easy to show that such a time scale is proportional to the particle response time $\tau_s$. For larger times, inertia effects become subdominant and heavy pair dispersion suddenly gets synchronised to a Richardson like regime. Nevertheless, this Richardson regime has started only after the previous relaxation has ended, that is at a distance much larger than the original separation $R_0$ of the particle pair. The combination of this initial exponential relaxation of heavy particles with moderately large inertia, plus the later standard Richardson diffusion are the two main features due to inertia in the inertial pair dispersion. This is indeed confirmed by Figure (\[fig:jeremie3\]), where we compare DNS data for mean square separation, with the two phenomenological regimes just described, for which we have assumed that $\langle \bm R \cdot
\delta_R \bm V(t_0) \rangle \simeq 0$. As we can see, the main qualitative trends of the small and large time behaviours are very well captured.
{width="52.00000%"}
Subleading terms in the Richardson regime {#sub:subleading}
-----------------------------------------
We have seen in previous subsections that the most noticeable effect of inertia on the mean pair dispersion is a long transient regime that takes place before reaching a Richardson explosive separation (\[eq:r2rich\]), and that this regime is due to the relaxation of particle velocities to those of the fluid. As we now argue, at larger times—corresponding to regime (C)—there is still an effect of particle inertia that can be measured in terms of subleading corrections to the Richardson law. To estimate these corrections, let us assume that in the mean-field equation (\[eq:mf2\]), the term stemming from the fluid velocity $C\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3}$ is much larger than the inertia term $\tau_s \dot{v}$. This is true when $St(r)\ll 1$, i.e. at times $t$ when $r(t)\gg R^*(St)$. In this asymptotic, one can infer that the transverse velocity component $w$ is much smaller than the total velocity $v$, so that $\dot r \simeq v$ (see eq. (\[eq:v-w\])). In the spirit of the weak inertia expansion derived in [@m87], we next write a Taylor expansion of (\[eq:mf2\]) to obtain $$\dot{r} \approx v \approx C\varepsilon^{1/3} r^{1/3} - \tau_s
\langle | (\mathrm{d}/ \mathrm{d}t)\, \delta_r \bm u
|^2\rangle^{1/2} \approx C\varepsilon^{1/3} r^{1/3} - \tau_s \langle
|\delta_r \bm a |^2\rangle^{1/2},
\label{eq:mf_maxeyapprox}$$ where $\delta_r \bm a = \delta_r(\partial_t\bm u+\bm u\cdot\nabla\bm
u)$ denotes the increment of the fluid acceleration over the separation $r$. Next we assume scaling invariance of the turbulent acceleration field, that is, according to dimensional arguments of K41 theory, $|\delta_r \bm a| \sim \varepsilon^{2/3}r^{-1/3}$. Equation (\[eq:mf\_maxeyapprox\]) can then be rewritten as $$\dot{r} = C\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3}
\left(1-A\,\tau_s\,\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{-2/3}\right)=
C\varepsilon^{1/3}r^{1/3} \left(1-A\, St(r)\right),$$ where $A$ is an order-unity constant. The initial condition is given by $r(t_0)=r_0$ where the initial separation has to be chosen such such that $St(r_0)\ll1$. We can next integrate the approximate dynamics perturbatively in terms of the small parameter $St(r_0)$ by expanding the separation as $r(t) = \rho_0(t) + \rho_1(t) + \rho_2(t)
+ \dots$. The leading order is $\rho_0(t) = [ r_0^{2/3}
+(2C/3)\,\varepsilon^{1/3} t]^{3/2}$ and corresponds to the relative dispersion of a pair of tracers. The first-order correction reads $\rho_1(t)= - \tau_s \,\varepsilon^{1/3} A\,\ln (\rho_0(t)/r_0) \,
\rho_0^{1/3}(t)$. At times much larger than the Batchelor time associated to the initial separation $r_0$, i.e. for $t\gg\varepsilon^{-1/3}r_0^{2/3}$, the leading term follows the Richardson explosive law $\rho_0(t) \simeq
(2C/3)^{3/2}\varepsilon^{1/2} t^{3/2}$. This finally implies that in the asymptotics $t \gg \varepsilon^{-1/3}r_0^{2/3} \gg \tau_s$, one can write $$r^2(t) \propto g\, t^{3} \,\left[ 1 - D
\left({t}/{\tau_s}\right)^{-1} \ln\left({t}/{\tau_s}\right)
\right],
\label{eq:correcrichard}$$ where $g$ is the Richardson constant introduced in §\[sec:2\] and $D$ is an order-unity factor, which a priori does not depend neither on the particle Stokes number, nor on the initial particles separation.
{width="52.00000%"}
This behaviour is confirmed numerically as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:devrichard\] that gives the behaviours at large times of the ratio $Q(t)$ between the mean square separation of heavy particles and that of tracers as defined by (\[eq:defQ\]). One can clearly see that data almost collapse on a line $\propto 1/t$ confirming the behaviour (\[eq:correcrichard\]) predicted above. Only results from Run I are displayed here. The reason is that the very large time statistics of tracer dispersion in Run II is not as well statistically converged, leading to more noisy data. The qualitative picture is however very similar.
To conclude this section, let us stress that we have assumed above K41 scaling to hold for the acceleration field (and thus for the pressure gradient). However it is well known that the scaling properties of pressure are still unclear: they might depend on the turbulent flow Reynolds number and/or on the type of flow (see, e.g., [@gotoh; @xu-pressure]). As stated in [@prl_nostro], rather than being dominated by K41 scaling, numerically estimated pressure increments of Run I ($Re_{\lambda} \simeq200$) seem to be ruled by sweeping, so that $|\delta_r \bm a|\sim
u_{\mathrm{rms}}\,\varepsilon^{1/3} r^{-2/3}$. One can easily check that this difference in scaling leads to a behaviour similar to (\[eq:correcrichard\]), except that this time logarithmic corrections are absent, and that the non-dimensional constant $D$ depends on the Reynolds number of the flow. The present numerical data do not allow to distinguish between these two possible behaviors.
Probability density function of inertial particle separation {#sec:pdf}
============================================================
We now discuss the shape of the probability density function for both light and heavy inertial particles. We focus on the time and scale behaviour of the non-stationary PDF $$\label{eq:rich_st}
{{\cal P}}_{St,\beta}(R,t|R_0, t_0)\,,$$ defined as the probability to find a pair of inertial particles $(St,\beta)$, with separation $R$ at time $t$, given their initial separation $R_0$ at time $t_0$. The case of tracers ($St=0,\beta=1$) has been widely studied in the past, either experimentally, numerically and theoretically for two and three dimensional turbulent flows (see [@rich.rev; @batch.rev; @tabeling; @boffi.2d; @bif.2p; @bodi.science; @collins.rev]). Following the celebrated ideas of Richardson, phenomenological modelling in terms of a diffusion equation for the PDF of pair separation leads to the well-known non-Gaussian distribution, $$\label{eq:rich}
{{\cal P}}_{St=0,\beta=1}(R,t) \propto \frac{R^2}{\left(\varepsilon^{1/3} t \right)^{9/2}}
\,\exp{\left[- \frac{A\,R^{2/3}}{\varepsilon^{1/3}\,t}\right]}\,,$$ which is valid for times within the inertial range $\tau_{\eta} \ll t
\ll T_L$, and is obtained assuming a small enough initial separation and statistical homogeneity and isotropy of the three-dimensional turbulent flow. Here, $A$ is a normalization constant. This prediction is based on the simple assumption that, for inertial range distances, tracers undergo a diffusion dynamics with an [*effective*]{}, self-similar, turbulent diffusivity $K(R) \propto R \, \delta_R u \sim
\varepsilon^{1/3}\,R^{4/3}$. Moreover, it relies on the phenomenological assumption that tracers separate in a short-time correlated velocity field. Indeed, it is only if the latter is true, that the diffusion equation for the pair separation becomes exact (see [@gaw]).
As mentioned before such a scenario may be strongly contaminated by particle inertia. The main modifications are expected to be due to the presence of small-scale caustics for small-to-large Stokes numbers, and to preferential concentration. Caustics make the small scale velocity field not differentiable and not self-similar, as if inertial particles were separating in a rough velocity field whose exponent were depending on distance. Preferential concentration, leading to inhomogeneous spatial distribution of particles, manifests itself as a sort of [*effective compressibility*]{} in the particle velocity field.
There exists a series of stochastic [*toy models*]{} for Lagrangian motion of particles in incompressible/compressible velocity fields, where the statistics of pair separation can be addressed analytically. Among these, the so-called Kraichnan ensemble models, where tracer particles move in a compressible, short-time correlated, homogeneous and isotropic velocity field, with Gaussian spatial correlations (we refer the reader to the review [@gaw] for a description of this model). It is useful for the sequel to recall two main results obtained for relative dispersion in a Kraichnan compressible flow. We denote with $\wp$ the velocity field compressibility degree[^1], and with $0 \le \xi < 2$ the scaling exponent of the two-point velocity correlation function at the scale $r$, in $d$-dimensions: ${\langle}[u_i({\bm r})-u_i(0)][u_j({\bm r})-u_j(0)] {\rangle}\sim G_1 r^\xi [(d-1+\xi-\wp\xi) \delta_{ij}
+\xi(\wp\,d-1)r_ir_j/r^2]$. For particles moving in such flows, it is possible to show that the pair separation PDF for tracer particles follows a Richardson-like behaviour: $$\label{eq:rich_k}
{{\cal P}}_{\mu,\xi}(R,t) \propto \frac{R^{D_2-1}}{t^{(d-\mu)/(2-\xi)}}\,\exp{\left[-A
\frac{R^{2-\xi}}{t}\right]}\,.$$ Here $\mu = \wp\xi(d+\xi)/(1+\wp\xi)$ and $D_2=d-\mu$ is the correlation dimension, characterizing the fractal spatial distribution of particles.\
A different distribution emerges when the $d-$dimensional Kraichan flow is differentiable, i.e. for $\xi = 2$; in such case, a log-normal PDF is expected: $$\label{eq:rich_lognormal}
{{\cal P}}_{\mu,\xi}(R,t|R_0, t_0) \propto
\frac{1}{R}\,\exp{\left[-\frac{(\log(R/R_0) -
\lambda (t-t_0))^2}{2 \Delta (t-t_0)}\right]}\,,$$ with $\Delta = 2 G_1 (d-1) (1+2\wp)$ and $\lambda =
G_1(d-1)(d-4\wp)$. It is worth noticing that in the latter case, since the flow is differentiable, the large-time PDF depends on the initial data.
The problem of inertial particle separation in a real turbulent flow presents some similarities with the previous toy cases but also important differences.\
First, the effective degree of compressibility—due to preferential concentration of inertial particles—, is properly defined only in the dissipative range of scales. For $r \ll \eta$, it is equal to the correlation dimension $D_2$ defined as $p(r) \sim r^{D_{2}}$, where $p(r)$ is the probability to find two particles at distance smaller than $r$, with $r\ll \eta$. As it has been numerically shown in [@prl_nostro; @calza] for three-dimensional turbulent flows, the correlation dimension depends only on the degree of inertia $(St,\beta)$, while it does not seem to depend on the Reynolds number of the flow. For $r\gg\eta$, the effective degree of compressibility is no longer constant, but varies with the scale.\
Second, the underlying velocity field exhibits spatial and temporal correlations that are much more complex than in a Gaussian short-correlated field. Such correlations lead to non-trivial overlaps between particle dynamics and the carrying flow topology. As a result, it is not possible to simply translate the analytical findings obtained in the compressible Kraichnan ensemble to the case of inertial particles: we may expect however that in some limits the compressible Kraichnan results should give the leading behaviour also for the case studied here of inertial particles in real turbulent flows.
With this purpose, we first notice that the separation probability density function that is valid in the rough case (\[eq:rich\_k\]) has an asymptotic stretched-exponential decay that is independent on the compressibility degree. This suggests that inertial particle PDF (\[eq:rich\_st\]) must recover the Richardson behaviour (\[eq:rich\]) of tracers in the limit of large scales and large times. Coherently with what discussed in previous sections, for large times and for scales larger than $R^*_{St}$, we expect that the heavy pairs (in the limit $\beta \sim 0$) PDF recovers a tracer like distribution: $${{\cal P}}_{St,0}(R,t) \sim \exp{\left[-A
\frac{R^{2/3}}{\varepsilon^{1/3}t}\right]}; \qquad R \gg R^*_{St}.
\label{eq:pdflight}$$ For pairs of light particles, there is no straightforward formulation of such a prediction: as we shall see in the sequel, preferential concentration effects have a strong fingerprint on the separation PDF even at large times and large scales.
In the opposite limit of very small separations, i.e. $R \ll \eta$, one can correctly assume that the effective degree of compressibility is constant and therefore apply either the small-scale limit for rough flows (\[eq:rich\_k\]), or that for smooth flows (\[eq:rich\_lognormal\]), depending on the scaling properties of the particle velocity field entailed in the value of the exponent $\gamma(St)$, defined from (\[eq:gamma\_st\]) and related to the caustics. We thus expect $$\begin{aligned}
{{\cal P}}_{St,\beta}(R,t|R_0, t_0) &\sim& R^{\frac{D_2}{2} -1} G(t),
\qquad \mbox{if }\gamma(St)\neq 1, \nonumber
\\ {{\cal P}}_{St,\beta}(R,t|R_0, t_0) &\sim& R^{D_2-1} F(t), \qquad
\mbox{if }\gamma(St)= 1.
\label{eq:log}\end{aligned}$$ Here $F$ and $G$ are two different decaying functions of time $t$, whose expression can be easily derived from (\[eq:rich\_k\])-(\[eq:rich\_lognormal\]). Notice that for the smooth case, i.e. the small-scale limit of the log-normal distribution (\[eq:rich\_lognormal\]), we get for the spatial dependency a factor $D_2/2$ instead of the factor $D_2$ of the rough case. This will matter in the case of light particle separation, where, due to strong preferential concentration, the probability of finding pairs at a very small distances is large enough to allow for a detailed test of the prediction (\[eq:log\]). The case of light particles will be discussed in §\[sec:light\], while we now turn to a discussion of the above scenario in the case of heavy particle pairs.
Probability density function of heavy particle relative separation {#subsec:pdfheavy}
------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="1.\textwidth"}
We start by analyzing the qualitative evolution of ${{\cal P}}_{St}(R,t)$ at changing time, for different Stokes numbers and in the limit $\beta=0$. The four panels of Fig. \[fig:1\] show the evolution of the PDF at different times for pairs with $St=0$ (tracers), and for heavy particles with $St=1$, $3.3$, and $70$. Initially, at $t=t_0$, all selected pairs are separated by the same distance ($R_0 \in
[3\!:\!6]\,\eta$); this initial distribution is represented in each figure by a grey area. As time elapses, particle separate and reach different scales, depending on their inertia. Qualitatively, the PDF evolution is very similar for all moderate Stokes numbers, and the PDFs at different moderate Stokes numbers become more and more similar with time. However in the case of $St=70$—for which the associate Stokes time $\tau_s$ falls well inside the inertial range—, the PDF shows a long exponential tail for intermediate separation, which tends to persist at all observed times. To better appreciate such differences, in Fig. \[fig:2\] we show the comparison between the different PDFs corresponding to various Stokes numbers for two different times: at the beginning of the separation process, $(t-t_0) = \tau_\eta$, and at a later time, $(t-t_0)=36
\tau_\eta$.
{width="1.\textwidth"}
As one can see, it is only at early times that the PDFs for moderate-to-large Stokes, $St=3,70$ differ in a sensible way from the tracers. In particular, one can clearly see that many pairs have separations much larger and much smaller than those observed for tracers or for heavy pairs with small Stokes numbers. The right tails, describing pairs that are very far apart, are just the signature of the [*scrambling*]{} effect of caustics. Such strong events are not captured by second order moments of the separation statistics that we discussed before, while they clearly affect higher-order moments. The left tails, associated to pairs much closer than tracers, are possibly due to particles that separate at a slower rate than tracers because of preferential concentration induced by inertia.
Later in the evolution, for $(t-t_0)=36 \tau_\eta$, only the separation PDF for $St=70$ still shows important departure from the tracer case; for all the other Stokes numbers shown, pairs have had enough time to forget their initial distribution and have practically relaxed on the typical Richardson-like distribution. In the inset, we also show the persistence in the exponential behaviour for the PDF at $St=70$, by superposing the shapes measured at three times during the particles separation.
With the present data the small scale asymptotic behaviour (\[eq:log\]) cannot be validated for heavy particles. This is due to the limited statistics: very soon after the initial time $t_0$, there are almost no pairs left with separations $R \ll \eta$.
Probability density function of heavy particle relative velocities {#subsec:caustics}
------------------------------------------------------------------
At moderate to large Stokes numbers the separation process of heavy particle pairs is largely influenced by the presence of large velocity differences at small scales, that is by the presence of caustics in the particles velocity field. In §\[sec:1\], we have studied stationary statistics (only first-order moment) of velocity differences between heavy particles at changing the distance between particles and their inertia. However it is also informative to look at the non-stationary, time-dependent distribution of velocity differences, and more particularly to its distribution measured along heavy pairs separation. The relative velocity $ \delta_R{\bm V}(t) =
\dot{\bm X}_1(t) -\dot{\bm X}_2(t)$ can be decomposed into the projection along the separation vector, and two transveral components, here equivalent since the system is statistically isotropic. For tracer particles, the statistics of relative velocity and the alignment properties of $ \delta_R{\bm V}(t)$ and $\bm R(t)$ have been discussed extensively (see e.g. [@YB]). Here, we focus on the PDF of the relative longitudinal velocity only, which we denote by ${{\cal W}}_{St}(v,t)$, where $v(t) = {[ \dot{\bm X}_1(t) -\dot{\bm X}_2(t)]
\cdot \hat{\bm R}(t)}$.
{width="1.\textwidth"}
For pairs of tracers ($St=0$), the initial longitudinal velocity distribution is nothing else than the PDF of Eulerian longitudinal velocity increments measured at the distance $R_0$. For pairs of inertial particles, this initial PDF clearly coincides with the stationary distribution of velocity differences between particles that are at a distance $R=|\bm X_1(t_0)-\bm X_2(t_0)|\in
[R_0\!:\!R_0+dR_0]$. Such a distribution has the signature of two mechanisms: (*i*) at small Stokes numbers, only preferential concentration matters and particles probe only a sub-set of all possible fluid velocity fluctuations; (*ii*) at large Stokes numbers, particles are homogeneously distributed but with a velocity field which may be strongly different from the underlying fluid velocity.
For what concerns heavy pairs, the first effect has not an important signature on small-scale quantities. However the second effect clearly becomes visible for moderate to high inertia as shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]. Here we report the longitudinal velocity distributions for pairs with initial distance $R_0 \in [4\!:\!6]\,
\eta$, and with $St=0,1,3.3,$ and $70$; the Reynolds number of the underlying flow is $Re_{\lambda} \sim 400$. Each panel contains the PDFs measured at different times spanning all turbulent timescales. At $t=t_0$, the importance of caustics is manifest for the two largest Stokes numbers, leading to fat tails towards both small and large velocity differences. Interestingly enough, the left tail of ${{\cal W}}_{St}(v,t)$, which describes approaching events of particle relative motion, is immediately dumped already at $ (t-t_0) \sim
\tau_\eta$; at the same time, however, the right tail continues to be quite fat for the two largest Stokes numbers under consideration. At later stages of the separation process, the tendency of large-Stokes-number pairs to wash out approaching events becomes even stronger. Indeed, at time $(t-t_0)=38\,\tau_{\eta}$, the small velocity increments tail has almost disappeared for pairs with $St=70$. It is worth noticing that at those times (i.e. also at those typical scales), heavy particle velocity differences have already started to be smaller than the tracer velocity increments: the larger is the Stokes number, the less pronounced are the PDF tails.
Summarising, because of the different effects of inertia, we observe a very complex evolution for the longitudinal relative velocity fluctuations along the trajectories of heavy particle pairs. This is certainly a key issue to be considered for stochastic modelling: here, as in a standard [*kinetic*]{} problem, both particle positions and velocities need to be modelled to quantitatively control the relative dispersion process.
Relative dispersion for light particles {#sec:light}
=======================================
So far we have considered the relative motion of very heavy particle pairs, for which the density contrast $\beta$ with the underlying fluid is zero. In this section we present results on light particles dynamics as described by (\[eq:1\]), for different possible choices of the parameters $(St,\beta)$.
{width="52.00000%"}
We discuss how the strong effect of preferential concentration—typically observed in the case of light particles in turbulent flows— might influence the intermediate and long-time behaviour of pair separations. In three-dimensional turbulent flows, as we consider here, light particles associated to different values of $(St,\beta)$ have been observed to always possess a positive largest Lyapunov exponent [@calza]: this implies that light pairs always separate in $3d$ real turbulent flows. We recall, however, that this is not always true: for instance, in smooth two-dimensional random flows, there are values of $(St,\beta)$ for which the largest Lyapunov exponent can become negative and particles form pointwise clusters (see [@bec2003]).
Light particles with moderate inertia and high density ratio (order-unity $St$, and $\beta =3$), initially tend to separate much slower than heavy particles with the similar Stokes number: this is evident from the much smaller values of the Lyapunov exponents measured for light particles, with respect to those measured for heavy particles with equivalent Stokes numbers but $\beta=0$. Moreover, finite-time Lyapunov exponents show large fluctuations, indicating that there are pairs that do not separate even at long times. Results on this issue will be reported elsewhere. Clearly, pairs of light particles that do not separate do not influence the mean square distances: hence, we do not expect, and indeed do not measure, any large differences for the long-time behaviour of $\langle |\bm R(t)|^2
\rangle_{St,\beta}$ for light particles, with respect to the heavy case (see Fig. \[fig:rich.light\]).
It is natural to ask if light particle strong preferential concentration affects high-order moments of relative separation of two initially close particles, and particularly the left tail of the separation PDF. Figure \[fig:light1\] shows the time evolution of the separation probability density function, ${{\cal P}}_{St,\beta}(R,t|R_0,
t_0)$. Data refer to a case with very intense preferential concentration effects and minor influence of caustics $(St=1.2,\beta=3)$, and a case with milder inhomogeneities in the spatial distribution $(St=0.3,\beta=2)$. The initial separation PDF was chosen in both cases by selecting particle pairs with initial distance $R_0 \in [4\!:\!6]\,\eta$. A remarkable observation is a strong tendency to fill small separations. In other words there are many pairs that reduce their mutual distance even for a very long times. The development of the left tail for the strong clustering case ($St=1.2,\beta=3$) is consistent with the estimate given by the long-time, small-scale asymptotic expansion of the log-normal distribution (\[eq:log\]), ${{\cal P}}(R,t) \sim R^{D_2/2-1}$, as shown by the straight line in the plot. This is the confirmation that the small-scale dynamics of the highly clustered light particles evolves as that of tracers moving in a smooth, compressible flow (characterised by the same $D_2$).
{width="1.\textwidth"}
We also remark that if there is high spatial preferential concentration, caustics cannot be important. This may have important consequences for the estimation of collision kernel of light particles. The approaching events, shown by the left tail in Figure \[fig:light1\], are clearly due to the preferential concentration inside vortex-like structures, typical of light particles. The right panel show a different case, where preferential concentration is less important, leading to a correlation dimension $D_2=2$. Of course, also in this latter case, there are events with approaching pairs, but these become less and less probable with time.
The importance of preferential concentration can also be appreciated by looking at the PDFs of longitudinal velocity differences between light particles during the separation. We show such distributions for one of the pair family considered above, and we compare them with those of the tracers (see Fig. \[fig:light2\]). The important difference between the two cases stems from the highly peaked nature of the relative velocity PDF for the strong clustered light particle case. The presence of many pairs with almost vanishing velocity differences is the signature of a coherent bunch of pairs moving on a strongly clustered set.
{width="1.\textwidth"}
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
We have studied the relative dispersion of inertial particles in homogeneous and isotropic turbulence from two DNS at resolutions $512^3$ and $2048^3$, corresponding to $Re_\lambda \sim 200 $ and $Re_\lambda \sim 400$, respectively. We have analysed both heavy and light particle statistics at changing the Stokes numbers. We have studied the evolution of mean separations and the whole PDFs’ shape, both for particle distance and velocity increments at changing time and for different typical initial distances. The main results that we have discussed can be summarised as follows. Separations of very heavy particles, with Stokes times falling in the inertial range of the underlying fluid, are strongly affected by the presence of caustics up to times, when the distance between particles reaches scales that are large enough for the separation dynamics to be again dominated by the underlying flow velocity. As a consequence, strong transient departure from the Richardson diffusion, with a faster ballistic regime, is observed. A statistical closure of the equation of motions for heavy particle separation is also developed. This model is able to reproduce the main numerical findings.\
For light particles, at high density ratio, we observe strong small-scale clustering properties, leading to a considerable fraction of pairs that do not separate at all—although the maximum Lyapunov exponent remains positive. In such a case, the non-stationary spatial concentration at small scales tends to be higher than the analogous case but with a stationary distribution of particles. Such numerical findings open the way to experimental verifications and gives input to the community involved in modelling inertial particle diffusion in applied configurations.
We thank Massimo Cencini, who collaborated at an early stage of this work, for very fruitful and continuous exchange of ideas. This study benefitted from constructive discussions with E. Bodenschatz, E. Calzavarini, L. Collins and G. Falkovich to whom we wish to express a warm gratitude. J. Bec and A.S. Lanotte aknowledge support from the National Science Foundation under grant No. PHY05\_51164 for their stay at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in the framework of the 2008 “Physics of the Climate Change” program. Part of this work was supported by Agence Nationale de la Recherche under grant No. BLAN07-1\_192604. We thank the DEISA Consortium (co-funded by the EU, FP6 project 508830), for support for Run II within the DEISA Extreme Computing Initiative (www.deisa.org). Numerical simulations of Run I were performed at CASPUR (Italy) and CINECA (Italy). Numerical raw data of particle trajectories are freely available from the iCFDdatabase (http://cfd.cineca.it) kindly hosted by CINECA (Italy).
2008 [Modeling inertial particle acceleration statistics in isotropic turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**20**]{} 095104.
2001 [Intermittent distribution of inertial particles in turbulent flows.]{} [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 2790–2793.
1952 [Diffusion in a field of homogeneous turbulence II. The relative motion of particles.]{} [*Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.*]{} [**48**]{}, 345–362.
2003 [Fractal clustering of inertial particles in random flows]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**15**]{}, L81–L84.
2005 [Clustering and collisions of heavy particles in random smooth flows.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [ **17**]{}, 073301.
2006 [Acceleration statistics of heavy particles in turbulence.]{} [*J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**550**]{}, 349–358.
2007 [Heavy particle concentration in turbulence at dissipative and inertial scales.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 084502.
2008 [Stochastic suspensions of heavy particles]{} [*Physica*]{} D [**237**]{}, 2037–2050.
2005 [Lagrangian statistics of particle pairs in homogeneous isotropic turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**17**]{}, 115101.
2005 [Lagrangian statistics of fully developed turbulence.]{} [*J. Turb.*]{} [**7**]{}, 6(1-12).
2002 [Statistics of two-particle dispersion in two-dimensional turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**14**]{}, 3224–3232.
2004 [Large scale inhomogeneity of inertial particles in turbulent flows.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**16**]{}, L20–L24.
1998 [Direct numerical simulation of turbulence modulation by particles in isotropic turbulence.]{} [ *J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**375**]{}, 235–263.
2006 [The role of pair dispersion in turbulent flow.]{} [*Science*]{} [**311**]{} 835–838.
2008 [Dimensionality and morphology of particle and bubble clusters in turbulent flow.]{} [ *J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**607**]{}, 13–24.
2006 [Dynamics and statistics of heavy particles in turbulent flows.]{} [*J. Turb.*]{} [**7**]{}, 36, 1.
1993 [On statistical correlations between velocity increments and locally averaged dissipation in homogeneous turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Fluids A*]{} [**5**]{}, 458–463.
2005 [Clustering of aerosol particles in isotropic turbulence.]{} [*J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**536**]{}, 219–251.
2004 [Reynolds number scaling of particle clustering in turbulent aerosols.]{} [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**6**]{}, 119.
1980 [*Turbulent diffusion in the environment.*]{} Geophysics and Astrophysics Monographs Vol. 3 D. Reidel Publishing Company.
2008 [Relative particle velocity in a turbulent flow.]{} [*Fluid Dyn.*]{} [**43**]{}, 357–368.
1991 [Direct observation of the intermittency of intense vorticity filaments in turbulence.]{} [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**67**]{}, 983–986.
2000 [Generalized flows, intrinsic stochasticity, and turbulent transport.]{} [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA)*]{} [ **97**]{}, 8200–8205.
1994 [Preferential concentrations of particles by turbulence.]{} [*Intl. J. Multiphase Flow*]{} [**20**]{}, 169–209.
2001 [Particles and fields in fluid turbulence.]{} [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{}, 913–975.
2002 [Acceleration of rain initiation by cloud turbulence.]{} [*Nature*]{} [**419**]{}, 151–154.
2004 [Intermittent distribution of heavy particles in a turbulent flow.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**16**]{}, L47–L51.
2007 [Sling effect in collision of water droplet in turbulent clouds.]{} [*J. Atm. Sci.*]{} [**64**]{}, 4497–4505.
2008 [Separation of heavy particles in turbulence.]{} [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} 040601.
1995 [ *Turbulence. The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).
2008 [Lagrangian measurements of inertial particle accelerations in a turbulent boundary layer.]{} [*J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**617**]{}, 255–281.
2008 [Sweep-stick mechanism of heavy particle clustering in fluid turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**100**]{} 054503.
2001 [Pressure spectrum in homogeneous turbulence.]{} [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 3775–3778.
2006 [Lagrangian measurements of inertial particle accelerations in grid generated wind tunnel turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{} [ **97**]{}, 144507.
1999 [Richardson pair dispersion in two-dimensional turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 2872–2876.
1983 [Equation of motion of a small rigid sphere in a nonuniform flow.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**26**]{}, 883–889.
1987 [The motion of small spherical particles in a cellular flow field.]{} [ *Phys. Fluids*]{} [**30**]{}, 1915–1928.
2004 [Coagulation by random velocity fields as a Kramers problem.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{}, 250602.
1996 [Transition between viscous and inertial-range scaling of turbulence structure functions]{} 1996 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**54**]{}, 3657–3663.
2007 [*Statistical Fluid Mechanics, Volume 2: Mechanics of Turbulence*]{} Cambridge, MA/London, UK.: MIT. 874 pp.
2002 [Transport properties of heavy particles in high Reynolds number turbulence.]{} [ *Phys. Fluids*]{} [**14**]{}, 4266–4277.
2000 [An experimental investigation of the relative di usion of particle pairs in three-dimensional turbulent flow.]{} [*J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**422**]{}, 207–223.
2006 [An experimental study of turbulent relative dispersion models.]{} [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{}, 109 (1–22).
2002 [Modeling the outcome of drop-drop collisions in Diesel sprays.]{} [*Intl. J. Multiphase Flow*]{} [**28**]{}, 997–1019.
2007 [Turbulent transport of material particles: An experimental study of finite size effects.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{} [**99**]{}, 184502.
2000 [A numerical study of the particle size distribution of an aerosol undergoing turbulent coagulation.]{} [*J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**415**]{}, 45–64.
1929 [A search for the law of atmospheric diffusion.]{} [ *Beitr. Phys. Frei. Atmos.*]{} [**15**]{}, 24–29.
2009 [Two-particle dispersion in isotropic turbulent flows.]{} [*Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech*]{} [**41**]{} 405–432.
2001 [Turbulent relative dispersion.]{} 2001 [*Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**33**]{}, 289–317.
2003 [Particle-turbulence interactions in atmospheric clouds.]{} [*Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**35**]{}, 183–227.
2002 [A Model for Preferential Concentration.]{} [ *Phys. Fluids*]{} [**14**]{}, 4352–4361.
1991 [Preferential concentration of particles by turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Fluids A*]{} [**3**]{}, 1169–1178.
2009 [Lagrangian Properties of Particles in Turbulence.]{} [*Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**41**]{}, 375–404 .
2008 [Laser Doppler measurement of inertial particle and bubble accelerations in turbulence]{}, [ *Europhys. Lett*]{} [**81**]{}, 34002.
2005 [Caustics in turbulent aerosols.]{} [*Europhys. Lett*]{} [**71**]{}, 186–192.
2007 [Acceleration correlations and pressure structure functions in high-Reynolds number turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{}, 204501.
2008 [Motion of inertial particles with size larger than Kolmogorov scale in turbulent flows.]{} [*Physica*]{} D [**237**]{}, 2095–2100.
2004 [Relative dispersion in isotropic turbulence: Part 1. Direct numerical simulations and Reynolds number dependence.]{} [ *J. Fluid Mech.*]{} [**503**]{}, 125–160.
2003 [Two statistical models for predicting collision rates of inertial particles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence.]{} [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**15**]{}, 2995–3005.
2008 [Acceleration of heavy particles in isotropic turbulence.]{} [*Intl. J. Multiphase Flow*]{} [**34**]{}, 865–868.
[^1]: The compressibility degree $\wp$ is defined as the ratio $\wp\equiv {\cal C}^2/{\cal S}^2$, where ${\cal
C}^2 \propto \langle (\nabla \cdot {\bm u})^2\rangle$ and ${\cal
S}^2 \propto \langle (\nabla {\bm u})^2\rangle$, and varies between $\wp=0$ for incompressible flows, and $\wp=1$ for potential flows.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A formulation for the automated generation of algorithms via mathematical programming (optimization) is proposed. The formulation is based on the concept of optimizing within a parameterized family of algorithms, or equivalently a family of functions describing the algorithmic steps. The optimization variables are the parameters -within this family of algorithms- that encode algorithm design: the computational steps of which the selected algorithms consists. The objective function of the optimization problem encodes the merit function of the algorithm, e.g., the computational cost (possibly also including a cost component for memory requirements) of the algorithm execution. The constraints of the optimization problem ensure convergence of the algorithm, i.e., solution of the problem at hand. The formulation is described prototypically for algorithms used in solving nonlinear equations and in performing unconstrained optimization; the parametrized algorithm family considered is that of monomials in function and derivative evaluation (including negative powers). A prototype implementation in GAMS is developed along with illustrative results demonstrating cases for which well-known algorithms are shown to be optimal. The formulation is a mixed-integer nonlinear program (MINLP). To overcome the multimodality arising from nonconvexity in the optimization problem, a combination of brute force and general-purpose deterministic global algorithms is employed to guarantee the optimality of the algorithm devised. We then discuss several directions towards which this methodology can be extended, their scope and limitations.'
author:
- |
[**Alexander Mitsos, Jaromi[ł]{} Najman**\
AVT Process Systems Engineering (SVT), RWTH Aachen University, Turmstrasse 46, Aachen, 52064, Germany, [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-0335-6566\
**Ioannis G. Kevrekidis** (corresponding, [email protected])\
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering & Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics, Princeton University, A319 Engineering Quad; Princeton, NJ 08544, [email protected], Phone: 609-258-2818 (also IAS-TUM, Garching and Zuse Institut, FU Berlin, Germany.)]{}
---
**[Optimal Deterministic Algorithm Generation ]{}**
[**Alexander Mitsos, Jaromi[ł]{} Najman**\
AVT Process Systems Engineering (SVT), RWTH Aachen University, Turmstrasse 46, Aachen, 52064, Germany, [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-0335-6566\
**Ioannis G. Kevrekidis** (corresponding, [email protected])\
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering & Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics, Princeton University, A319 Engineering Quad; Princeton, NJ 08544, [email protected], Phone: 609-258-2818 (also IAS-TUM, Garching and Zuse Institut, FU Berlin, Germany.)]{}
Optimization, Nonlinear Equations, Algorithms, Optimal Control
49M05, 49M15, 49M25, 49M37, 49L20, 90C90, 90C26
Introduction
============
Computation has led to major advances in science and engineering, in large part due to ingenious numerical algorithms. The development of algorithms is thus of crucial importance and requires substantial resources and time. Typically multiple algorithms exist for a given task. Comparisons of algorithms that tackle a given family of problems is sometimes performed theoretically and sometimes numerically. It would be desirable to automatically generate algorithms and have a guarantee that these are the best for a given problem or for a class of problems. We propose the use of numerical optimization to design *optimal algorithms*, i.e., algorithms that perform better than any conceivable alternative. More precisely, each iteration of the algorithms is interpreted, in an input-output sense, as a function evaluation. Then, an optimization problem is formulated that finds the best (in a given metric) algorithm among a family of algorithms/functions.
There is large literature on automatic generation of algorithms. In many cases genetic algorithms are used to first generate a set of algorithms built of elementary components of promising approaches. The set is evaluated on test problems and a new elitist algorithm is obtained by combination [@bain2004methods; @koza1992genetic; @koza1994genetic]. The work by [@koza1992genetic; @koza1994genetic] covers basic methods and ideas in the field of genetic programming. Automatic algorithm generation for retrieval, classification and other data manipulation has been proposed by [@kuhner2002automatic] based on statistical data analysis and other methods. For instance, in [@parada2013automatic] algorithms for the well-known knapsack problem are automatically generated by genetic algorithms. Algorithms are first generated for small knapsack instances and then compared to algorithms computed on larger test sets. In [@garber2008automatic] work is presented on automatic generation of parallel sorting algorithms. They combine known sorting algorithms to obtain a best performing algorithm for a certain input. The well known art gallery problem (AGP) is discussed by [@tozoni2013practical], where an iterative algorithm is developed and in that sense resembles our proposal. Performance analysis of first-order methods for smooth unconstrained convex optimization can be of high interest regarding our work if new first-order algorithms are found via our approach. Building on the work of [@nemirovsky1983problem], in [@Drori2014] a novel approach for performance analysis is presented. In [@Kim2016] Nesterov-like first-order algorithms for smooth unconstrained convex optimization are developed. The worst-case convergence bound of the presented algorithms is twice as small as that of Nesterov’s methods. Moreover, there is substantial work on automatic code and algorithm generation for certain problems, e.g., [@ricart1981optimal; @arya1994optimal; @bacher1996automatic; @coelho1999robust]. While this approach is fundamentally different, in a sense it resembles the proposal herein: both require an external algorithm in order to compute a sub-result. Many depend on algebraic operations regarding matrices, e.g., QR decomposition, diagonal transformations or eigenvalue computation. Many of those operations are well documented in the Thesis of [@bientinesi2006]. Finally, the problem of tuning the parameters of existing algorithms through optimization has been considered [@weinan2016]. Lessard et al. [@lessard_16_1] use control theory to derive bounds on the convergence rate of important algorithms, most of which are considered herein as well.
Consider an iterative algorithm, like the time-honored Newton-Raphson for finding roots of algebraic equations, e.g., in one dimension $ x_{n+1} = x_n - f(x_n)/f'(x_n) \equiv x_n + u_n(x_n). $ The iterates can thus be seen as a “control action” $u_n$ that depends only on the current guess, i.e., “state-dependent feedback”; a similar interpretation can be given to most algorithms. But if algorithms are feedback laws (towards a prescribed objective), then we do have celebrated mathematical tools for computing optimal feedback, e.g., Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman. It would thus make sense to use these tools to devise optimal algorithms.
The key goal of the manuscript is to formulate a systematic process for obtaining optimal algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, there exists no other proposal in the literature to use deterministic global optimization for finding an algorithm that is optimal w.r.t. a certain objective. Optimality is determined based on a desired measurable performance property which is encoded as the objective of the optimization problem. For instance this can be the computational expense of the algorithm, possibly with the memory requirements weighting in. Upon convergence of our formulation, the resulting algorithm is optimal among a considered family of algorithms which in turn is encoded using the variables (or degrees of freedom) of the optimization problem. The optimization formulation is completed by the constraints which ensure that only feasible algorithms will be selected among the family of algorithms considered, i.e., algorithms that converge to a solution of the problem at hand. The formulations can be cast as nonlinear programs (NLP) or mixed-integer nonlinear programs (MINLP). These formulations are quite expensive; in fact, as we discuss in the following they are expected to be more expensive than the original problem; however, we argue that this is acceptable.
Our proof of concept illustrations involves devising optimal algorithms that perform local unconstrained minimization of scalar functions and those that solve equation systems. The class of algorithms within which optimality is sought herein involve evaluations of the function and its first two derivatives; they can be composed of up to ten iterations of a monomial involving these quantities, what we call a monomial-type algorithm. The class is then extended to allow for methods such as Nesterov’s acceleration. The well-known steepest descent is shown to be optimal in finding a stationary point of a univariate fourth-order polynomial, whereas it is infeasible for the two-dimensional Rosenbrock objective function (it would take more than the allowed number of iterations to converge). Both statements hold for a given initial guess (starting value of the variables given to the algorithm). We also consider the effect of different initial guesses and show that Nesterov’s method is the cheapest in an ensemble of initial guesses. Finally, we focus on finding optimal algorithms for a given problem, e.g., minimizing a fixed function; however, we discuss how to handle multiple instances by considering families of problems.
The remainder of the manuscript is structured starting with the simplest possible setting, namely solution of a single nonlinear equation by a particular class of algorithms. Two immediate extensions are considered (a) to equations systems and (b) to local unconstrained optimization. Subsequently, numerical results are presented along with some discussion. Potential extension to more general problems and algorithm classes are then discussed as well as limitations and relation to computational complexity. Finally, key conclusions are presented.
Definitions and Assumptions
===========================
For the sake of simplicity, first, solution of a single nonlinear equation is considered as the prototypical task an algorithm has to tackle.
\[def:eqnsol\] Let $x \in X \subset \mathbb{R}$ and $f:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. A solution of the equation is a point $x^* \in X$ with $f(x^*)=0$. An approximate solution of the equation is a point $x^* \in X$ with $|f(x^*)|\leq \varepsilon$, $ \varepsilon > 0$.
Note that no assumptions on existence or uniqueness are made, nor convexity of the function. A particular interest is to find a steady-state solution of a dynamic system $\dot{x}(t)=f\left(x(t)\right)$.
We will first make use of relatively simple algorithms:
Algorithms operate on the variable space ${\bf x} \in X \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$ and start with an initial guess ${\bf x}^{(0)} \in X$. A given iteration $it$ of a simple algorithm amounts to calculating the current iterate as a function of the previous ${\bf x}^{(it)}=g_{it}\left({\bf x}^{(it-1)}\right)$, $g_{it}: X \rightarrow X$. Therefore, after iteration $it$, the algorithm has calculated ${\bf x}^{(it)}=g_{it}\left(g_{it-1}\left(\dots(g_{2}(g_{1}({\bf x}^{(0)})))\right)\right)$. A special case are algorithms that satisfy $g_{it_1}({\bf x})=g_{it_2}({\bf x})$ for all $it_1,it_2$, i.e., use the same function at each iteration.
Note that the definition includes the initial guess ${\bf x}^{(0)}$. Herein both a fixed initial guess and an ensemble of initial conditions is used. Unless otherwise noted the same function will be used at each iteration $g_{it}=g$.
In other words, algorithmic iterations can be seen as functions and algorithms as composite functions. This motivates our premise, that finding an optimal algorithm constitutes an optimal control problem. In some sense the formulation finds the optimal function among a set of algorithms considered. One could thus talk of a “hyper-algorithm” or “meta-algorithm” implying a (parametrized) family of algorithms, or possibly the span of a “basis set” of algorithms that are used to identify an optimal algorithm. In the following we will assume $X=\mathbb{R}^{n_x}$ and consider approximate feasible algorithms:
An algorithm is *feasible* if it solves a problem; otherwise it is termed *infeasible*. More precisely: it is termed *feasible in the limit* for a given problem if it solves this problem as the number of iterations approaches $\infty$; it is termed *finitely feasible* if it solves the problem after a finite number of iterations; it is termed *approximate feasible* if after a finite number of iterations it solves a problem approximately. In all these cases the statements holds for some (potentially open) set of initial conditions. A feasible algorithm is *optimal* with respect to a metric if among all feasible algorithms it minimizes that metric.
One could also distinguish between feasible path algorithms, i.e., those that satisfy ${\bf x}^{(it)} \in X$, $\forall it$ in contrast to algorithms that for intermediate iterations violate this condition. Throughout the report it is assumed that $f:X \subset \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is sufficiently smooth in the sense that if algorithms are considered that use derivatives of a given order, then $f$ is continuously differentiable to at least that order. The derivative of order $j$ is denoted by $f^{(j)}$ with $f^{(0)}\equiv f$. A key point in our approach is the selection of a class of algorithms: a (parametrizable) family of functions. It is possible, at least in principle, to directly consider the functions $g_{it}$ and optimize in the corresponding space of functions. Alternatively, one can identify a specific family of algorithms, e.g., those based on gradients, which includes well-known algorithms such as Newton and explicit Euler:
\[def:ratpolalgo\] Consider problems that involve a single variable $x \in X \subset \mathbb{R}$ and $f: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. *Monomial-type algorithms* are those that consist of a monomial $g_{it}(x)=x+ \alpha_{it} \Pi_{j=0}^{j_{max}} \left(f^{(j)}(x)\right)^{\nu_j}$ of derivatives of at most order $j_{max}$, allowing for positive and negative (integer) powers $\nu_j$.
As examples of algorithms in this family consider the solution of a single nonlinear equation, Definition \[def:eqnsol\], by the following important algorithms
- Newton: $x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+\frac{f^{(0)}(x^{(it-1)})}{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}$, i.e., we have $\alpha=1$, $\nu_0=1$, $\nu_1=-1$, $\nu_{i>1}=0$.
- Explicit Euler: $x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+f(x^{(it-1)}) \Delta t$, i.e., we have $\alpha=\Delta t$, $\nu_0=1$, $\nu_{i>0}=0$.
Development {#sec:formu}
===========
We first develop an optimization formulation that identifies optimal algorithms of a particular problem: the solution of a given nonlinear scalar equation, Definition \[def:eqnsol\]. We will consider approximate feasible solutions and simple algorithms that use the same function at each iteration. If the optimization metric accounts for the computational cost of the algorithm, then it is expected that algorithms that are only feasible in the limit will not be optimal since their cost will be higher than those of finitely feasible algorithms.
Obviously to solve the optimization problem with local methods one needs an initial guess for the optimization variables, i.e., an initial algorithm. Some local optimization methods even require a “feasible” initial guess, i.e., an algorithm that solves (non-optimally) the problem at hand. Note however, that we will consider deterministic global methods for the solution of the optimization problem, and as such, at least in theory, there is no need for an initial guess.
Infinite Problem {#sec:formuinf}
----------------
We are interested in devising algorithms as the solution of an optimization problem. The key idea is to include the iterates of the algorithm $x^{(it)}$ as (intermediate) *optimization variables* that are determined by the algorithmic iteration. By imposing a maximal number of iterations, we have a finite number of variables. The algorithm itself is an optimization variable, albeit an infinite one (optimal control). Moreover, an end-point constraint ensures that only feasible algorithms are considered. Finally, an optimization metric is required which maps from the function space to $\mathbb{R}$, such as the computational cost. We will make the assumption that the objective is the sum of a cost at each iteration which in turn only depends on the iterate, and implicitly on the problem to be solved.
$$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{g, {x}^{(it)},it_{con}} \sum_{it=1}^{it_{con}} \phi\left(g\left(x^{(it)}\right)\right) \notag \\
&\text{s.t. } x^{(it)}=g\left(x^{(it-1)}\right), \quad it=1,2,\dots, it_{con} \notag\\
& \qquad \left|f\left(x^{(it_{con})}\right)\right|\leq \epsilon, \label{optformuinf}\end{aligned}$$
where $it_{con}$ corresponds to the iteration at which the desired convergence criterion is met. The optimal point found embodies an optimal algorithm $g^*$; depending on the method used it may be a global, an approximately global or a local optimum. For notational simplicity, we have assumed that the minimum is attained. It is outside the scope of this manuscript to determine if the infimum is attained, e.g., if $g$ can be described by a finite basis of a finite vector space.
The intermediate variables can be considered as part of the optimization variables along with the constraints or eliminated. Note the analogy to full discretization vs. late discretization vs. multiple shooting in dynamic optimization [@biegler_book_2; @barton_06_1] with known advantages and disadvantages.
Formulation is not a regular optimal control problem as the number of variables is not a priori known. There are however several straightforward approaches to overcome this problem, such as the following. A maximal number of iterations $it_{max}$ is considered a priori and dummy variables for $it_{con}<it<it_{max}$ are used along with binary variables capturing if the convergence has been met. The cost is accounted only for the iterates before convergence: $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{g, {x}^{(it)}} \sum_{it=1}^{it_{max}} y_{res}^{(it)} \phi\left(g\left(x^{(it)}\right)\right) \notag \\
&\text{s.t. } x^{(it)}=g\left(x^{(it-1)}\right), \quad it=1,2,\dots, it_{max} \\
& \qquad y_{res}^{it}= \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } \left|f\left(x^{(it)}\right)\right| < \varepsilon \\ 1 & \text{else} \end{cases} \\
& \qquad y_{res}^{it_{max}}=0,
\end{aligned}$$ where satisfaction of the last constraint ensures convergence. In the Appendix an alternative is given. In the formulation above each iteration uses the same function $g$. Allowing different functional forms at each iteration step, is of interest, e.g., to devise hybrid iteration algorithms, such as few steepest descent steps followed by Newton steps.
Finite Problem {#sec:optformufin}
--------------
We now use the family of monomial-type algorithms, Definition \[def:ratpolalgo\], as our ensemble of algorithms. In analogy to the infinite case we assume that the objective depends on the evaluation of derivatives (of the result of the algorithm with respect to its inputs), which in turn only depends on the iterate, and implicitly on the problem to be solved. To account for the expense of manipulating the derivatives, e.g., forming the inverse of a matrix (recall that simple algorithms scale cubically in the size, i.e., the number of rows of the matrix), we assume that the cost also involves an exponent: $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{\nu_j,\alpha_{it}, {x}^{(it)},it_{con}} \sum_{it=1}^{it_{con}} \sum_{j=0}^{j_{max}} \phi_j\left(f^{(j)}\left(x^{(it)}\right),\alpha_{it},\nu_j \right) \notag \\
&\text{s.t. } x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+ \alpha_{it} \Pi_{j=0}^{j_{max}} \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it-1)})\right)^{\nu_j}, it=1,\dots, it_{con} \notag\\
& \qquad \left|f\left(x^{(it_{con})}\right)\right|\leq \epsilon, \label{optformufin}\end{aligned}$$ where again the number of variables is not known a priori, see above. Note that, since the exponents are integer-valued, we have an MINLP and thus, for a fixed $f$ we expect that the minimum is attained. Again the intermediate variables can be considered as part of the optimization variables along with the constraints, or they can be eliminated. The optimal point found gives optimal step size $\alpha^*$ as well as exponents $\nu_j^*$. Herein, we will restrict the step size to discrete values, mimicking line-search methods, but in general step size can be optimized over a continuous range. Allowing for a different algorithm found at each step ($\nu_{j}^{it_1} \neq \nu_{j}^{it_2}$), the number of combinations dramatically increases but there is no *conceptual* difficulty. The form is not common for an MINLP but can be easily converted to a standard one as shown in the Appendix.
It may not always be easy to estimate the cost $\phi_j\left(f^{(j)}\left(x^{(it)}\right),\alpha_{it},\nu_j \right)$. For instance consider Newton’s method augmented with a line-search method $ x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it} \frac{f(x^{(it-1)})}{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}$. For each major iteration, multiple minor iterations are required, with evaluations of $f$. If the cost of the minor iterations is negligible, the computational cost is simply the evaluation of $f$, its derivative and its inversion. If we know the number of minor iterations then we can calculate the required number of evaluations. If the number of iterations is not known, we can possibly obtain it by the step size, but this requires knowledge of the line search strategy. In some sense this is an advantage of the proposed approach: the step size is not determined by a line search method but rather by the optimization formulation. However, a challenge is that we need to use a good cost for the step size, i.e., incorporate in the objective function the computational expense associated with the algorithm selecting a favorable step size $\alpha_{it}$. Otherwise, the optimizer can select an optimal $\alpha_{it}$ for that instance which is not necessarily sensible when the cost is accounted for. To mimic the way conventional algorithms work, in the numerical results we allow discrete values of the step size $\alpha_{(it)}=\pm 2^{-\bar{\alpha}_{it}}$ and put a bigger cost for bigger $\bar{\alpha}$ since this corresponds to more evaluations of the line search.
The algorithm is fully determined by selecting $\nu_j$ and $\bar{\alpha}_{it}$. So in some sense the MINLP is a purely integer problem: the variables $x^{(it)}$ are uniquely determined by the equations. To give a sense of the problem complexity, consider the setup used in the numerical case studies. Assume we allow derivatives of order $j \in \{0,1,2\}$ and exponents $\nu_j \in \{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$ and these are fixed for each iteration $it$. This gives $5^3=125$ basic algorithms. Further we decide for each algorithm $it$ if the step size $\alpha_{it}$ is positive or negative, and allow $\bar{\alpha}_{it} \in \{0,1,\dots,10\}$, different for each iteration $it$ of the algorithm. Thus we have $2\times 10^5$ combinations of step sizes for each algorithm and $25 \times 10^6$ total number of combinations.
Equation Systems {#sec:eqnsystems}
----------------
A natural extension of solving a single equation is to solve a system of equations.
\[def:eqnssol\] Let ${\bf x} \in X \subset \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$ and ${\bf f}:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$. A solution of the equation system is a point ${\bf x}^* \in X$ with ${\bf f}({\bf x}^*)={\bf 0}$. An approximate solution of the equation is a point ${\bf x}^* \in X$ with $||{\bf f}\left({\bf x}^*\right)||\leq \varepsilon$, $\varepsilon>0$.
In addition to more cumbersome notation, the optimization problems become much more challenging to solve due to increased number of variables and also due to the more expensive operations. Obviously the monomials need to be defined appropriately; for instance the inverse of the first derivative corresponds to the inverse of the Jacobian, assuming it has a unique solution. This in turn can be written as an implicit function or an equation system can be used in the optimization formulation. For the numerical results herein we use small dimensions (up to two herein) and analytic expressions for the inverse. In the Appendix we discuss an approach more amenable to higher dimensions.
Special Two-Step Methods
------------------------
A particularly interesting class of algorithms are the so-called Nesterov’s methods, see e.g., [@candes_15_1]. These compute an intermediate iterate $y^{(it)}=h(x^{(it)},x^{(it-1)})$ and use it for the computation of the next value $x^{(it)}$. The above formulation does not allow such intermediate calculations but can be relatively easily extended to $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&\min_{g, {x}^{(it)},it_{con}} &&\sum_{it=1}^{it_{con}} \phi\left(g\left(x^{(it)}\right)\right) \notag \\
&\quad\quad\text{s.t.} &&x^{(it)}=g\left(y^{(it-1)}\right), \quad it=1,2,\dots, it_{con} \notag\\
& &&y^{(it)}=x^{(it)}+\beta_{it}\left(x^{(it)}-x^{(it-1)}\right), \quad it=1,2,\dots, it_{con} \notag\\
& &&\left|f\left(x^{(it_{con})}\right)\right|\leq \epsilon \label{Nesterov}.\end{aligned}$$ This latter formulation covers most of Nesterov’s constant schemes along with potentially new schemes. The introduction of the parameter $\beta$ necessitates capturing the cost of different values of $\beta$. Herein, we add the value of $\beta$ to the term of each iteration for the objective function. We note that this choice is somewhat questionable but for the illustrative, proof-of-concept computations herein, is acceptable.
Finding Optimal Local Optimization Algorithms
---------------------------------------------
It is relatively easy to adapt the formulation from equation solving to local solution of optimization problems. The only substantial change consists in replacing the end-point constraint with some desired termination criterion such as an approximate solution of the KKT conditions. For unconstrained problems the corresponding criterion is stationarity of the objective $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{ix}}=0$. Similarly to equation systems increased dimensionality ($n_x>1$) implies that vectors and matrices arise and operations need to be appropriately formulated.
Numerical Results {#sec:numerical}
=================
Method
------
We develop a prototype implementation in GAMS [@gams_ref], inspired by [@mitsos_08_siprestricted]. We used GAMS 24.5 and tested both local and global methods, mostly KNITRO [@knitro_ref] and BARON [@tawarmalani_05_1]. To limit the number of variables we avoid introducing variables for $f$ and its derivatives and rather define them using macros. We do however introduce auxiliary variables for the iterates of the algorithm as well as variables that capture the residuals, see below. Both could be avoided by the use of further macros. Since we utilize global solvers we impose finite bounds for all variables.
As discussed, we encode the choice of derivative as a set of binary variables $y_j^k$. $$\sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_j^k \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(i-1)})\right)^k \qquad \sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_j^k=1.$$ Similarly we encode the step size using discrete values $\pm 1/2^{\alpha_{it}}$. Two problems are considered, namely solution of equation systems and minimization, and in both cases we consider one-dimensional and two-dimensional problems. The minimization is assumed unconstrained, but since we impose bounds on the variables we essentially assume knowledge of an open box in which optimal solutions are found. We allow 10 steps of the algorithm. We require that at least the last iterate meets the desired convergence criteria.
For each iterate $it$ we calculate the residuals by introducing a real-valued variable $res^{(it)}$ and a binary $y_{res}^{(it)}$ denoting if the desired convergence is met ($y_{res}^{(it)}=0$) or not ($y_{res}^{(it)}=1$). For the case of equation solving we take as residuals the value of the right-hand-side of the equation (function) $res^{it}=\max_{if} |f_{if}\left({\bf x}^{(it)}\right)|$ and in the case of minimization the value of the derivative $res^{it}=\max_{ix} \left|\left.\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{ix}}\right)\right|_{{\bf x}^{(it)}}\right|$. This corresponds to the infinity norm and this is chosen since initial testing suggests more robust optimization. The absolute values are written as pair of inequalities, e.g., for equation solving $$res^{(it)} \geq \pm f_{if}\left({\bf x}^{(it)}\right) \forall if.$$ Then the binary variable is decided based on a standard big-M constraint $$M_{res} y_{res}^{(it)} \geq (res^{(it)} -\varepsilon),$$ where $M_{res}$ is the big-M constant that captures the magnitude of the residual $res$. Only iterations that do not meet the residual tolerance are counted for in the objective $$\min \sum_{it=1}^{it_{max}} y_{res}^{(it)} \left( \bar{\alpha}_{it} +\sum_{j=1}^{j_{max}} \sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_j^k \phi_j^k \right).$$ For the cost constants $\phi_j^k$ we assume a zero cost for zero exponent, a cost of 1 for exponent 1, a cost of 1.5 for an exponent of 2, a cost of 2 for an exponent of -1 and a cost of 3 for an exponent of -2. The idea is to capture the expense of inversion and exponentiation. These costs are multiplied by 1 for $f$, 10 for $f^{(1)}$ and 100 for $f^{(2)}$.
The problems considered are
- Solving $x^3=1$, $x \in [-2,2]$, $x^{(0)}=0.1$
- Solving $x \exp(x)=1$, $x \in [-2,2]$, $x^{(0)}=0.1$
- $\min_x x^4+x^3-x^2-1$, $x \in [-2,2]$, $x^{(0)}=0.1$
- Rosenbrock function in 2d $\min_{{\bf x}} 100 (x_2-x_1^2)^2+(1-x_1)^2$, ${\bf x} \in [-2,2]^2$, ${\bf x}^{(0)}=(0.7,0.75)$
- Simple 2d equation solving $x_2-x_1^2=0$, $5x_2-\exp(x_1)=0$. Here we excluded second derivatives.
- $\min_x \exp(x)+x^2$ (strongly convex with convexity parameter $2$), $x \in [-2,2]$, $x^{(0)}=0.1$
- $\min_{\bf x} (x_1-1)^2+2x_2^2-x_1x_2$, ${\bf x} \in [-1,2]^2$, ${\bf x}^{(0)}=(-1,-1)$
- $\min_{\bf x} \exp(x_1)+x_1^2+\exp(x_2)+x_1^2+x_1 x_2$, ${\bf x} \in [-1,1]^2$, $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=(0.5,0.5)$. The optimimum of $f$ is at $\mathbf{x}^*\approx (-0.257627653,-0.257627653)$
Single-Step Methods
-------------------
We tried several runs, mostly with short times (order of minute) but some with longer. The key findings is that KNITRO often fails to find feasible algorithms, even when they exist. BARON often also fails to find feasible algorithms within few minutes. In several cases BARON manages to find feasible algorithms and converge the lower bound but in many cases the lower bound stays at low levels, i.e., the certificate of optimality is relatively weak. Often the convergence behavior of BARON is improved if it is initialized with KNITRO. In some cases convergence of the optimization was improved when we enforced that residuals are decreasing with iteration $res^{it}<res^{it-1}$. It is noteworthy that in early computational experiments the optimizer also managed to furnish unexpected solutions that resulted in refining the formulation, e.g., choosing a step size $\alpha$ that resulted in direct convergence before discrete values of $\alpha$ were enforced.
Due to the relatively difficult convergence of the optimization and the relatively small number of distinct algorithms (125), we solved each problem for each algorithm in three sequential steps: first KNITRO to find good initial guesses, then BARON without convergence criterion (i.e., without imposing $y_{res}^{it_{con}}=0$) and then BARON with convergence criterion. Each of the runs was given 60 seconds in a first computational experiment and 600 seconds in a second. With the small CPU time some runs converged to the specified optimality tolerance of 0.1 (both absolute and relative), while most did not; with the higher CPU more algorithms were proven to be infeasible while, for some, feasible solutions were found. Convergence to the global optimum is not guaranteed for all cases. The main findings of this explicit enumeration is that most algorithms are infeasible. For equation-solving, in addition to Newton’s algorithm some algorithms with second derivatives are feasible. During the loop some runs resulted in internal errors. The algorithms discovered as optimal for unconstrained minimization are instructive. In the problem $\min_{x \in [-2,2]} x^4+x^3-x^2-1$, with $x^{(0)}=0.1$ the steepest descent algorithm is optimal. It is interesting to note that the algorithms do not furnish a global minimum: in the specific formulation used optimal algorithms are computationally cheap algorithms that give a stationary point. In contrast, for the minimization of the Rosenbrock function in 2d $\min_{{\bf x} \in [-2,2]^2} 100 (x_2-x_1^2)^2+(1-x_1)^2$, with $x_1^{(0)}=0.7$, $x_2^{(0)}=0.75$ steepest descent is not feasible within ten iterations which is well-known behavior. In the case of solving a single equation several algorithms were furnished as feasible.
### Unexpected Algorithms Discovered as Optimal
Two particularly interesting algorithms identified (with $\alpha_{it} <0$) are $$x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\frac{f^{(0)}(x^{(it-1)})f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}{f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)})}, \label{algo1}$$ and $$x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\frac{f^{(0)}(x^{(it-1)})(f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2}{(f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2} \label{algo2}$$ which can be seen as a combination of Newton’s algorithms for equation solving and unconstrained optimization. The step sizes found vary from iteration to iteration, but the algorithms converge also with $\alpha=-1$. There is an algorithm mentioned between the lines of section 3.1.2 in [@deuflhard2004newton] for root finding of *convex* functions, that is of high interest when examining algorithm because it seems to cover the basic idea behind . The algorithm given in [@deuflhard2004newton] is: $$x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}-s^{(it-1)}f^{(0)}(x^{(it-1)})f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)}), ~s^{(it-1)}>0, \label{algo_origin}$$ where $s^{(it-1)}$ denotes the step size. In [@deuflhard2004newton], there is also a Lemma guaranteeing the existence of an appropriate $s^{(it-1)}$ for each iteration. There is also a discussion about a step size strategy and the convergence rate of the iterative algorithm is shown to be “linear even for bad initial guesses - however, possibly arbitrarily slow”[@deuflhard2004newton], i.e., with appropriately chosen $s^{(it-1)}$ in each iteration the algorithm converges but not faster than linear. Additionally, $s^{(it-1)}$ can be chosen well enough to converge to a root but still such that the convergence of the algorithm is arbitrarily slow. In [@deuflhard2004newton], it is also said that the so-called “pseudo-convergence” characterized by “small” $\Vert f^{(1)}(x)f(x)\Vert$ may occur far from the solution point due to local ill-conditioning of the Jacobian matrix.
It is relatively easy to see that algorithm is a special case of and why it does work for convex functions (or for concave functions by changing the sign of $\alpha$). Recall that we optimized for each possible algorithm that uses up to second derivatives. Algorithm was discovered for the equation $x\exp(x)-1=0$ over $[-2,2]$ with starting point $x^{(0)}=0.1$. In this special case, step size $\frac{1}{f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)})}$ was good enough to converge within the 10 allowed iterations and $\alpha$ can be set to $-1$. We could rethink the costs of a changing $\alpha$ and the usage of the inverse of the second derivative in order to force $1\neq\alpha\neq -1$.
It is interesting to consider the convergence of such algorithms for the case that the root of the function $f$ exists only in the limit. Then, the algorithms searching for the roots can only reach $\epsilon$-convergence. For instance, consider $f(x)=x\exp(x)$, which is convex over, e.g., $X=(-\infty,-2]$. It holds that $\lim\limits_{x \to-\infty}f(x) = 0$ and for, e.g., the starting point $x^{(0)}=-5$, algorithm moves in the negative $x$-direction, i.e., the algorithm iterates to the left in each iteration. Let us now consider the algorithm given by . Here $\frac{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}{(f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2}$ operates as the step size $s^{(it-1)}$. Algorithm is more problematic, but in the special case considered here, it converges.
All in all, $\frac{1}{f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)})}$ and $\frac{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}{(f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2}$ can act as step size estimators in algorithm for specific functions. Nevertheless, the value of the algorithms furnished is questionable. We show an example where $\frac{1}{f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)})}$ and $\frac{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}{(f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2}$ cannot act as step sizes and the algorithm would not be feasible for $\alpha=-1$. Consider the function $f(x)=x^2-3$ with $f^{(1)}(x)=2x$ and $f^{(2)}(x)=2$. Algorithms and both diverge for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ except for the roots and the minimum, and some special cases where the step size $\frac{1}{f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)})}=\frac{1}{2}$ or $\frac{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}{(f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2}=\frac{x}{2}$ is exact, e.g., $x^{(0)}\in\{-2,2\}$. For example, considering with the starting points $x_1^{(0)}=3$ and $x_2^{(0)}=0.1$, we get the following iteration sequence: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&x_1^{(0)}=3 ,~&&x_2^{(0)}=0.1 \\
&x_1^{(1)}=-15 ,~&&x_2^{(1)}=0.399 \\
&x_1^{(2)}=3315 ,~&&x_2^{(2)}=1.532478801 \\
&x_1^{(3)}=-36429267622 ,~&&x_2^{(3)}=2.53090211 \\
&x_1^{(4)}=\dots ,~&&x_2^{(4)}=\dots \end{aligned}$$ showing divergence of algorithm for this simple convex function $f(x)=x^2-3$. Algorithm shows similar behavior. Although $f$ is convex, the algorithms both diverge showing that the step size estimators in and given by $\frac{1}{f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)})}$ and $\frac{f^{(1)}(x^{(it-1)})}{(f^{(2)}(x^{(it-1)}))^2}$ cannot be optimal for all convex functions.
Importance of Step Size
-----------------------
Recall that the optimization formulation allows choice of the step size aiming to mimic typical step size search. In some cases this leads to “spurious” values of the step size $\alpha$. We allow step sizes $\alpha_{it}=\pm 2^{-\bar{\alpha}_{it}}$ with $\bar{\alpha}_{it}\in \{0,1,\dots,10\}$. The algorithms discovered by our formulation might, in some cases, be rationalized as algorithms for optimal line search. There are many rules for the choice of the step size when using line-search. One of those rules can be adjusted to only use step sizes of size $\alpha_{it}=\pm 2^{-\bar{\alpha}_{it}}$. The rule says then to divide the step size by 2 as long as the current step is not feasible, i.e., the step obtained in the end does not have to be optimal but only feasible. Herein, the optimizer finds the *optimal* step size for the line-search using this rule for the given function $f$ and the given iterative algorithm. In other words, in the 1D case, step size allows each algorithm to be feasible. Good algorithms for the general case, e.g., Newton, will have a sensible step size selection, whereas other algorithms may have an apparently spurious one. In particular for $x \exp(x)-1=0$ the simplest algorithm described by $x^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}$ is the second cheapest one and the algorithm $x^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it} f\left(x^{(it-1)}\right)^2$ is surprisingly the cheapest algorithm. In contrast, for two or more dimensions, such spurious behavior is not expected or obtained. A simple optimization of the step size is not enough for an algorithm to converge to a root or a minimum of a given function, since the direction provided by the gradient is crucial. Perhaps not surprisingly, with the simple formulation not many new algorithms are found. For instance, for the well-known and quite challenging Rosenbrock function, allowing at most 20 iterations, only Newton’s algorithm is found to be feasible. This is not surprising given the quite restrictive setting, e.g., the choice of restriction $\alpha_{it}=\pm 2^{-\bar{\alpha}_{it}}$. Note also that the global optimizer did not converge in all cases so that we cannot exclude the existence of feasible algorithms.
Two-Step Methods {#sect:Nesterov}
----------------
We first considered the 1-dimensional strongly convex problem $\min_x \exp(x)+x^2$ over $X=[-2,2]$ with starting point $x^{(0)}=y^{(0)}=0.1$.
We also considered the minimization of $f(x_1,x_2)=(x_1-1)^2+2x_2^2-x_1x_2$ over $[-1,2]^2$ with starting point $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)}=(-1,-1)$. The function is convex and one could argue that it is too simple but if we want to find any algorithm that converges within a predefined maximum number of iterations $it_{con}$, there of course has to exist such an algorithm in first place.
[0.5]{}
[optimal\_algorithms\_twostep\_2D.png]{}(52,40)
(0,0)–(0.25,0); at (1.2,0) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\nabla f$]{}; (0,-0.4)–(0.25,-0.4); at (1.4,-0.4) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it} f^2 \nabla f^2$]{}; (0,-0.8)–(0.25,-0.8); at (1.3,-0.8) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\frac{\nabla f}{\nabla^2 f}$]{}; (0,-1.2)–(0.25,-1.2); at (1.55,-1.2) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\nabla f \nabla^2 f$]{}; (0,-1.6)–(0.25,-1.6); at (1.60,-1.6) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\frac{\nabla f \nabla^2 f}{f}$]{};
[0.5]{} ![5 cheapest algorithms for the minimization of $f(x_1,x_2)=(x_1-1)^2+2x_2^2-x_1x_2$ over $X=[-1,2]^2$ with starting point $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)}=(-1,-1)$. Nesterov’s algorithm (shown in red) is found to be the cheapest. All algorithms seem very similar as they all use gradient information with only small differences in the additional function value multiplicator and the use of hessian information.[]{data-label="fig5"}](optimal_algorithms_twostep_2D_contour.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
The results can be seen in Fig. \[fig5\]. We found 11 feasible algorithms for this problem. We allowed at most 20 iterations. The 5 cheapest algorithms did not even require 5 iterations and the 6 other feasible algorithms also converged in under 5 iterations. Nesterov’s method is the cheapest one found for this particular problem. In general, one could say that, except for Newton’s method (green curve in Fig. \[fig5\]), all algorithms are alterations of Nesterov’s method.
Additionally, we considered the minimization of the convex function $f(x_1,x_2)=\exp(x_1)+x_1^2+\exp(x_2)+x_1^2+x_1 x_2$ over $[-1,1]^2$ with starting point $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)}=(0.5,0.5)$. The optimimum of $f$ is at $\mathbf{x}^*\approx (-0.257627653,-0.257627653)$. The results can be seen in Fig. \[fig6\]. Note that this time Newton’s algorithm is **not** among the 5 cheapest algorithms for this problem.
[0.5]{}
[optimal\_algorithms\_twostep\_2D\_solvable.png]{}(52,40)
(0,0)–(0.25,0); at (1.3,0) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\nabla f$]{}; (0,-0.4)–(0.25,-0.4); at (1.3,-0.4) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it} \frac{\nabla f}{f}$]{}; (0,-0.8)–(0.25,-0.8); at (1.3,-0.8) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\frac{\nabla f}{ f^2}$]{}; (0,-1.2)–(0.25,-1.2); at (1.3,-1.2) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it} f \nabla f$]{}; (0,-1.6)–(0.25,-1.6); at (1.3,-1.6) [$y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it}\nabla f^2$]{};
[0.5]{} ![5 cheapest algorithms for the minimization of $f(x_1,x_2)=\exp(x_1)+x_1^2+\exp(x_2)+x_1^2+x_1 x_2$ over $[-1,1]^2$ with starting point $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)}=(0.5,0.5)$. Nesterov’s algorithm is the cheapest shown in red. All algorithms seem again very similar as they all use gradient information with only small differences in the additional function value multiplicator and the use of hessian information. Note that Newton’s algorithm is not among the 5 cheapest.[]{data-label="fig6"}](optimal_algorithms_twostep_2D_contour_solvable.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
It is also important to remark that the 5 algorithms all follow the same path, as can be seen in the contour plot shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. This is caused by the choice of the starting point and by the symmetry of the considered function. The examples show that it is possible for us to find and discover non-trivial algorithms if the formulation is adjusted appropriately, albeit at high cost of solving the optimization formulations.
Initial conditions
------------------
After finding two-step algorithms for the functions mentioned in section \[sect:Nesterov\], we investigated the behavior of the 5 cheapest algorithms for several starting points.
Let us first discuss the results for the strongly convex function $\exp(x)+x^2$ over $[-2,2]$ and the 5 cheapest algorithms found. We chose 17 different starting points $$x^{(0)}=y^{(0)} \in \{-2,-1.75,\dots,2 \}.$$ All five algorithms found for the starting point $x^{(0)}=y^{(0)}=0.1$ were also feasible for the 17 starting points considered. Nesterov’s method is “best” among these in the sense that it was the cheapest in 15 cases and second cheapest in the remaining 2 cases. A similar statement cannot be made on the other 4 algorithms since their ranking w.r.t. cost varied depending on the initial point. Still, none of the 4 other algorithms had significant increases in cost which can probably be explained by the strong convexity of the considered function and the similarity with Nesterov’s method manifested in the 4 algorithms.
Next, let us discuss the results for $f(x_1,x_2)=(x_1-1)^2+2x_2^2-x_1x_2$ over $[-1,2]^2$ and the 5 cheapest algorithms shown in Fig.\[fig5\] for starting point $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)}=(-1,-1)$. We chose 15 different starting points $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)} \in \{(2,2)$, (2,1), (2,0), (2,-1), (1,2), (1,1), (1,0), (1,-1), (0,2), (0,1), (0,0), (0,-1), (-1,2), (-1,1), (-1,0), $(-1,-1)\}$. Nesterov’s method and Newton converged for all starting points and Nesterov was the cheapest for every initial condition. The other algorithms did not converge for all starting points or even became infeasible, e.g., the algorithm $y^{(it-1)}+\alpha_{it} f^2 \nabla f^2$ was infeasible for every starting point containing a 0 coordinate. Still, even though the unknown algorithms were infeasible for some starting points, the ranking w.r.t. the cost did not change for the cases where all algorithms converged.
Last, let us discuss the results for $f(x_1,x_2)=\exp(x_1)+x_1^2+\exp(x_2)+x_1^2+x_1 x_2$ over $[-1,1]^2$ and the 5 cheapest algorithms shown in Fig.\[fig6\] for starting point $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)}=(0.5,0.5)$. We chose 13 different starting points $\mathbf{x}^{(0)}=\mathbf{y}^{(0)} \in \{(-1,-1)$, (-1,0), (-1,1), (0,-1), (0,0), (0,1), (1,-1), (1,0), (1,1), (0.4,0.3), (0.9,-0.1), (-0.6,-0.8), $(-0.3,-0.9)\}$. Here we could observe a behavior that was not quite expected. The algorithms only converged for the each of 7 starting points $\{(-1,-1),$ (0,0), (0,1), (1,-1), (1,0), (1,1), $(0.4,0.3)\}$. Some of these 7 starting points are placed on the diagonal path taken by the algorithms, seen in Fig.\[fig6\] and the other starting points seemed to simply provide useful derivative information. The algorithms either were infeasible for the other 6 starting points or the optimizer did not converge in the given time. Likely the infeasibility is since we used (as commonly done) the same $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for both coordinates in the algorithms and since the chosen function has symmetrical properties, the algorithms only converge under some specific conditions. In that sense the proposed method gives insight into devising new algorithmic ideas, e.g., different $\beta$ for different coordinates.
Discussion of Possible Extensions {#sec:extendprob}
=================================
In principle, the proposed formulation can be applied to any problem and algorithm. In this section we list illustrative extensions to other problems of interest, starting with relatively straightforward steps and progressing towards exploratory possibilities.
*Optimal Tuning of Algorithms.* Many algorithms have tuning parameters. Optimizing these for a given fixed algorithm using similar formulations as presented is straightforward. Of course, alternative proposals exist, e.g., [@weinan2016].
*Matrix.* Regarding the possibility of working with matrices, a formulation for finding algorithms from the family of Quasi-Newton methods could be formulated. The general idea of the Quasi-Newton methods is to update an approximate Hessian matrix with the use of gradient difference $\nabla f(x^{(it)})-\nabla f(x^{(it-1)})$. Then an approximation of the Hessian matrix is computed by the use of, e.g., Broyden’s method or the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell formula, which both can be expressed with one equation.
*Rational Polynomial Algorithms.* A rather obvious generalization is to consider not just a single monomial but rather rational polynomials involving the derivatives. More generally this could be extended to include non-integer and possibly even irrational powers. This would also allow algorithms involving Taylor-series expansion. No conceptual difficulty exists for an optimization formulation similar to the above but the number of variables increases.
*Integral Operations.* The formulation essentially also allows algorithms that perform integration, if $f^{(j)}$ with $j<0$ is allowed. Obviously for multivariate programs ($n_x>1$) the dimensionality needs to be appropriately considered.
*Implicit Methods.* Implicit methods, e.g., implicit Euler, do not only involve evaluation of derivatives but also the solution of a system of equations at each step. In other words we cannot directly write such methods as monomials in Definition \[def:ratpolalgo\]. However, it is conceptually relatively easy to adjust the formulation, in particular by changing the update scheme to something along the lines of $$x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)} + \alpha \Pi_{j=0}^{j_{max}} \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it)})\right)^{\nu_{j,1}}.$$ Computationally, the optimization problems will become substantially harder. The variables $x^{(it)}$ cannot be directly eliminated but rather the equations have to be given to the optimizer or addressed as implicit functions, see [@barton_06_1; @stuber_14_1].
*General Multistep Methods.* Explicit multistep methods are those that calculate the current iterate based not only on the immediately previous but rather also on additional preceding steps. Examples include multistep integration methods as well as derivative-free equation solution methods such as secant or bisection. It is straightforward to extend the formulations to allow such methods. e.g., for two-step methods $$\begin{aligned}
x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)} &+ \alpha_1 \Pi_{j=0}^{j_{max,1}} \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it-1)})\right)^{\nu_{j,1}}\\
&+ \alpha_2 \Pi_{j=0}^{j_{max,2}} \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it-2)})\right)^{\nu_{j,2}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Obviously the number of optimization variables increases accordingly. This can also be used for methods that rely on approximation of derivatives, e.g., Quasi-Newton methods. Similarly, methods such as secant can be encoded by allowing mixed polynomials of ${\bf x}$ along with ${\bf f}^{(j)}$. Bisection is not captured as this requires if-then-else; however, it should be relatively easy to capture this using integer variables which fits the proposed MINLP framework. Obviously for *implicit multistep* methods the two preceding formulations can be combined with a formulation along the lines of $$x^{(it)}=x^{(it-1)}+ \sum_{\hat{it}=\hat{it}_{min}}^{\hat{it}_{max}} \alpha_{it,\hat{it}} \Pi_{j=0}^{j_{max,1}} \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it+\hat{it})})\right)^{\nu_{j,\hat{it}}}.$$
*Global Optimization.* A challenge in global optimization is that there are no explicit optimality criteria that can be used in the formulation. The definition of global optimality $ f\left({\bf x}^*\right) \leq f\left({\bf x}\right)$, $\forall {\bf x} \in X $ can be added to the optimization of algorithm formulation but this results in a (generalized) semi-infinite problem (SIP). There are methods to deal with SIP problems but they are computationally very expensive [@mitsos_08_siprestricted]. Another challenge is that deterministic and stochastic global methods do not follow the simple update using just monomials as in Definition \[def:ratpolalgo\]. As such, major conceptual difficulties are expected for such algorithms, including an estimation of the cost of calculating the relaxations. Moreover, to estimate the cost of such algorithms the results of ongoing analysis in the spirit of automatic differentiation will be required [@du_94_1; @mitsos_10_mcrate]. and the cost does not only depend on the values of the derivatives at a point. For instance in $\alpha$BB [@maranas_92_1; @adjiman_96_1] one needs to estimate the eigenvalues of the Hessian for the domain; in McCormick relaxations [@mccormick_76_1; @mitsos_12_mcmul] the cost depends on how many times the composition theorem has to be applied. Recall also the discussion on cost for some local algorithms such as line-search methods.
*Optimal Algorithms with Optimal Steps.* Another interesting class are algorithms that include an optimization step within them, such as selection of an optimal step, e.g., [@zhang2014spectral; @wibisono2016variational]. We can consider a bilevel formulation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\min \sum_{it=1}^{it_{con}}&\phi(g(x^{(it)},z^{(it)})) \label{bilevel}\\
\text{s.t. } x^{(it)}&=g(x^{(it-1)},z^{(it-1)}), \quad i=1,\dots, it_{con} \notag\\
z^{(it)} &\in \arg \min_{z'} f(x^{(it-1)},z'), \quad i=1,\dots, it_{con}, \notag\end{aligned}$$ describing problems where the next step is given by an optimality condition, e.g., $f$ could describe the least squares formulation for the substep in a generalized Gauss-Newton algorithm in which the outer problem is similar to the formulation above, while the lower-level problem uses a different objective to calculate the optimal step. There exist (quite expensive) approaches to solve bilevel programs with nonconvexities [@mitsos_06_2]. When the lower level problem is unconstrained regarding $f$ can be avoided, as is the case in generalized Gauss-Newton algorithms, then the problem becomes much simpler. Note that although we have several $\arg \min$, they are not correlated, i.e., we do not obtain a $n$-level optimization problem but rather a bilevel problem with multiple lower level problems. With such a formulation we might be able to prove optimality of one of the three gradient methods described in [@wibisono2016variational] or discover alternatives. Additionally it would be possible to discover well-known methods such as the nonlinear conjugate gradient method [@luenberger1973introduction], where the line search is described by the $\arg \min$ operator or even stochastic methods which often depend on the computation of the maximum expected value of some iterative random variable $\mathcal{X}^{(it)}$. Similarly, it could be possible to find the desired controller algorithm in [@economou1985].
*Continuous Form.* Discrete methods are often reformulated in a continuous form. For instance, Boggs proposed a continuous form of Newton’s method [@boggs_71_1; @boggs_76_1] $ \dot{x}(t)=\frac{f(x(t))}{f^{(1)}(x(t))}$. See also the recent embedding of discrete algorithms like Nesterov’s scheme in continuous implementations [@jordan_16_1; @candes_15_1]. It seems possible to consider the optimization of these continuous variants of the algorithms using similar formulations. Typically discretization methods are used to optimize with such dynamics embedded. Thus, this continuous formulation seems more challenging to solve than the discrete form above. If a particular structure of the problem can be recognized, it could however be interesting, for instance to apply a relaxation similar to [@sager_09_1].
*Dynamic Simulation Algorithms.* The task here is to simulate a dynamical system, e.g., ordinary differential equations (ODE) $ \dot{\bf x}(t)={\bf f}({\bf x}(t)) $ along with some initial conditions ${\bf x}(t=0)={\bf x}^{init}$ for a given time interval $[0,t_f]$. We need to define what is meant by a feasible algorithm. A natural definition involves the difference of the computed time trajectory from the exact solution, which is not known and thus does not yield an explicit condition. One should therefore check the degree to which the resulting approximate curve, possibly after interpolation, satisfies the differential equation over this time interval.
*Dynamic Optimization Algorithms.* Dynamic optimization combines the difficulties of optimization and dynamic simulation. Moreover, it results in a somewhat amusing cyclic problem: we require an algorithm for the solution of dynamic optimization problems to select a dynamic optimization algorithm. As aforementioned, this is not prohibitive, e.g., in the offline design of an algorithm to be used online.
*Algorithms in the Limit.* Considering algorithms that provably converge to the correct solution in the limit makes the optimization problem more challenging. The infinite-dimension formulation is in principle applicable with the aforementioned challenges. If the finite (parametrized) formulation , was directly applied, an infinite number of variables would have to be solved for. In such cases one could test for asymptotic self-similarity of the algorithm behavior as a way of assessing its asymptotic result.
*Quantum Algorithms.* A potential breakthrough in computational engineering would be realized by quantum computers. These will require new algorithms, and there are several scientists that are developing such algorithms. It would thus be of extreme interest to consider the extension of the proposed formulation to quantum algorithms and/or their real-world realizations. This may result in “regular” optimization problems or problems that need to be solved with quantum algorithms themselves.
Limitations
===========
The proposed formulation is prototypical and a number of challenges arise naturally. As aforementioned, the knowledge of an explicit cost may not be a good approximation for all problems. It is also clear that different objective functions, including, e.g., considerations of memory usage or the inclusion of error correction features, may dramatically effect the results.
We expect the proposed optimization formulation to be very hard to solve and the numerical results confirm this. In particular we expect it to be at least as hard as the original problems. Proving that statement is outside the scope of the manuscript but two arguments are given, namely that the final constraint corresponds to solution of problem and that the subproblems of the optimization problem are the same or at least related to the original problem.
Herein brute force and general-purpose solvers are used for the solution of the optimization problems. It is conceivable to develop specialized numerical algorithms that will perform much better than general-purpose ones due to the specific structure. In essence we have an integer problem with linear objective and a single nonlinear constraint. It seems promising to mask the intermediate variables from the optimizer. This would in essence follow the optimization with implicit functions embedded [@barton_06_1] and follow-up work. It is also conceivable to move to parallel computing, but suitable algorithms are not yet parallelized.
In our formulation, $f$ is assumed to be a given function, so that we can apply current numerical methods for the optimization. It is, however, possible to consider multiple instances of the problem simultaneously, i.e., allow $f$ to be among a class of functions. This can be done similar to stochastic optimization [@birge_book_1]. A simple method is to sample the instances of interest (functions $f$) and optimize for some weighted/average performance of the algorithm. Alternatively, the instances can be parametrized by continuous parameters and the objective in the above formulations replaced with some metric of the parameter distribution, e.g., the expectation of the cost. It is also possible, and likely promising, to consider worst-case performance, e.g., in a min-max formulation [@falk_77_1]. It is also interesting to consider the relation of this work to the theorems developed in [@wolpert1997no], in particular that optimality of an algorithm over one class of problems does not guarantee optimality over another class.
Relation to Computational Complexity
====================================
As mentioned above, we expect our formulation to be at least as hard as the original problems. This would imply that the formulation cannot be easy to solve when the problems themselves are NP-hard.
A potential breakthrough would be if for a particular instance of a given NP-hard problem an algorithm is furnished that is shown to have polynomial complexity. This would directly imply that P=NP. In contrast, if algorithms of exponential complexity are furnished for a given instance problem this does not prove that P $\neq$ NP, although the conclusion is tempting (“if the best-possible algorithm is exponential, then no polynomial algorithm exists”). To begin with, all possible algorithms would have to be allowed in the formulation to be able to conclude that no better algorithm exists. Moreover, we propose methods to solve for a *fixed size* problem. The best algorithm for that size may exhibit exponential complexity, but this does not prove that there does not exist a polynomial algorithm which will be better for very large sizes. For instance, consider linear programs: simplex variants with exponential complexity outperform interior-point methods of polynomial complexity for all but the largest sizes. It is however, conceivable to use our formulation to obtain some insight. For instance, solving instances of different sizes and observing if the same algorithm is found optimal or if the optimal algorithm depends on the instance size.
Conclusions
===========
An MINLP formulation is proposed that can readily devise optimal algorithms (among a relatively large family of algorithms) for several prototypical problems, including solution of nonlinear equations and nonlinear optimization. Simple numerical case studies demonstrate that well-known algorithms can be identified along with new ones. We argue that the formulation is conceptually extensible to many interesting classes of problems, including quantum algorithms. Substantial work is now needed to develop and implement these extensions so as to numerically devise optimal algorithms for interesting classes of challenging problems where such algorithms are simply not known. Also, the similarity to model-reference adaptive control (MRAC) and internal model control (IMC) can be further explored in the future. The optimization problems obtained can, however, be very challenging and no claim is made that optimal algorithm discovery will be computationally cheap. However, in addition to the theoretical interest, there are certainly applications. Finding guaranteed optimal algorithms for a given problem implies understanding/classifying the difficulty of this problem. And it will certainly be worthwhile to automatically devise algorithms offline for problems to be solved online.
Solution of Equation Systems
============================
For illustration purposes we will discuss the solution of equation systems using only zero and first derivatives. The zero derivative $f^{(0)}\left({\bf x}^{(it)}\right)$ is a vector of the same size as the point ${\bf x}$. By definition, the required polynomial expression of the derivative $\left(f^{(0)}\left({\bf x}^{(it)}\right)\right)^{\nu_k}$ is calculated element by element. Thus, we can equivalently rewrite each element $if$ of the vector $\left({\bf f}^{(0)}\left({\bf x}^{(it-1)}\right)\right)^{\nu_k}$ as $\sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_0^k \left(f^{(0)}_{if}\left({\bf x}^{(it-1)}\right)\right)^k$ along with a constraint $\sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_0^k=1$. In contrast, the first derivative is the Jacobian matrix ${\bf J}$ with elements $\left.\frac{\partial f_{if}}{\partial x_{ix}}\right|_{{\bf x}^{(it)}}$. In principle the inverse can be written analytically but this is only realistic for small-scale systems. For systems of substantial sizes, it is better to calculate the direction via the solution of an equation system. $${\bf J}\left({\bf x}^{(it-1)}\right) \Delta {\bf x}= \left({\bf f}^{(0)}\left({\bf x}^{(it-1)}\right)\right)^{\nu_k},$$ the solution of which gives us the direction $\Delta {\bf x}$ to be taken if the optimizer selects the inverse of the Jacobian, i.e., sets $\nu_1=-1$. Similarly for other values of $\nu_1$ we have to calculate other steps via explicit matrix multiplication or via similar equation systems. As aforementioned, the equations can be explicitly or implicitly written, see [@barton_06_1] and its extensions [@stuber_14_1].
Alternative to Obtain a Regular Optimization Problem
====================================================
For the sake of simplicity an alternative is presented to obtaining a finite number of variables in the optimal control problem. Again a maximal number of iterations $it_{max}$ is considered and the cost is penalized by the residual, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{g, {x}^{(it)}} \sum_{it=1}^{it_{max}} \left|f\left(x^{(it)}\right)\right| \phi\left(g\left(x^{(it)}\right)\right) \notag \\
&\text{s.t. } x^{(it)}=g\left(x^{(it-1)}\right), \quad it=1,2,\dots, it_{max} \\
& \left|f\left(x^{(it_{max})}\right)\right| < \varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where again the last constraint ensures convergence. Without it, if algorithms with zero cost exist, then these will be chosen even if they are infeasible; they will give a zero objective value without meeting convergence.
Obtaining a Regular MINLP
=========================
The finite problem proposed contains terms $\left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it-1)})\right)^{\nu_j}$. We thus exponentiate a potentially negative real-valued ($f^{(j)}(x^{(it-1)})$) to the power $\nu_j$. At feasible points $\nu_j$ is integer and thus the operation well-defined. However, in intermediate iterations of the optimization, e.g., in branch-and-bound, $\nu_j$ may be real-valued and thus the operation is not defined. Consequently, the optimization formulation cannot be directly solved using standard MINLP solvers. It is however, relatively easy to reformulate as an MINLP with linear dependence on the integer variables. One way is to introduce for each $j$ as many binary variables $y_j^k$ as we have potential values for $\nu_j$ and enforce that exactly one is zero (special case of SOS-1 set). Then the term $f^{(j)}(x^{(it-1)})$ is equivalently rewritten as $\sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_j^k \left(f^{(j)}(x^{(it-1)})\right)^k$ along with a constraint $\sum_{k=k_{min}}^{k_{max}} y_j^k=1$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
IGK and AM are indebted to the late C.A. Floudas for bringing them together. Fruitful discussions with G.A. Kevrekidis and the help of C.W. Gear with the continuous formulation are greatly appreciated.
This project has received funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) “Improved McCormick Relaxations for the efficient Global Optimization in the Space of Degrees of Freedom” MA 1188/34-1. The work of IGK was partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (CDS&E program), by the US AFOSR (Dr. F. Darema) and DARPA contract HR0011-16-C-0016.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The Maxwell equations for the spherical components of the electromagnetic fields outside sources do not separate into equations for each component alone. We show, however, that general solutions can be obtained by separation of variables in the case of azimuthal symmetry. Boundary conditions are easier to apply to these solutions, and their forms highlight the similarities and differences between the electric and magnetic cases in both time-independent and time-dependent situations. Instructive examples of direct calculation of electric and magnetic fields from localized charge and current distributions are presented.\
*Keywords:* Maxwell equations; spherical coordinates; electric and magnetic fields; boundary-value problems.\
Las ecuaciones de Maxwell para las componentes esféricas de campos electromagnéticos en regiones libres de fuentes no son separables en ecuaciones para cada una de sus componentes. Se muestra, sin embargo, que soluciones generales pueden ser obtenidas por separación de variables en el caso de simetría azimutal. Las condiciones de borde son fáciles de aplicar para estas soluciones, y sus formas destacan las similitudes y diferencias entre los casos eléctrico y magnético, tanto para las situaciones independientes del tiempo como para las de tiempo dependientes. Se presentan ejemplos instructivos de cálculos directos de campos eléctricos y magnéticos producidos por distribuciones localizadas de cargas y corrientes.\
*Descriptores:* Ecuaciones de Maxwell; coordenadas esféricas; campos eléctrico y magnético; problemas con condiciones de borde.\
PACS: 03.50.De; 41.20.Cv; 41.20.Gz
author:
- 'E.A. Matute'
title: |
On the vector solutions of Maxwell equations\
in spherical coordinate systems
---
Introduction
============
The Maxwell equations for the electromagnetic field vectors, expressed in the International System of Units (SI), are [@Panofsky] $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\bf \nabla} \cdot {\bf D} = \rho , \hspace{1cm} {\bf \nabla}
{\bf \times} {\bf E} = - \displaystyle \frac{\partial {\bf
B}}{\partial t} , \nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\ & & {\bf \nabla}
\cdot {\bf B} = 0 , \hspace{1cm} {\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} {\bf H}
= {\bf J} + \displaystyle \frac{\partial {\bf D}}{\partial t} ,
\label{Maxwell}\end{aligned}$$ where the source terms $\rho$ and ${\bf J}$ describe the densities of electric charge and current, respectively. For a linear, isotropic medium ${\bf D}$ and ${\bf H}$ are connected with the basic fields ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$ by the constitutive relations $${\bf D} = \epsilon {\bf E} , \;\;\;\; {\bf H} = {\bf B}/\mu ,
\label{linear}$$ where $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are the permittivity and permeability of the medium, respectively.
The boundary conditions for fields at a boundary surface between two different media are [@Panofsky+] $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\bf n} \cdot ({\bf D}_{1} - {\bf D}_{2}) = \rho_{S} ,
\hspace{0.5cm} {\bf n} {\bf \times} ({\bf E}_{1} - {\bf E}_{2}) =
{\bf 0} , \nonumber
\\ & & \nonumber \\
& & {\bf n} \cdot ({\bf B}_{1} - {\bf B}_{2}) = 0 , \hspace{0.7cm}
{\bf n} {\bf \times} ({\bf H}_{1} - {\bf H}_{2}) = {\bf J}_{S} ,
\label{boundary}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{S}$ and ${\bf J}_{S}$ denote the surface charge and current densities, respectively, and the normal unit vector ${\bf n}$ is drawn from the second into the first region. The interior and exterior fields satisfy the homogeneous vector wave equations $$\begin{aligned}
& \nabla^{2} {\bf E} - \epsilon \mu \; \displaystyle
\frac{\partial^2 {\bf E}}{\partial t^2} = {\bf 0} , & \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\ & \nabla^{2} {\bf B} - \epsilon \mu \;
\displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 {\bf B}}{\partial t^2} = {\bf 0} ,
& \label{Dalembert}\end{aligned}$$ which are obtained from Eqs. (\[Maxwell\]) and (\[linear\]) for regions free of charge and current by combining the two curl equations and making use of the divergence equations together with the vector identity $$\nabla^{2} (\;\;) = {\bf \nabla} ({\bf \nabla} \cdot \;\;) -
{\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} ({\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} \;\;) .
\label{nablas}$$ Changes in the electromagnetic fields propagate with speed $v=1/\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}$ .
Without any loss of generality, we may consider only harmonic time dependence for sources and fields: $$\begin{aligned}
& \rho({\bf r},t) = \rho({\bf r}) e^{-i \omega t} , \hspace{0.5cm}
{\bf J}({\bf r},t) = {\bf J}({\bf r}) e^{-i \omega t} , & \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\ & {\bf E}({\bf r},t) = {\bf E}({\bf r}) e^{-i
\omega t} , \hspace{0.5cm} {\bf B}({\bf r},t) = {\bf B}({\bf r})
e^{-i \omega t} , & \label{harmonic}\end{aligned}$$ where the real part of each expression is implied. Equation (\[Dalembert\]) then becomes time-independent: $$\nabla^{2} {\bf E} + k^2 \; {\bf E} = 0 , \hspace{0.5cm}
\nabla^{2} {\bf B} + k^2 \; {\bf B} = 0 , \label{Helmholtz}$$ where $k^2=\epsilon\mu\omega^2$. These are vector Helmholtz equations for transverse fields having zero divergence. Their solutions subject to arbitrary boundary conditions are considered more complicated than those of the corresponding scalar equations, since only in Cartesian coordinates the Laplacian of a vector field is the vector sum of the Laplacian of its separated components. For spherical coordinates, as for any other curvilinear coordinate system, we are faced with a highly complicated set of three simultaneous equations, each equation involving all three components of the vector field. This complication is well known and general techniques for solving these equations have been developed, based on a dyadic Green’s function which transforms the boundary conditions and source densities into the vector solution [@Morse]. We shall show, however, that in the case of spherical boundary conditions with azimuthal symmetry, the solution can be obtained more conveniently by means of separation of variables. Several applications of physical interest can then be treated in this simplified way, so avoiding the dyadic method [@Matute].
Actually, the usual technique for solving boundary-value problems introduces the electromagnetic potentials as intermediary field quantities. These are defined by [@Jackson] $${\bf B} = {\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} {\bf A} , \hspace{0.5cm} {\bf
E} = - {\bf \nabla} \phi - \frac{\partial {\bf A}}{\partial t} ,$$ with the subsidiary Lorentz condition $${\bf \nabla} \cdot {\bf A} + \epsilon \mu \;
\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = 0 .$$ It is then found that these potentials satisfy the inhomogeneous wave equations $$\begin{aligned}
& \nabla^{2} \phi - \epsilon \mu \; \displaystyle \frac{\partial^2
\phi}{\partial t^2} = - \frac{\rho}{\epsilon} , & \nonumber \\ & &
\nonumber \\ & \nabla^{2} {\bf A} - \epsilon \mu \; \displaystyle
\frac{\partial^2 {\bf A}}{\partial t^2} = - \mu {\bf J} , &\end{aligned}$$ which together with the Lorentz condition form a set of equations equivalent to the Maxwell equations. The boundary conditions for the potentials may be deduced from Eq. (\[boundary\]).
For fields that vary with an angular frequency $\omega$, i.e. $$\phi({\bf r},t) = \phi({\bf r}) e^{-i \omega t} , \hspace{0.5cm}
{\bf A}({\bf r},t) = {\bf A}({\bf r}) e^{-i \omega t} ,$$ we get equations that do not depend on time in regions free of charge and current: $$\begin{aligned}
& \nabla^{2} \phi + k^2 \; \phi = 0 , & \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\ & \nabla^{2} {\bf A} + k^2 \; {\bf A} = 0 , &
\label{pots}\end{aligned}$$ which are like those in Eq. (\[Helmholtz\]) for the electric and magnetic induction fields, so that in general we also confront, for the vector potential, the mathematical complexities mentioned above for the electromagnetic fields.
The purpose of this paper is to get general solutions of the electromagnetic vector equations in spherical coordinates with azimuthal symmetry using separation of variables in spite of having equations that mix field components. Boundary conditions are easier to apply to these solutions, and their forms highlight the similarities and differences between the electric and magnetic cases in both time-independent and time-dependent situations. The approach shows that boundary-value problems can be solved for the electric and magnetic vector fields directly, and that the process involves the same kind of mathematics as the usual approach of solving for potentials. The material in this work may be used in a beginning graduate course in classical electromagnetism or mathematical methods for physicists. It is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we describe the method for the static case showing how the mathematical complications of solving the vector field equations are easily overcome by means of separation of variables. In Sec. 3 we extend the method to discuss the case of time-varying fields. Concluding remarks are given in Sec. 4.
Static fields
=============
For steady-state electric and magnetic phenomena, the fields outside sources satisfy the vector Laplace equations $$\nabla^{2} {\bf E} = {\bf 0} , \hspace{0.5cm} \nabla^{2} {\bf B} =
{\bf 0} ,$$ where only transverse components with zero divergence are involved. Supposing all the charge and current are on the bounding surfaces, solutions in different regions can be connected through the boundary conditions indicated in Eq. (\[boundary\]). To demonstrate the features of the treatment, we first consider boundary-value problems with azimuthal symmetry in electrostatics. The solution of stationary current problems in magnetostatics is mathematically identical.
Combining the expressions for ${\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} ({\bf
\nabla} {\bf \times} {\bf E}) = {\bf 0}$ and ${\bf \nabla} \cdot
{\bf E} = 0$ in spherical coordinates and assuming no $\varphi$-dependence, we find using Eq. (\[nablas\]) that the components of the electric field $E_{r}$ and $E_{\theta}$ satisfy the equations $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla^{2} {\bf E})_{r} & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{2}} \;
\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial r^{2}} (r^{2} E_{r}) \nonumber \\ & +
& \frac{1}{r^{2} \sin \, \theta} \; \frac{\partial}{\partial
\theta} (\sin \, \theta \; \frac{\partial E_{r}}{\partial \theta})
\, = \, 0 ,
\label{radial} \\ & & \nonumber \\
(\nabla^{2} {\bf E})_{\theta} & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{r} \;
\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial r^{2}} (r E_{\theta}) - \frac{1}{r}
\; \frac{\partial^2 E_{r}}{\partial r
\partial \theta} \, = \, 0 .
\label{angular}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[radial\]) is for $E_{r}$ alone, whereas Eq. (\[angular\]) involves both components. There is also a separated equation for $E_{\varphi}$: $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla^{2} {\bf E})_{\varphi} & = & \frac{1}{r} \;
\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial r^{2}} (r E_{\varphi}) +
\frac{1}{r^{2} \sin \, \theta} \; \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}
\nonumber \\ & \times & (\sin \, \theta \; \frac{\partial
E_{\varphi}}{\partial \theta}) - \, \frac{1}{r^{2} \sin^{2}
\theta} \; E_{\varphi} \, = \, 0 .
\label{phiField}\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, however, we will not be concerned about those cylindrical symmetry cases where only the $\varphi$-component of the vector field is nonzero because a scalar technique of separation of variables is already known to obtain the solution [@Arfken].
Using the transverse condition $${\bf \nabla} \cdot {\bf E} =
\frac{1}{r^{2}} \; \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r^{2} E_{r}) +
\frac{1}{r \sin \, \theta} \; \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}
(\sin \, \theta \; E_{\theta}) = 0 ,
\label{div}$$ where azimuthal symmetry is assumed, Eq. (\[radial\]) implies $$\frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r E_{\theta}) -
\frac{\partial E_{r}}{\partial \theta} = 0 ,
\label{good}$$ which is consistent with Eq. (\[angular\]). Thus, to obtain $E_{\theta}$ from $E_{r}$ we can consider either Eq. (\[div\]) or Eq. (\[good\]). These equations correspond to choosing a gauge when this method is applied to the vector potential.
Now, in order to solve Eq. (\[radial\]) for $E_{r}$, we refer to the method of separation of variables and write the product form $$E_{r}(r,\theta) = \frac{u(r)}{r^2} \; P(\theta) ,$$ which leads to the following separated differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
& \displaystyle \frac{d^{2}u}{dr^{2}} - \frac{n(n+1)}{r^{2}} \; u = 0 , &
\label{req} \\ & & \nonumber \\
& \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sin \, \theta} \; \frac{d}{d \theta}
(\sin \, \theta \; \frac{d P}{d \theta}) + n (n + 1) P = 0 , &
\label{Legendre}\end{aligned}$$ where $n(n+1)$ is the separation constant. The solution of Eq. (\[req\]) is $$u(r) = a \, r^{n+1} + \frac{b}{r^{n}} ,$$ where $a$ and $b$ are arbitrary constants. Equation (\[Legendre\]) is the Legendre equation of order $n$ and the only solution which is single valued, finite and continuous over the whole interval corresponds to the Legendre polynomial $P_{n}(\cos \, \theta)$, $n$ being restricted to positive integer values. Thus the general solution for $E_{r}$ is $$E_{r}(r,\theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( a_{n} r^{n-1} +
\frac{b_{n}}{r^{n+2}} \right) P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) .
\label{Er}$$ The simplest way of solving Eq. (\[div\]) for $E_{\theta}$ is to use the series expansion $$E_{\theta}(r,\theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} v_{n}(r) \; \frac{d}{d\theta}
P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) ,
\label{Etheta}$$ where $v_{n}(r)$ are functions to be determined. By replacing Eqs. (\[Er\]) and (\[Etheta\]) into Eq. (\[div\]), it is found that $$v_{n}(r) = \frac{a_{n}}{n} \; r^{n-1} - \frac{b_{n}}{n+1} \;
\frac{1}{r^{n+2}}
\label{v}$$ for $n \geq 1$ with $a_{o} = 0$; this null factor in Eq. (\[Er\]) means the absence of static field terms of the $1/r$ type, which are in reality typical of radiative fields as shown below. Clearly, the solutions given in Eqs. (\[Er\]), (\[Etheta\]) and (\[v\]) satisfy Eq. (\[good\]). The coefficients $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are to be determined from the boundary conditions. For completeness, we include here the well-behaved general solution of Eq. (\[phiField\]): $$E_{\varphi}(r,\theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( c_{n} r^{n} +
\frac{d_{n}}{r^{n+1}} \right) \frac{d}{d\theta} P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) .
\label{Ephi}$$ Thus, Eqs. (\[Er\])-(\[Ephi\]) formally give all three components of the electric field. The same type of equations applies in magnetostatics. However, the boundary conditions of Eq. (\[boundary\]) will make the difference, implying in particular that $b_{\circ}=0$ in the series expansion of Eq. (\[Er\]) in magnetostatics; this being primarily related to the absence of magnetic monopoles.
To illustrate the use of the above formulas, we consider the simple example of the electric field due to a ring of radius $a$ with total charge $Q$ uniformly distributed and lying in the $x$-$y$ plane. It is usually solved through the scalar potential method by using the result of the potential along the $z$-axis obtained from Coulomb’s law [@Jackson+]. The surface charge density on $r=a$, localized at $\theta = \pi / 2$, is written as $$\rho_{S}(a,\theta) = \frac{Q}{2 \pi a^2} \;
\delta(\cos \, \theta) ,
\label{source1}$$ which may be expanded using the well-known Legendre series $$\delta(\cos \, \theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \; \frac{2n+1}{2} \;
P_{n}(0) \; P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) ,
\label{delta1}$$ with $P_{n}(0)$ given by $$P_{2n+1}(0) = 0 , \;\;\;
P_{2n}(0) = \frac{(-1)^n (2n+1)!}{2^{2n} (n!)^2} .$$ Taking into account the cylindrical symmetry of the system, and the requirement that the series solutions in Eqs. (\[Er\])-(\[v\]) have to be finite at the origin, vanish at infinity and satisfy the boundary conditions of Eq. (\[boundary\]) at $r=a$ for all values of the angle $\theta$, namely, $E_{\theta}$ continuous at $r=a$ and $E_{r}$ discontinuous at $r=a$, it is straightforwardly found that the spherical components of the electric field are $$\begin{aligned}
E_{r}(r,\theta) & = & \frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_{\circ} r^2}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P_{n}(0) \; P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) \nonumber
\\ & & \times \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle (n+1) \left( \frac{a}{r} \right)^{n}
\; , \; r > a \\ \\
\displaystyle - n \left( \frac{r}{a} \right)^{n+1} \; , \; r < a
\end{array}
\right.
\label{Er1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
E_{\theta}(r,\theta) & = & - \frac{Q}{4 \pi \epsilon_{\circ} r^2}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P_{n}(0) \; P_{n}^{1}(\cos \, \theta)
\nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\ & & \times \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \left( \frac{a}{r} \right)^{n}
\; , \; r > a \\ \\
\displaystyle \left( \frac{r}{a} \right)^{n+1} \; , \; r < a
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
and $E_{\varphi}=0$, where $P_{n}^{1}(\cos \, \theta) =
(d/d\theta) \, P_{n}(\cos \, \theta)$ is an associated Legendre function. Note in particular that the coefficient $b_{\circ}$ in Eq. (\[Er\]) becomes $Q / 4 \pi \epsilon_{\circ}$ for $r > a$, as expected. Also, the discontinuity of the $n$th component of $E_{r}$ in Eq. (\[Er1\]) at $r=a$ is connected according to Eq. (\[boundary\]) with the corresponding component of the surface charge density $\rho_{S}$ obtained from Eqs. (\[source1\]) and (\[delta1\]), exhibiting the unity of the multipole expansions of fields and sources (see Ref. [@LeyKoo]).
To clarify the application of the formulas in the case of magnetostatics and also compare with electrostatics, we consider next the magnetic analog of the above example, that is, the magnetic induction field from a circular current loop of radius $a$ lying in the $x$-$y$ plane and carrying a constant current $I$. The surface current density on $r=a$ can be written as $${\bf J}_{S}(a,\theta,\varphi) = \frac{I}{a} \; \delta(\cos \, \theta) \;
{\bf \hat{\varphi}} ,
\label{source2}$$ where for the delta function is now convenient to use the expansion $$\delta(\cos \, \theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \;
\frac{2n+1}{2n(n+1)} \; P_{n}^{1}(0) \; P_{n}^{1}(\cos \, \theta)
, \label{delta2}$$ which follows from the completeness relation for the spherical harmonics after multiplication by $e^{-i\varphi}$ and integration over $\varphi$. The values for $P_{n}^{1}(0)$ are $$P_{2n}^{1}(0) = 0 , \;\;\;
P_{2n+1}^{1}(0) = \frac{(-1)^{n+1} (2n+1)!}{2^{2n} (n!)^2} .
\label{loop3}$$ Because of the cylindrical symmetry of the system, $B_{\varphi}=0$. By requiring that the field be finite at the origin, vanish at infinity and satisfy the boundary conditions of Eq. (\[boundary\]) at $r=a$, the series solutions in Eqs. (\[Er\])-(\[v\]) for the magnetic case lead to the following radial and angular components of the magnetic induction field: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{r}(r,\theta) & = & - \frac{\mu_{\circ} I a^2}{2 r^3}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P_{n}^{1}(0) \; P_{n}(\cos \, \theta)
\nonumber \\ & & \times
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \left( \frac{a}{r} \right)^{n-1}
\; , \; r > a \\ \\
\displaystyle \left( \frac{r}{a} \right)^{n+2} \; , \; r < a
\end{array}
\right.
\label{loop1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
B_{\theta}(r,\theta) & = & \frac{\mu_{\circ} I a^2}{2 r^3}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P_{n}^{1}(0) \; P_{n}^{1}(\cos \, \theta)
\nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\ & & \times \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1} \left( \frac{a}{r} \right)^{n-1}
\; , \; r > a \\ \\
\displaystyle - \frac{1}{n} \left( \frac{r}{a} \right)^{n+2} \; ,
\; r < a
\end{array}
\right.
\label{loop2}\end{aligned}$$
Note that, as anticipated for magnetostatic problems, the coefficient $b_{\circ}$ in Eq. (\[Er\]) is equal to zero. Also, as expected, the discontinuity of the $n$th component of $B_{\theta}$ in Eq. (\[loop2\]) at $r=a$ is connected according to Eq. (\[boundary\]) with the corresponding component of the surface current density $J_{S \varphi}$ obtained from Eqs. (\[source2\]) and (\[delta2\]). Another characteristic difference with the electrostatic analog is that the coefficient $P_{n}^{1}(0)$ appears instead of $P_{n}(0)$. This can be traced to the fact that the inhomogeneous boundary condition, as given by Eq. (\[boundary\]), is applied to the angular component of the magnetic induction field in Eqs. (\[Etheta\])-(\[v\]), as opposed to the corresponding inhomogeneous boundary condition acting on the radial component of the electric field in Eq. (\[Er\]). The fields in Eqs. (\[loop1\])-(\[loop2\]) are usually obtained through the vector potential method by using the expression of the magnetic induction field along the $z$-axis calculated from the Biot and Savart law [@Arfken]. An alternative technique is mere integration of the vector potential [@Jackson++]. Our treatment has the advantage of introducing a considerable simplification on the procedure of applying the boundary conditions on the magnetic induction field directly.
Time-varying fields
===================
By using Eqs. (\[Maxwell\]), (\[linear\]) and (\[harmonic\]) it is seen that outside sources the fields are related by $${\bf E} = \frac{i \omega}{k^2} \; {\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} {\bf B} ,$$ so that we only need to solve Eq. (\[Helmholtz\]) for ${\bf B}$. Alternatively, we can solve for ${\bf E}$, and obtain ${\bf B}$ through the expression $${\bf B} = - \, \frac{i}{\omega} \; {\bf \nabla} {\bf \times} {\bf E} .$$ In the following, we choose to deal with the Helmholtz equation for the magnetic induction field. The reason is to exhibit similarities and differences with the static case treated in Sec. 2.
In the case of spherical boundary surfaces with azimuthal symmetry, the $B_{r}$ and $B_{\theta}$ components of the magnetic induction satisfy the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla^{2} {\bf B})_{r} + k^2 \; B_{r} & = & \displaystyle
\frac{1}{r^{2}} \; \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial r^{2}} (r^{2}
B_{r}) + \frac{1}{r^{2} \sin \, \theta} \nonumber \\ & \times &
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} (\sin \, \theta \; \frac{\partial
B_{r}}{\partial \theta}) + k^2 \; B_{r} \, = \, 0 , \hspace{0.8cm}
\label{Bradial}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla^{2} {\bf B})_{\theta} + k^2 \; B_{\theta} & = &
\displaystyle \frac{1}{r} \; \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial r^{2}}
(r B_{\theta}) - \frac{1}{r} \; \frac{\partial^2 B_{r}}{\partial r
\partial \theta} \nonumber \\ & + & k^2 \; B_{\theta} \, = \, 0 .
\label{Bangular}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for the $B_{\varphi}$ component we would have the equation $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla^{2} {\bf B})_{\varphi} + k^2 \; B_{\varphi} =
\displaystyle \frac{1}{r} \; \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial r^{2}}
(r B_{\varphi}) + \frac{1}{r^{2} \sin \, \theta}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \hspace{0.5cm} & & \nonumber \\
\times \; (\sin \, \theta \; \frac{\partial B_{\varphi}}{\partial
\theta}) - \, \frac{1}{r^{2} \sin^{2} \theta} \; B_{\varphi} + k^2
\; B_{\varphi} \, = \, 0 . & &\end{aligned}$$ These are analogous to Eqs. (\[radial\]), (\[angular\]) and (\[phiField\]) in connection with the vector Laplace equation. In order to solve Eq. (\[Bradial\]) we let $$B_{r}(r,\theta) = \frac{j(r)}{r} \; P(\theta) ,$$ whereupon separation yields $$\frac{d^{2}j}{dr^{2}} + \frac{2}{r} \; \frac{dj}{dr} + \left[
k^{2} - \frac{n(n+1)}{r^{2}} \right] j = 0 ,
\label{Bessel}$$ and Eq. (\[Legendre\]), where the constant $n(n+1)$ is the separation parameter. Equation (\[Bessel\]) is the spherical Bessel equation of order $n$ with variable $kr$. Therefore, the general solution for $B_{r}$ is $$B_{r}(r,\theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[ a_{n} \frac{j_{n}(kr)}{r} +
b_{n} \frac{n_{n}(kr)}{r} \right] P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) .
\label{Hradial}$$ Depending on boundary conditions, the spherical Hankel functions $h_{n}^{(1,2)}$ instead of the spherical Bessel functions $j_{n}$, $n_{n}$ may be used. For $B_{\theta}$ we again write $$B_{\theta}(r,\theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} w_{n}(r) \; \frac{d}{d\theta}
P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) ,
\label{Hangular}$$ and use ${\bf \nabla \cdot B}=0$ to obtain now $$\begin{aligned}
w_{n} & = & \displaystyle \frac{a_{n}}{n(n+1) r} \; \frac{d\;}{dr}
[r \, j_{n}(kr)] \nonumber \\ & + & \displaystyle
\frac{b_{n}}{n(n+1) r} \; \frac{d\;}{dr} [r \, n_{n}(kr)] ,
\label{w}\end{aligned}$$ for $n \ge 1$ with $a_{\circ} = b_{\circ} =0$. The other coefficients $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are determined so that the boundary conditions for the vector field are exactly satisfied. In the case of the $B_{\varphi}$ component, the general solution is $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\varphi}(r,\theta) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[ c_{n} j_{n}(kr)
+ d_{n} n_{n}(kr) \right] \frac{d}{d\theta} P_{n}(\cos \, \theta)
. \hspace{0.3cm} & &\end{aligned}$$ The same type of equations applies for the electric field.
As an example, we shall consider the problem of the magnetic induction field from a current $I=I_{\circ} e^{-i \omega t}$ in a circular loop of radius $a$ lying in the $x$-$y$ plane. It is the time-varying version of the case solved in Sec. 2. The surface density current on $r=a$ is then $${\bf J}_{S}(a,\theta,\varphi,t) = \frac{I_{\circ}}{a} \;
\delta(\cos \, \theta) \; e^{-i \omega t} \; {\bf \hat{\varphi}} ,
\label{source3}$$ which can be expanded using Eq. (\[delta2\]). The complete series solution of the Helmholtz equation for the magnetic induction field, which is finite at the origin, represents outgoing waves at infinity and satisfies the boundary conditions of Eq. (\[boundary\]) at $r=a$, becomes $$\begin{aligned}
B_{r}(r,\theta,t) & = & -i \frac{\mu_{\circ} I_{\circ} k a}{2 r}
e^{-i \omega t} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (2n+1) P_{n}^{1}(0)
\nonumber \\ & & \times P_{n}(\cos \, \theta) \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle j_{n}(ka) \; h_{n}^{(1)}(kr)
\\ \\
\displaystyle j_{n}(kr) \; h_{n}^{(1)}(ka)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{mif1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& B_{\theta}(r,\theta,t) = \displaystyle -i \frac{\mu_{\circ}
I_{\circ} k^{2} a}{2} e^{-i \omega t} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{2n+1}{n(n+1)} P_{n}^{1}(0) & \nonumber \\ & \times
P_{n}^{1}(\cos \, \theta) \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
j_{n}(ka) \left[ h_{n-1}^{(1)}(kr) - \displaystyle
\frac{n}{kr} \; h_{n}^{(1)}(kr) \right]
\\ \\
h_{n}^{(1)}(ka) \left[ j_{n-1}(kr) - \displaystyle
\frac{n}{kr} \; j_{n}(kr) \right]
\end{array}
\right. &
\label{mif2}\end{aligned}$$
and $B_{\varphi}=0$, where the upper line holds for $r>a$ and the lower line for $r<a$. As noted above, the coefficient $a_{\circ}$ in Eq. (\[Hradial\]) indeed vanishes. Also, the discontinuity of the $n$th component of $B_{\theta}$ in Eq. (\[mif2\]) at $r=a$ is connected, according to Eq. (\[boundary\]), with the $n$th component of the surface current density $J_{S \varphi}$ obtained from Eqs. (\[source3\]) and (\[delta2\]). A characteristic difference between this time-varying problem and the corresponding static case is the appearance of the spherical Bessel functions, which are solutions of the radial part of the Helmholtz equation in spherical coordinates. Using their limiting values [@Arfken+], it can be seen that for $k \rightarrow 0$ the static results in Eqs. (\[loop1\]) and (\[loop2\]) are obtained, as mathematically and physically expected. On the other hand, the radiative part of the external magnetic induction field, which decreases as $1/r$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf B}(r,\theta,t) & = & {\bf \hat{\theta}} \; \frac{\mu_{\circ}
I_{\circ} k a}{4 r} e^{i(k r - \omega t)} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{(4n+3)(2n-1)!}{2^{2n}n!(n+1)!} \; \nonumber \\ & & \times
j_{2n+1}(ka) \; P_{2n+1}^{1}(\cos \, \theta) .\end{aligned}$$ In the dipole approximation, $ka \ll 1$, this becomes the radiative magnetic induction field from an oscillating magnetic dipole of magnetic moment ${\bf m} = \pi a^2 I_{\circ} {\bf \hat{z}}$: $${\bf B}({\bf r},t) = \frac{\mu_{\circ} k^2}{4 \pi} \; ({\bf
\hat{r}} {\bf \times} {\bf m}) {\bf \times} {\bf \hat{r}} \;
\displaystyle \frac{e^{i (k r - \omega t)}}{r} .$$ The magnetic induction field in Eqs. (\[mif1\]) and (\[mif2\]) can be seen to be just that which is obtained with the more arduous technique of a dyadic Green’s function expanded in vector spherical harmonics and applied to the vector potential, which, by symmetry, only has the $\varphi$-component different from zero [@Morse]. As we have shown, a direct calculation of the electromagnetic field with $r$- and $\theta$-components is much simplified if separation of variables is used.
Conclusion
==========
For spherical coordinate systems, the Maxwell equations outside sources lead to coupled equations involving all three components of the electromagnetic fields. In general, the statement is that one cannot separate spherical components of the Maxwell equations, and extensive techniques for solving the vector equations have been developed which introduce vector spherical harmonics and use dyadic methods. We have shown, however, that separation of variables is still possible in the case of azimuthal symmetry, and so general solutions for each component of the electromagnetic vector fields were obtained. We have illustrated the use of these formulas with direct calculations of electric and magnetic induction fields from localized charge and current distributions, without involving the electromagnetic potentials. Boundary conditions are easier to apply to these solutions, and their forms highlight the similarities and differences between the electric and magnetic cases in both time-independent and time-dependent situations. Finally, we remark that in cylindrical coordinates, the other commonly used curvilinear coordinate system, the Maxwell equations do separate into equations for each vector component alone if there is cylindrical symmetry, so that the method of separation of variables can be used directly.
This work was partially supported by the Departamento de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile.
[9]{} W.K.H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, *Classical Electricity and Magnetism* (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1962), 2nd ed., Chap. 9.
Reference [@Panofsky], Chap. 13.
P.M. Morse and H. Feshbach, *Methods of Theoretical Physics* (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953), Vol. 2, Chap. 13.
E.A. Matute, *Am. J. Phys.* [**67**]{} (1999) 786.
J.D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics* (Wiley, New York, 1998), 3rd ed., Chap. 6.
G. Arfken and H. Weber, *Mathematical Methods for Physicists* (Academic Press, New York, 2001), 5th ed., Chap. 12.
Reference [@Jackson], Chap. 3.
E. Ley-Koo and A. Góngora-T, *Rev. Mex. Fís.* [**34**]{} (1988) 645.
Reference [@Jackson], Chap. 5.
Reference [@Arfken], Chap. 11.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first measurement of the atomic mass dependence of central $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ production. It is measured using a sample of 22,459 $\Xi^{-}$’s and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$’s produced in collisions between a 250 GeV $\pi^-$ beam and targets of beryllium, aluminum, copper, and tungsten. The relative cross sections are fit to the two parameter function $\sigma_0 A^\alpha$, where $A$ is the atomic mass. We measure $\alpha = 0.924\pm0.020\pm0.025$, for Feynman-$x$ in the range $-0.09 < x_F < 0.15$.'
address: |
$^{1}$[*Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil*]{}\
$^{2}$[*Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510*]{}\
$^{3}$[*University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677*]{}\
$^{4}$[*University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A7*]{}\
$^{5}$[*Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155*]{}\
$^{6}$[*Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202*]{}\
$^{7}$[*University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706*]{}\
$^{8}$[*Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511*]{}
author:
- |
G. A. Alves,$^{1}$ S. Amato,$^{1,}$[@by1] J. C. Anjos,$^{1}$ J. A. Appel,$^{2}$ J. Astorga,$^{5}$ T. Bernard,$^{5,}$[@by1a] S. B. Bracker,$^{4}$ L. M. Cremaldi,$^{3}$ W. D. Dagenhart,$^{5}$ C. L. Darling,$^{8,}$[@by2] R. L. Dixon,$^{2}$ D. Errede,$^{7,}$[@by3] H. C. Fenker,$^{2}$ C. Gay,$^{4,}$[@by3a] D. R. Green,$^{2}$ R. Jedicke,$^{4,}$[@by4] P. E. Karchin,$^{6}$ C. Kennedy,$^{8}$ S. Kwan,$^{2}$ L. H. Lueking,$^{2}$ J. R. T. de Mello Neto,$^{1,}$[@by5] J. Metheny,$^{5}$ R. H. Milburn,$^{5}$ J. M. de Miranda,$^{1}$ H. da Motta Filho,$^{1}$ A. Napier,$^{5}$ D. Passmore,$^{5}$ A. Rafatian,$^{3}$ A. C. dos Reis,$^{1}$ W. R. Ross,$^{8,}$[@by6] A. F. S. Santoro,$^{1}$ M. Sheaff,$^{7}$ M. H. G. Souza,$^{1}$ C. Stoughton,$^{2}$ M. E. Streetman,$^{2}$ D. J. Summers,$^{3}$ S. F. Takach,$^{6}$ A. Wallace,$^{8}$ and Z. Wu$^{8}$\
(Fermilab E769 Collaboration)\
title: |
Atomic mass dependence of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ production\
in central 250 GeV $\pi^-$-nucleon interactions
---
The atomic mass dependence of strong interaction cross sections with nuclear targets is sensitive to the behavior of hadrons and quarks inside nuclear matter. In addition, knowledge of this dependence is needed to compare cross section results from experiments using different target materials. Many atomic mass dependence measurements have been made [@review]. Nevertheless, little exists in the literature for central hyperon production. We report here, the first measurement of the atomic mass dependence of central $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ production.
The atomic mass dependence of cross sections is frequently parameterized as $$\sigma(A) = \sigma_0 A^\alpha,$$ where $A$ is the atomic mass of the target. By using four different target materials, we are able to check the applicability of this parameterization, as well as making a measurement of $\alpha$.
A model of the nucleus as a totally absorbing sphere gives a value for $\alpha$ of 0.67. For absorption cross sections, $\alpha$ is a little higher. For example, Carroll [*et al.*]{} [@one] measured $\alpha = 0.755\pm0.010$ for a 280 GeV $\pi^-$ beam. If a cross section were simply proportional to the number of nucleons in the nucleus, $\alpha$ would be 1.00. Earlier, we reported a measured value for $\alpha$ of $1.00\pm 0.05\pm0.02$ for D meson production [@two].
The apparatus in Fermilab experiment E769 has been previously described (see [@three] and references therein). The targets were 26 foils of Be, Al, Cu, and W with a total nuclear interaction length of 2%. The foils were simultaneously exposed to the 250 GeV beam to minimize errors associated with flux measurement. A differential Čerenkov counter was used to measure the beam content and reduce contamination from kaons. The final sample consisted of 95% $\pi^-$ with a contamination of 3% $K^-$ and 2% $\overline{p}$.
The elements of the spectrometer relevant to this analysis are 11 silicon microstrip planes (1–30 cm downstream of the targets), 35 drift chamber planes (150–1750 cm), 2 multiwire proportional chambers (130 cm, 180 cm), and 2 magnets (290 cm, 620 cm) for momentum measurement. The electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters were used only for on-line event selection. The two threshold Čerenkov counters downstream of the target were not used in this analysis.
Tracks of charged particles were reconstructed using hits in the detector planes. The $\Xi^-$’s were reconstructed using only the three final tracks produced in the decays $\Xi^-\rightarrow\Lambda + \pi^-$ and $\Lambda \rightarrow \pi^- + p$ (charge conjugates are implied in this paragraph and the following paragraph). The analysis focuses on events where both decays occurred between the silicon microstrip planes and the drift chamber planes. The tracks used to reconstruct $\Xi^-$’s were required to have hits only in the drift chambers and proportional chambers, no hits being allowed in the silicon microstrip detectors.
We applied further criteria to select $\Xi^-$’s from the data. The reconstructed $\Lambda$ mass was required to be within 5.25 MeV of the known mass. The shortest distance between the two tracks used to reconstruct the neutral $\Lambda$ was required to be less than 0.7 cm. The shortest distance between the $\Lambda$ track and the other charged pion track was required to be less than 0.66 cm. The angle between the $\Xi^-$ trajectory and the direction from the primary vertex to the $\Xi^-$ decay vertex was required to be less than 0.012 radians. There were requirements on the geometric locations of the three vertices and on the charges of the three decay tracks. These were the most significant selection criteria.
Figure \[massplot\] shows the invariant mass distribution for candidate $\Xi^-$’s and $\overline{\Xi}^+$’s after the selection criteria were applied. The figure shows a strong signal over a linear background. The signal was determined using sideband subtraction, not by fitting a function to the mass distribution. This eliminates errors associated with the determination of the shape of the signal peak.
The combined $\Xi^-$ and $\overline{\Xi}^+$ data signals, before acceptance corrections and weighting are applied, are as follows: $1980\pm55$ from a minimum bias trigger (no requirement on transverse energy in the calorimeters), and $20479\pm187$ from a trigger that required greater than roughly 5.5 GeV of transverse energy in the calorimeters. The data acquisition rates for these triggers were controlled using prescalers which were set to record a specific fraction of events that passed trigger requirements. The signals from the two triggers are combined using weights based on the known prescaler settings. Typically, the minimum bias events with less than 5.5 GeV of tranverse energy have weights roughly 20 times larger than the events from the transverse energy trigger. This causes the statistical error on $\alpha$ to be dominated by the statistical errors on the events from the minimum bias trigger.
A full detector simulation was used to calculate the acceptances for each material in narrow bins of $x_F$ (width 0.015). The acceptance calculation was repeated for each data set listed in Table \[ares7\]. Acceptances ranged from 3% to 12%. The simulation modeled the geometry of the detector, the primary interaction, secondary interactions, pair production, multiple scattering, detector plane efficiencies, and all analysis cuts. A total of 1.8 million simulated events were generated for the acceptance calculation. The statistical errors on the acceptances were much smaller than the statistical errors from the data.
The dominant systematic error is due to the uncertainty in simulating the average number of charged particles per event (the multiplicity). The average multiplicity increases with the atomic mass of the target. Since the targets were arranged along the beam direction in order of decreasing atomic mass, events produced in the higher mass targets also suffered more pair production and secondary interactions than those produced in low mass targets. The overall effect is to reduce the acceptance for the higher mass targets, because the track reconstruction efficiency is lower in high multiplicity events. This systematic error was studied by varying the multiplicity of generated events in the simulation and by making comparisons between the data and the simulation. The systematic error on $\alpha$ related to multiplicity was estimated to be $\pm0.023$. The systematic error was somewhat higher in events where the $\Xi^-$’s and $\overline{\Xi}^+$’s had low transverse momenta ($p_T$), because the track densities were higher nearer the beam.
We studied several other sources of systematic error. Systematic errors in $\alpha$ associated with measurement of the thickness of the target foils, and errors associated with the location of the reconstructed primary vertex were each estimated to be roughly $\pm0.007$. Other systematic errors were estimated to be even smaller. These include errors related to inelastic collisions in the target that attenuate the beam flux, simulated $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ momentum distributions, detector geometry, signal determination, beam contamination, and trigger biases.
The values of $\alpha$ were determined by fitting the two parameter function $\sigma_0 A^\alpha$ to four data points: the relative Be, Al, Cu, and W cross sections. The fit parameter $\sigma_0$ simply normalizes the function. Figure \[crosssect\] shows one of the fits. The $\chi^2$ of this fit is 1.35 with two degrees of freedom. The function fits our data well.
Table \[ares7\] shows measured values of $\alpha$ for several data sets. The largest data set covers the region in $x_F$ where the acceptance is large enough to yield enough statistics for a meaningful result. This large data set is subdivided in several different ways. When calculated separately for $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ and $\Xi^{-}$, $\alpha$ is the same within errors. As a function of both $p_T$ and $x_F$, the dependence of $\alpha$ is consistent with being flat within errors, but there is a rise near $x_F = 0.00$ and in the highest bin of $p_T$. Note that the systematic errors are strongly correlated in different subsets of data. In evaluating trends as a function of $x_F$ or $p_T$, the statistical errors are more important than the systematic errors.
It is useful to compare our results to other experimental measurements. In [@pikp; @pikp2], the atomic mass dependence for production of $\pi^\pm$, $\mbox{K}^\pm$, p and $\overline{p}$ was reported. That experiment used a proton beam to study central production as a function of $p_T$ and beam energy. For example, at $p_T = 0.77$ GeV with a 400 GeV beam, $\alpha$ was measured to be $0.91\pm0.01$ for production of $\pi^-$ and $0.98\pm0.02$ for production of both $\mbox{K}^-$ and p. Our result for the atomic mass dependence of central $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ production is similar in that $\alpha$ is also a little less than 1.00. In Ref. [@caszero], the $\Xi^0$ atomic mass dependence was reported for $0.2 < x_F < 0.8$ using a 400 GeV proton beam. The $\Xi^0$ is the particle most similar to the $\Xi^-$. Figures 31 and 33 of Ref. [@caszero] show $\alpha$ as a function of $p_T$ and $x_F$. These figures show the long established trends of $\alpha$ increasing as $x_F$ decreases towards 0.0 and $\alpha$ increasing as $p_T$ increases. The $x_F$ figure shows $\alpha$ increasing from less than 0.5 towards a value a little less than 1.00 as $x_F$ decreases from 0.8 to 0.0 (no data for $x_F < 0.2$ in [@caszero]). This is consistent with our measured value for $\alpha$.
In summary, we present the first measurement of the atomic mass dependence of the cross section for central $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ production. We measure $\alpha = 0.924\pm0.020\pm0.025$, having found that $A^\alpha$ is a good parameterization of the atomic mass dependence of the production cross section. Our data are consistent with the value of $\alpha$ approaching 1.0 as $x_F$ approaches 0.0.
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship Program, the Wayne State University High Energy Physics Initiative, the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the National Research Council of Canada.
Present address: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Deceased. Present address: University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. Present address: University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801. Present address: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. Present address: LPL, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Present address: Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Present address: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73071. S. Fredriksson [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rep., 187 (1987). A. S. Carroll [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**80B**]{}, 319 (1979). G. A. Alves [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 722 (1993). G. A. Alves [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3147 (1992). L. Kluberg [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{}, 670 (1977). D. Antreasyan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{}, 764 (1979). A. Beretvas [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 53 (1986).
-------------------------- --- ------ --- ------ --- ------
Overall 0 .924 0 .020 0 .025
$\overline{\Xi}^+$ only 0 .905 0 .028 0 .025
$\Xi^-$ only 0 .939 0 .026 0 .025
$p_T$ 0.0 to 0.5 GeV 0 .906 0 .041 0 .035
$p_T$ 0.5 to 1.0 GeV 0 .913 0 .028 0 .022
$p_T$ 1.0 to 1.5 GeV 0 .988 0 .041 0 .020
$x_F$ $-0.09$ to $-0.03$ 0 .881 0 .042 0 .025
$x_F$ $-0.03$ to $0.03$ 0 .981 0 .029 0 .025
$x_F$ $0.03$ to $0.09$ 0 .910 0 .034 0 .025
$x_F$ $0.09$ to $0.15$ 0 .918 0 .056 0 .025
-------------------------- --- ------ --- ------ --- ------
: $\alpha$ with statistical then systematic errors. The overall data set contains $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$’s and $\Xi^{-}$’s with $x_F$ between $-0.09$ and $0.15$, summed over $p_T$. The other lines show results from subsets of the overall data set with the additional selection specified in the first column.[]{data-label="ares7"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) can be tested by the time delay between photons with different energies passing through a gravitational field. As one of the most energetic explosions in the Universe, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) provide an effective tool to test the accuracy of EEP. In this paper, we use the continuous spectra of 20 short GRBs detected by the Swift/BAT to test the validity of EEP. Taking the duration of GRBs as the upper limit of the time delay induced by EEP violation (assuming that the high energy photons arrive later than the low energy photons), the difference of the parameterized post-Newtonian parameter is constrained with high accuracy. The strictest constraint, $|\gamma(150~{\rm keV})-\gamma(15~{\rm keV})|<5.59\times 10^{-10}$ from GRB 150101B, is about $1\sim 2$ orders of magnitude tighter than previous constraints. Moreover, our result is more statistically significant than previous results because we use the continuous spectra instead of isolated photons.'
author:
- |
Yu Sang,$^{1}$[^1] Hai-Nan Lin,$^{2}$ and Zhe Chang$^{1}$\
$^{1}$Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China\
$^{2}$Department of Physics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China\
bibliography:
- 'myreference.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'Testing Einstein’s Equivalence Principle with Short Gamma-ray Bursts'
---
\[firstpage\]
gamma-ray burst: general – gravitation
Introduction
============
Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is one of the foundations of general relativity, and it is a more rigorous concept compared to the weak equivalence principle. One presentation of EEP is that the trajectory of a free test body travelling in a gravitational field is independent of its internal structure and composition [@Will:2014]. As massless and uncharged particles, photons can be used to test EEP in the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism where the spacetime metric is parameterized by the coefficients (i.e., the PPN parameters) that appear in front of the metric potentials [@Will:2014]. If EEP is valid, then $\gamma$ is independent of photon energy. For example, $\gamma=1$ in general relativity. Here, $\gamma$ is one of the PPN parameters, and it describes how much space curvature is produced by unit rest mass. One way to test the validity of EEP is to constrain the absolute value of $\gamma$. Many experiments have been realized to provide precise constraint on it. The deflection of light has been measured using very long baseline radio interferometry, and $(\gamma-1)$ is constrained to be at the order of $10^{-4}$ [@Lebach:1995; @Fomalont:2009; @Shapiro:2004; @Lambert:2009; @Lambert:2011]. @Bertotti:2003 measured the time delay of radio photons on round trip to the Cassini spacecraft and arrived at the constraint $\gamma-1=(2.1\pm2.3)\times10^{-5}$.
An alternative way to test the validity of EEP is to compare the values of $\gamma$ for photons with different energies [@Wei:2015; @Gao:2015]. There is a small time delay ($\delta t$) for a photon to pass through a given distance if there is a gravitational field along the light path [@Shapiro:1964; @Krauss:1988; @Longo:1988]. If EEP is valid, then $\gamma$ is a constant, and two photons with different energies will suffer an equal $\delta t$. On the other hand, if EEP is invalid, two photons with different energies will suffer an unequal $\delta t$, thus producing an observable time delay. The relative time delay between two photons of different energies emitted simultaneously and passing through the same gravitational field constrains the difference of $\gamma$. This provides a useful way to test the validity of EEP. Based on this method, several studies have provided strict constraints on $\Delta\gamma$ [@Sivaram:1999; @Gao:2015; @Wei:2015; @Wei:2016A; @Nusser:2016; @Wu:2016; @Zhang:2016obv; @Wang:2016lne; @Wei:2016ygk; @Tingay:2016tgf]. For example, @Gao:2015 proposed that the time delay between correlated photons from gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) can be used to test EEP. They considered the gravitational field of the Milky Way and constrained the differences of $\gamma$ of photons with energies between eV and MeV or between MeV and GeV to the order of $10^{-7}$. Fast radio bursts (FRBs) were also used to test EEP. @Wei:2015 used FRB/GRB 100704A system to give a limit as $|\gamma(1.23\textrm{ GHz})-\gamma(1.45\textrm{ GHz})|<4.36\times10^{-9}$, expanding the energy range of testing EEP out to the radio band. However, @Palaniswamy2014 showed that FRB/GRB 100704A is unlikely to be an astrophysical event and therefore not appropriate for any calculation of EEP violation. Using the first localized burst FRB 150418, @Tingay:2016tgf obtained the best current limit, i.e., $\Delta\gamma<1-2\times10^{-9}$. @Wei:2016A proposed that the TeV blazars can also provide an excellent tool to constrain EEP, and extending the tested energy range out to TeV energy. It is worth mentioning that the time delay of different kinds of particles was also used to test EEP. For example, the time delays of photons and neutrinos from supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud are proven to be equal to a very high accuracy [@Krauss:1988; @Longo:1988].
GRBs are one of the most energetic explosions in the Universe [@Piran:1999; @Meszaros:2006rc; @Kumar:2014upa]. They can be detectable up to redshift $z\sim 10$. The spectra of GRBs peak at the energy range of keV to MeV, and photons with energies as high as tens GeV can also be observed in some brightest GRBs [@Abdo:2009; @Abdo:2009pg; @Ackermann:2010us; @Ackermann:2011bu]. As cosmological transients, GRBs are widely used to test the fundamental physics. For example, GRBs provide an effective way to probe the Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) effect [@Chang:2016; @Chang:2012; @Zhang:2014wpb; @Amelino-Camelia:1998; @Ellis:2006; @Ellis:2008; @Jacob:2008; @Vasileiou:2015]. Constraints on LIV and EEP are both based on the time delays of photons with different energies. Some studies have used the time delays between one or some isolated high energy photons and low energy photons to give strict constraints on LIV or EEP. However, the results are not statistically significant, because the number of high energy photons is too small, and we cannot know whether high energy photons and low energy photons are emitted simultaneously. In our previous work [@Chang:2016], we considered the continuous spectra of Swift/BAT short GRBs in the energy band $15-150$ keV, and used the duration of short GRBs as the upper limit to constrain LIV.
In this paper, we use 20 short GRBs with well measured redshifts from Swift data archive[^2] to test the validity of EEP. The duration of GRBs is used as the conservative limit of time delay induced by EEP violation. The time delay due to EEP violation couldn’t be long than the duration of GRBs. The duration corresponds to the spectra in the full Swift/BAT energy band 15 – 150 keV. There are several reasons why we use the duration of GRBs in energy band 15 – 150 keV. First, the energy spectrum is continuous at the keV order, and a large amount of photon events can be recorded. Thus, using keV photons to constrain EEP is more statistically reliable. Second, we are not sure whether photons in different energy bands (e.g., GeV photons and MeV photons) are emitted simultaneously. However, it is very likely that photons in the same energy bands (e.g., keV photons) are emitted simultaneously, or the intrinsic time delays between them are very small. Finally, the LIV-induced time delay for keV photons is negligible.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. In Section II, we shortly describe the method of testing EEP. In Section III, we use 20 short GRBs from the Swift data archive to give strict constraints on EEP. Finally, discussions and conclusions are given in Section IV.
Methodology
===========
Suppose two photons with different energies emit from a cosmological source. The observed time delay between them consists of five parts, $$\label{observed time delay}
\Delta t_\textrm{obs}=\Delta t_\textrm{int}+\Delta t_\textrm{LIV}+\Delta t_\textrm{spe}+\Delta t_\textrm{DM}+\Delta t_\textrm{gra},$$ where $\Delta t_\textrm{int}$ is the intrinsic time delay which depends on the emission mechanism of the source, $\Delta t_\textrm{LIV}$ is the time delay induced by the LIV effect, $\Delta t_\textrm{spe}$ is the time delay caused by the special-relativistic effect when the rest mass of photon is non-zero, $\Delta t_\textrm{DM}$ is the time delay caused by the dispersion of photons with the free electrons along the line-of-sight, and $\Delta t_\textrm{gra}$ is the Shapiro time delay produced when two photons with different energies traverse the gravitational field.
Since the emission mechanism of GRBs is not clearly known, $\Delta t_{\rm int}$ is highly uncertain. However, spectral observations show that the high energy (GeV) photons, at least in some GRBs, have spectral lag relative to low energy (MeV) photons [@Abdo:2009; @Abdo:2009pg; @Ackermann:2010us; @Ackermann:2011bu]. Therefore, it is very likely that high energy photons are emitted later than low energy photons, thus $\Delta t_{\rm int}>0$. $\Delta t_\textrm{LIV}$ is very small even for GeV photons [@Ellis:2006; @Ellis:2008; @Jacob:2008; @Vasileiou:2015], and for keV photons it is much smaller. Hence $\Delta t_\textrm{LIV}$ is negligible. $\Delta t_\textrm{spe}$ is proportional to the square of the photon rest mass [@Gao:2015], while the latter has proved to be very close to zero [@Tu:2005ge; @Wu:2016brq]. Therefore, $\Delta t_\textrm{spe}$ is also negligible. $\Delta t_\textrm{DM}$ is inversely proportional to the square of photon energy [@Ioka:2003fr], and it is only important in the radio band. For $\gamma$-ray photons in the keV energy band, $\Delta t_\textrm{DM}$ is negligible. The relative Shapiro time delay $\Delta t_\textrm{gra}$ for two photons with energy $E_1$ and $E_2$ travelling the gravitational field $U\left(r\right)$ can be written as [@Shapiro:1964uw] $$\label{gravitational potential time delay}
\Delta t_\textrm{gra}=\frac{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{c^3}
\int^{r_\textrm{e}}_{r_\textrm{o}}U\left(r\right)dr,$$ where $r_\textrm{e}$ and $r_\textrm{o}$ are the locations of source and observer, respectively. In summary, the middle three terms on the right-hand-side of equation (\[observed time delay\]) are negligible, and the contribution to the observed time delay mainly comes from $\Delta t_\textrm{int}$ and $\Delta t_\textrm{gra}$, i.e., $$\label{reduced observed time delay}
\Delta t_\textrm{obs}=\Delta t_\textrm{int}+\Delta t_\textrm{gra}.$$ Under the assumption that $\Delta t_\textrm{int}>0$, we obtain the following inequality, $$\label{PPN inequation}
\Delta t_\textrm{obs}>\frac{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{c^3}
\int^{r_\textrm{e}}_{r_\textrm{o}}U\left(r\right)dr.$$
In general, for a cosmological source, there are three parts contributing to $U\left(r\right)$, i.e., $U\left(r\right)=U_\textrm{MW}\left(r\right)+U_\textrm{IG}\left(r\right)+U_\textrm{host}\left(r\right)$, including the gravitational potential of the Milky Way, the intergalactic background between host galaxy and the Milky Way, and the host galaxy of the source. The potential models for $U_\textrm{IG}\left(r\right)$ and $U_\textrm{host}\left(r\right)$ are unknown, but it is plausible that the contributions of the two parts are larger than if we only consider $U_\textrm{MW}\left(r\right)$ and extend it to the host galaxy [@Gao:2015; @Wei:2015]. Adopting the Keplerian potential for the Milky way, i.e., $U_{\rm MW}(r)=-GM_{\rm MW}/r$, we obtain the difference of PPN parameters of two photons, $$\label{PPN}
\Delta\gamma\equiv\gamma_1-\gamma_2<\Delta t_\textrm{obs}\left(\frac{GM_\textrm{MW}}{c^3}
\right)^{-1}\ln^{-1}\left(\frac{d}{b}\right),$$ where $G=6.68\times 10^{-8}~{\rm erg~cm}~{\rm g}^{-2}$ is the gravitational constant, $M_\textrm{MW}=6\times 10^{11}M_{\odot}$ is the mass of the Milky Way, $d$ is the luminosity distance between source and observer, and $b$ is the impact parameter of the light rays relative to the center of the Milky Way. In this paper, the luminosity distance $d$ is calculated in the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model with cosmological parameters $H_0=70\textrm{ km s}^{-1}\textrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_\textrm{M}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. The impact parameter $b$ can be estimated as $$\label{impact parameter}
b=r_\textrm{G}\sqrt{1-\left(\sin\delta_\textrm{S}\sin\delta_\textrm{G}+\cos\delta_\textrm{S} \cos\delta_\textrm{G}\cos\left(\beta_\textrm{S}-\beta_\textrm{G}\right)\right)^2},$$ where $r_\textrm{G}=8.3$ kpc is the distance from the Sun to the galaxy center, $\beta_\textrm{S}$ and $\delta_\textrm{S}$ are respectively the right ascension and declination of the source in the equatorial coordinates, and $\left(\beta_\textrm{G}=17^\textrm{h}45^\textrm{m}40.04^\textrm{s},\delta_\textrm{G}=-29^\circ00'28.1''\right)$ are the coordinates of the Galaxy center [@Gillessen:2008qv].
Constraint From Short GRBs
==========================
Thanks to the launch of various space satellites, such as Compton, Swift, and Fermi, some properties of GRBs have been well researched. Through the analysis of light curves, one can obtain the duration of a GRB, which is usually characterized by $T_{90}$. During $T_{90}$ from 5% to 95% of the total photon events in a specific energy band are detected. The observed durations span about 6 orders of magnitude, from milliseconds to thousands of seconds. According to the fact that the distribution of durations is bimodal and separated at about 2 s, @Kouveliotou:1993 proposed a GRBs classification: long bursts with $T_{90}>2$ s and short bursts with $T_{90}<2$ s. These two classes of GRBs are often thought to be produced by two different progenitors. Most of the GRBs spectra can be well fitted with the Band function [@Band:1993eg], which peaks at around a few hundred keV. In some bright GRBs, photons with energy higher than 100 MeV and even tens of GeV have been observed [@Abdo:2009; @Abdo:2009pg; @Ackermann:2010us; @Ackermann:2011bu]. X-ray emission is usually weak, and a few emissions are below 10 keV [@Piran:1999].
In this paper, we test EEP using short GRBs detected by the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) onboard the Swift satellite. BAT can catch photons in the energy band of 15–150 keV, and record the light curves of GRBs. We choose GRBs from the Swift data archive, and only short GRBs with $T_{90}<2$ s are selected. 20 GRBs are finally picked out with measured redshifts in the range $z\in\left[0.093,2.609\right]$. The main properties of the GRB sample are listed in Table \[tab:results\].
GRBs RA Dec $z$ $T_{90}$ \[s\] $\Delta\gamma$
--------- ------------------ ---------------------- ------- ---------------- ----------------------
150120A $00^h41^m19.2^s$ $+33^\circ58'48.0''$ 0.460 1.2 $3.18\times10^{-8}$
150101B $12^h32^m10.6^s$ $-10^\circ57'21.6''$ 0.093 0.018 $5.59\times10^{-10}$
141212A $02^h36^m40.1^s$ $+18^\circ09'46.8''$ 0.596 0.3 $7.62\times10^{-9}$
140903A $15^h52^m05.0^s$ $+27^\circ36'28.8''$ 0.351 0.3 $8.15\times10^{-9}$
140622A $21^h08^m36.7^s$ $-14^\circ24'43.2''$ 0.959 0.13 $3.18\times10^{-9}$
131004A $19^h44^m25.9^s$ $-02^\circ57'07.2''$ 0.717 1.54 $3.81\times10^{-8}$
130603B $11^h28^m53.3^s$ $+17^\circ03'46.8''$ 0.356 0.18 $4.92\times10^{-9}$
101219A $04^h58^m20.6^s$ $-02^\circ31'37.2''$ 0.718 0.6 $1.47\times10^{-8}$
100724A $12^h58^m16.6^s$ $-11^\circ05'42.0''$ 1.288 1.4 $3.39\times10^{-8}$
090510 $22^h14^m12.5^s$ $-26^\circ35'52.8''$ 0.903 0.3 $7.75\times10^{-9}$
090426 $12^h36^m19.7^s$ $+32^\circ58'40.8''$ 2.609 1.2 $2.75\times10^{-8}$
071227 $03^h52^m31.7^s$ $-55^\circ57'32.4''$ 0.383 1.8 $4.90\times10^{-8}$
070724A $01^h51^m17.8^s$ $-18^\circ36'36.0''$ 0.457 0.4 $1.07\times10^{-8}$
070429B $21^h52^m01.4^s$ $-38^\circ51'25.2''$ 0.904 0.47 $1.16\times10^{-8}$
061217 $10^h41^m36.7^s$ $-21^\circ09'07.2''$ 0.827 0.21 $5.32\times10^{-9}$
061201 $22^h08^m19.0^s$ $-74^\circ34'04.8''$ 0.111 0.76 $2.29\times10^{-8}$
060502B $18^h35^m42.5^s$ $+52^\circ37'04.8''$ 0.287 0.131 $3.67\times10^{-9}$
051221A $21^h54^m51.6^s$ $+16^\circ53'16.8''$ 0.547 1.4 $3.67\times10^{-8}$
050813 $16^h08^m00.2^s$ $+11^\circ14'38.4''$ 1.800 0.45 $1.04\times10^{-8}$
050509B $12^h36^m11.0^s$ $+28^\circ58'26.4''$ 0.225 0.073 $2.09\times10^{-9}$
: The 20 short Swift/BAT GRBs. RA and DEC are respectively the right ascension and declination of GRBs in J2000, $z$ is the redshift, $T_{90}$ is the GRB duration in $15-150$ keV energy band, and $\Delta\gamma$ is the difference of PPN parameters between 15 keV and 150 keV.[]{data-label="tab:results"}
In this table, we list the GRB name, the GRB position in the equatorial coordinates (RA and DEC), the redshift $z$ and the duration $T_{90}$. Conservatively speaking, the observed time delay of any two photons in the specific energy band couldn’t be longer than the duration. Using $T_{90}$ as the upper limit of $\Delta t_\textrm{obs}$ in equation (\[PPN\]), we finally have $$\label{DeltaGamma}
\Delta\gamma<T_{90}\left(\frac{GM_\textrm{MW}}{c^3}
\right)^{-1}\ln^{-1}\left(\frac{d}{b}\right).$$ This will give a strict constraint on the difference of PPN parameters in $15-150$ keV energy band.
The constraints on $\Delta\gamma (15-150~{\rm keV})$ from 20 GRBs are listed in the last column of Table \[tab:results\]. Among them eleven GRBs constrain $\Delta\gamma$ at the order of $10^{-8}$, eight GRBs at the order of $10^{-9}$. The strictest limit is given by GRB 150101B, i.e., $\Delta\gamma<5.59\times10^{-10}$. This is because GRB 150101B has the shortest duration among the sample, although the redshift (so the distance) of this GRB is smaller than others. The duration $T_{90}$ makes more contribution to $\Delta\gamma$ than redshift $z$, because $\Delta\gamma$ is proportional to $T_{90}$, while it is inversely proportional to the logarithm of distance. Therefore, to further constrain $\Delta\gamma$, short-duration GRBs rather than high-redshift GRBs are necessary. The constraint on $\Delta\gamma$ from GRB 150101B is about two orders of magnitude smaller than that previously constrained from GRB 090510 ($|\gamma_\textrm{GeV}-\gamma_\textrm{MeV}|<2\times10^{-8}$) [@Gao:2015], and improves the constraint from FRB 150418 ($\Delta\gamma<1-2\times10^{-9}$) [@Tingay:2016tgf] by a factor of two.
Discussions and Conclusions
===========================
The validity of EEP has been extensively tested using photons from energetic cosmic transients. Recently, @Gao:2015 proposed that the time delays between correlated photons from GRBs can be used to constrain EEP. They considered the gravitational field of the Milky Way and constrained the differences of $\gamma$ of photons with energies between MeV and GeV and between eV and MeV. In the observation of GRB 090510, a single 31 GeV photon was detected 0.83 s after the trigger of MeV photons, which coincides in time with the main emission of MeV photons. The time delay between the single 31 GeV photon and MeV photons was used to constrain $\Delta\gamma$, resulting $|\gamma_\textrm{GeV}-\gamma_\textrm{MeV}|<2\times10^{-8}$. This result is not statistically significant, because only one GeV photon was used. We couldn’t know whether the GeV photon is emitted simultaneously with MeV photons. We even couldn’t ensure if they are emitted in the same region. The other burst used is GRB 080319B. The most conservative time delay between MeV photons and optical photons is 5 s according to the optical-$\gamma$-ray correlation function, which leads to the result $|\gamma_\textrm{eV}-\gamma_\textrm{MeV}|<1.2\times10^{-7}$. This constraint, although statistically significant, is about three orders of magnitudes looser than our results. Recently, @Tingay:2016tgf used the spectral lag of radio photons in $\sim$GHz energy band from the first localized FRB 150418 and obtained a tighter constraint $\Delta\gamma<1-2\times10^{-9}$, which is still looser than our result by a factor of two.
In this paper, we used the duration of GRB as the upper limit of the observed time delay, and improve previous results by $1\sim 2$ orders of magnitude. Our results are statistically significant. There are hundreds of thousands of photons in the energy band of 15 – 150 keV, and the energy spectra are continuous. Any two of those photons can be used to constrain the accuracy of EEP. Conservatively speaking, the observed time delay of any two photons in the energy band of 15 – 150 keV is smaller than the duration $T_{90}$. Thus, using keV photons to constrain EEP is more statistically reliable. The main uncertainty comes from the intrinsic time delay $\Delta t_{\rm int}$. We assumed that the high energy photons are emitted later (at least not earlier) than low energy photons. This assumption is based on the observational evidence that in some GRBs high energy photons have spectral lag with respect to low energy photons. If $\Delta t_{\rm int}<0$, and the intrinsic time delay exactly cancels with the time delay induced by EEP violation, then the observed time delay will be small. In this case, the constraint on $\Delta\gamma$ may be much looser. However, the probability of such a coincidence happening in all the 20 GRBs is negligible.
In summary, the observed time delay between photons with different energies can be used to test the validity of EEP by constraining the difference of PPN parameters. We investigated the continuous spectra in the energy band $15 - 150$ keV of 20 short GRBs detected by Swift/BAT and used the durations as the most conservative estimation of time delay to constrain EEP. The strictest constraint on the PPN parameter, $\Delta\gamma<5.59\times10^{-10}$, is given by the shortest-duration burst GRB 150101B. This constraint is $1\sim 2$ orders of magnitude tighter than previous results. Moreover, the statistical significance is highly improved.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to X. Li, P. Wang and S. Wang for useful discussions. This work has been funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 11375203.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: <http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/grb_table/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Charge ordering in doped planes near the commensurate fillings $x = \frac{1}{4}$ and $\frac{1}{3}$ are considered for and suggested to be competitors to superconductivity, leading to the experimentally seen narrow superconducting dome bounded by commensurate doping: $\frac{1}{4}<x< \frac{1}{3}$. Intercalated hydrogen bonded network, by its enhanced dielectric constant, screen and frustrate local [*charge order condensation energy*]{} and replace a generic ‘charge glass order’ by superconductivity in the dome. An access to superconductivity and charge order, available through the new water channel, is used to predict novel effects such as ‘Electrical Modulation of Superconductivity’ and ‘Electroresistance Effect’.'
author:
- |
G. Baskaran\
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences\
C.I.T. Campus, Chennai 600 113, India
title: |
How Ice enables Superconductivity in by melting charge order:\
Possibility of novel Electric Field Effects
---
2[ CuO$_2~$]{}
[2]{}\[\]
Discovery of superconductivity in by Takada and collaborators[@takada] have opened the possibility of realizing unconventional superconductivity and novel quantum states in 2D arising from strong electron correlations in doped layers. Water of a right proportion ($y \approx \frac{4}{3}$) seems absolutely necessary[@cava1; @cava2; @chu; @jin] for stabilizing superconductivity, suggesting $H_2O$’s critical role. While water does wonders in nature, its key role here is some what puzzling. Elucidating its role in this unusual superconductor is an important task from material science and physics point of view. This is what the present paper attempts using phenomenological and theoretical considerations.
Enthused by the remarkable discovery of superconductivity in , the present author[@gbcob] and others[@rvbcob] have suggested a single band t-J model as an appropriate model to understand superconductivity and low energy electronic phenomena. A phase diagram has been suggested using ideas of resonating valence bond (RVB) theory developed for cuprates[@pwagbrvb]. A recent experiment[@cava2] which shows superconductivity in a rather narrow range of doping $\frac{1}{4}<x< \frac{1}{3}$, than predicted by RVB theories, suggest that there are perhaps left out interactions and consequent competing phases which make a simple t-J model valid only for limited range of $x$. The situation is not unusual - even in cuprates a simple t-J modeling is strictly valid only in the neighborhood of optimal doping. Charge order phenomenon[@stripe; @stripe1] is known in cuprate superconductors; and it has been suggested to compete[@gbstripe] with superconductivity.
Doped , compared to $CuO_2$ layers of high cuprates, has a narrower conduction band and a less polarizable valence band of oxygen. Consequently, short range coulomb repulsions among carriers are screened less. This is likely to stabilize a variety of frustrated charge ordering in the triangular lattice, as we discuss in this paper. NMR result of Ray et al.[@susc] indeed provides a first evidence for charge freezing in family ($x = \frac{1}{2}$), below about $T \approx 300 K$, a large temperature scale.
We estimate and include unscreened short range coulomb interactions in the t-J model for the study of unhydrated . We show that in addition to superconductivity, charge ordering in the narrow conduction band of layer is a major instability, for a range of higher doping than suspected (Wen et al. in ref 7). As the unscreened near neighbor coulomb interactions are large and comparable to the band width, the characteristic charge order temperatures are $T_{\rm ch} \sim 400 K$.
Fortunately, , in hydrated , makes t-J modeling valid for a range of doping. For reasons which we elaborate in the present paper, hydrogen bonded dipoles of the ice layers screen and frustrate [*charge order condensation energy*]{}. That is, they [*effectively screen out short range repulsions*]{}, and enable the physics of a simple t-J model to be realized in a narrow range of doping, $\frac{1}{4}<x< \frac{1}{3}$, as superconductivity.
We discuss few important charge ordered states at commensurate fillings, $x = \frac{1}{4}$ and $ \frac{1}{3}$, which we believe are competitors to the experimentally observed superconductivity, in the range $\frac{1}{4} < x < \frac{1}{3}$. These reference charge ordered states are strongly frustrated by the random potential from the neighboring $Na$ layers, resulting in a glassy phase in the region $\frac{1}{4} < x < \frac{1}{3}$ and beyond. The charge glass phase is likely to be an anomalous metal, very much like the spin gap phase in cuprates, where there are local charge order activities at low frequency scales.
We estimate the enhancement of the background static dielectric constant at short distance due to hydrogen bonding in the layers. We find that this screening is sufficient to reduce the large charge order transition temperature down to $\sim 1 K$ and allow superconductivity to emerge. Strong commensurability effects and the associated short range charge order reduce superconducting considerably as we approach the commensurate ends $ x = \frac{1}{4} $ and $\frac{1}{3}$.
As stabilize superconductivity and discourages charge order, we have a new access to the electronic phases of layer through water. This leads to the possibility of some novel effects: i) ‘Electrical Modulation of Superconductivity’ by external electric field or microwave radiation and ii) ‘Electroresistance Effect’ in the normal state. We estimate that voltages $\sim 500 V$, applied capacitively to thin films of of thickness $\sim~1$ micron will orient the water dipoles and reduce the short distance dielectric screening, resulting in stabilization of charge glass order phase and destabilization of superconductivity. This interesting switching effect may have device potential.
Recently we modeled the low energy physics of doped using a t-J model and discussed an RVB scenario for superconductivity including a PT violating $d_1+id_2$ wave superconductivity and a $p_1+ip_2$ wave superconductivity at a higher doping. To study charge order we must include some leading short distance carrier-carrier and carrier-$Na$-ion screened coulomb interaction: H\_[[tJV]{}]{} = -t \_[ij]{} C\^\_[i]{} C\^\_[j]{} + H.c. + J \_[ij]{} ([**S**]{}\_[i ]{}\_[j]{} - n\_i n\_j)\
\_[ij]{} V\_[ij]{} (n\_i-1)( n\_j-1) + \_[i]{}\_i (n\_i -1) Here $C$’s and ${\bf S}$’s are the electron and spin operators. As we have an electron doped system we have the ‘zero occupancy’ constraint $\sum_{\sigma} n^{}_{i\sigma} \neq 0 $ at every site i.
Recall that doubly occupied $Co^{3+}$ sites carry a charge $-e$ with reference to the neutral layer and $V_{ij}$ is the screened coulomb repulsion between them. We have ignored the small two body off-diagonal coulomb interaction terms. For practical purposes only the nearest and next nearest neighbor terms $ V_1 \approx
\frac{e^2}{\varepsilon_{ab} R_{nn}} e^{-\frac{R_{nn}}{\lambda_{ab}}}$ and $ V_2 \approx \frac{e^2}{\varepsilon_{ab} R_{nnn}}
e^{-\frac{R_{nnn}}{\lambda_{ab}}}$ are important. Here $\varepsilon_{ab} \approx \varepsilon_O + \varepsilon_{\rm {H_2O}} $ represents the short distance dielectric screening arising from the filled oxygen bands of layers and $H_2O$ layers in . And $\lambda_{ab} \approx Co-Co$ distance is the Thomas Fermi screening length for our tight binding metallic layer. The random site energy $\epsilon_i$ of charge degree of freedom represents the screened coulomb attraction from neighboring $Na^+$ ions.
Electronic structure calculations[@singh] give a value of $t \approx -0.1~eV$ for the conduction band of the layer. We estimate $V_1$ and $V_2$ for , the non-hydrated case. The dielectric constants of oxides of $Fe$ and $Ni$ that flank $Co$ in the periodic table are $\sim 4$ to $12$. We assume a background (short distance) static dielectric constant of $\varepsilon_{ab} \approx 8$ for our layer. Recall that in cuprates the background $\epsilon$ is large $\sim 20$, in view of a more polarizable octahedral oxygen network; in the oxygen filled band is less polarizable and relatively deep below the fermi level. Using this dielectric constant and values of Co-Co distances in we get $V_1 \approx 0.8~eV$ and $V_2 \approx 0.4~eV$. The mean square fluctuation of the carrier site energy due to disordered $Na$-ions is ${\sqrt{\langle \delta \epsilon_i^2 \rangle}} \approx 0.2~eV $
In the absence of hopping, the dopant carriers $Co^{3+}$ will order classically and undergo order-disorder transition at a fairly high temperature $k_B T_{\rm ch}(\rm classical)
\approx 2{\bar V}\sim 10^3~K$; here ${\bar V} \equiv \frac{1}{2}(V_1 + V_2)$ is a mean short distance repulsion. However the electron dynamics reduce $T_{\rm ch}(\rm classical)$ considerably. To estimate this reduction we perform a mean field analysis of the t-J-V model for a CDW order, pretending that an unfrustrated charge order arises from nesting instability for . This gives us a BCS like expression for : k\_BT\_[*ch*]{} \_F e\^[-]{} Here $\rho_o$ is a fermi sea averaged particle-hole density of states corresponding to the ordering wave vector. Substituting $\epsilon_F \approx 0.5~eV$, $\rho_0 \approx \frac{1}{2\epsilon_F}$ and ${\bar V} \approx 0.4$, we get $T_{\rm ch} \approx 480 K$. Frustration on the triangular lattice at half filling and disorder effect from $Na$ ions will further reduce this. Thus we get a charge order temperature in the right range, $T_{\rm ch}(NMR) \approx 300~K$, seen in NMR,
5.5cm
Before we consider influence of we discuss some simple charge orders at $x = \frac{1}{4}$ and $\frac{1}{3}$ that are favored by electrostatics in the unhydrated . We ignore the superexchange contribution, as $J << V_1, V_2$. For $x= \frac{1}{4}$, the $Co^{3+}$ sites are arranged on a triangular lattice (figure 1) to minimize coulomb repulsions. Interestingly, the remaining sites carry spins and form spin-Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a Kagome lattice. In our convention, the classical energy of this state is $E_{\frac{1}{4}}(\rm Kagome) = 0$. In the real system, carrier delocalization will considerably reduce the amplitude of charge order. [*In this sense the charge ordered states shown in figure 1 and figure 2 are to be thought of as reference classical states*]{}.
Another ground state comparable in energy is an anisotropic metal. It has ordered stripes - alternating insulating and 0.5 electron doped chains. The electrostatic energy of this state per site is $ \frac{1}{4}(V_1 + V_2)$. However, the carrier delocalization in the 0.5 electron doped chains leads to a gain in kinetic energy which is easily estimated when J is neglected in our t-J model. This case corresponds to a quarter filled infinite U Hubbard model, which can be converted into a half filled band of non-interacting spinless fermions giving us the delocalization energy $ = -|t|\sum \cos k = -2{\frac{|t|}{\pi}}$. Thus we get a total energy per site, $E_{\frac{1}{4}}({\rm stripe}) = \frac{1}{4}(V_1 + V_2) -
2{\frac{|t|}{\pi}}$.
Figure 2 shows the case of $x = \frac{1}{3}$. This classical ground state minimizes electrostatic repulsion and $Co^{3+}$ sites fill one of the three sublattices and the remaining hexagonal lattice is the neutral spin-site. It is a hexagonal spin-quantum antiferromagnet. The energy of this state per site is $E_{\frac{1}{3}} =
\frac{V_2}{2}$. We also find striped states which are local minima.
5.5cm
So far we studied charge order in the plane at commensurate fillings. As we move away from $ x = \frac{1}{3}$ and $ x = \frac{1}{4}$, defects and discommensurations will be produced or we may go to an incommensurate charge ordered structure. There may be one or more first order phase boundary between $x = \frac{1}{3}$ and $ x = \frac{1}{4}$. However, all these nice charge ordered phases will be challenged by a generically disordered arrangement of ions in a triangular lattice and the consequent random potential seen by the mobile $Co^{3+}$ carriers as explained below .
The energetically preferred sites of atoms[@cobstr] in form a triangular lattice that have the same lattice parameter as the triangular $Co$ layer. However, the and $Co$ lattices are relatively shifted - if we project the allowed positions of the atoms of the nearest top and bottom layer onto the $Co$ layer, these sites become the dual lattice (hexagonal lattice) of the $Co$ triangular lattice. Because of this [*a sublattice order of the atoms does not couple to the charge density wave order-parameter of the lattice and in principle allows a finite temperature charge order-disorder phase transition*]{}: a 3-state Potts ($Z_3$ symmetry) model transition at $x = \frac{1}{3}$ and a 4-state Potts model ($Z_4$ symmetry) transition at $ x = \frac{1}{4}$. However, an inevitable disorder in sublattice leads to, based on an Imry-Ma type of argument, a glassy order at low temperatures rather than a genuine charge order phase transition. Thus we expect a phase diagram depicted in figure 3 for the range $\frac{1}{3} < x < \frac{1}{4}$.
Let us move on to the hydrated case, . As we mentioned earlier, the enhanced dielectric constant of the layer will screen short range coulomb repulsion and weaken and melt the high temperature charge ordering. It also screens and weakens the random potential seen by the carriers. For the appearance of low temperature superconductivity $T_{\rm ch}$ need not be reduced to nearly zero value. A sufficiently weakened charge ordered state may give up at low temperatures and superconductivity may emerge. Figure 3 shows sketches the change of phase diagram as we go to the hydrated case. A strong resistance anomaly seen in a recent experiment[@jin] at $T^* \approx 50~K$, may be the weakened charge order transition that we are discussing.
8.0cm
Let us discuss nature of ordering hydrogen bonding in in some detail. In what follows we use a recent suggestion of Cava et al.[@cava3] that may have a structure similar to the layers in hexagonal ice (1h ice). As mentioned earlier, in , energetically favorable interlayer sites of $Na$ form a triangular lattice. These sites are at the center of trigonal biprisms, capped by an oxygen atom at the top and one at the bottom. To understand ordering, we consider $Na_{\frac{1}{3}}.CoO_2.{\frac{4}{3}}H_2O$ as a reference compound. Fill one of of the three sublattices by atoms to minimize electrostatic energy. We are left with two empty sublattices that form a hexagonal lattice. Two molecules may be accommodated at the top and bottom of the capped trigonal biprism. By doing so we get two hexagonal lattices of sandwiching a triangular lattice of ions. Thus we have a triangular lattice filled by and in the ratio $1:4$. We can view the above hexagonal sheets as the sheets in hexagonal ice structure, as suggested by Cava and collaborators[@cava3] in their preliminary studies. [*We find it very interesting that the nearest neighbor $H_2O$-$H_2O$ distance in the above geometry, $ \approx 2.81~Au$, is nearly the same[@icebook] as that in real hexagonal ice $\approx 2.71$*]{}. No wonder water may freeze into ice in ! Having nearly the same -distance may also help ice sheets to have a good hydrogen bonding network like in hexagonal ice.
Thus it is likely that molecules continue to have hydrogen bonding in spite of the and environment. As hydrogen bond energy is substantial $\sim 0.5~ eV$, water tends to have hydrogen bonding activity in extreme environments. Examples are biological systems, clathrate hydrates and water containing charged ions, where continue to maintain hydrogen bonding even though the local structure deviates considerably from the standard ice or water structure. Further the random environment in may convert the 2D ice layer into a 2D amorphous ice layer with a good short range hexagonal order.
Now we discuss how the dielectric property of the layer may control the low temperature electronic phases of the conducting layer. We are interested in finding how the electron-electron interactions at the charge order wave vector ${\bf q } = {\bf Q}$ get screened by the interacting water dipoles. The relevant static dielectric constant is $\epsilon_{\rm H_2O} (Q)$. In an ice system like ours with a large disorder in dipole orientations, we expect very small variation of $\epsilon_{\rm H_2O}(q)$ with $q$. Further random site disorder in the sublattice will produce Bjerrum defects; so we do not expect a 2D dipolar order-disorder transition, as in ideal 2D models of ice.
Dielectric constant of ice has been studied extensively in the past and also recently[@frohlich; @haymet; @icebook]. A general expression for the dielectric constant of an interacting dipolar system is[@frohlich; @haymet]: = \_ + ([**P**]{} - )\^2 Here $\epsilon_{\infty} \sim 1 - 2$ is the high frequency dielectric constant of the dipole, in our case molecule. $\bf P$ is the total dipole moment of the system of volume V. And $\langle~...~\rangle$ denotes thermal average. Static dielectric constant of ice has not been measured at liquid He temperatures, as the dielectric relaxation becomes too slow even around liquid air temperatures. Fortunately, extensive numerical study of are available. For example, a recent calculation[@haymet] shows that for hexagonal ice, $\approx 220 $ at $T = 50 K$.
We use this 3D result to get an approximate estimate for our weakly coupled hexagonal ice layers as follows. We replace the volume $V$ by $\approx 6V$ to account for the c-axis expansion in . Missing hydrogen bonds along the c-axis reduces the number of allowed proton configurations leading to a reduction of $\langle ({\bf P} - \langle {\bf P}\rangle )^2 \rangle$ to $\approx \frac{2}{3} \langle ({\bf P} - \langle {\bf P}\rangle )^2 \rangle$. This gives us (hexagonal sheet) $\approx 20$ at $T = 50 K$. Our system being strongly disordered, we do not expect (hexagonal sheet) to change at lower temperatures. Thus the background dielectric constant of is $\epsilon = \epsilon_o + \epsilon_{\rm H_2O} \approx
8 + 20$. This reduces the mean short range repulsion by nearly a factor of 3, making the $T_{\rm ch} \approx 1 K$, in equation (2). Once the long range charge order is disabled by a reduction of V, the simple t-J model and consequent low temperature superconducting phase is realized, albeit with a reduced in the range $\frac{1}{3} < x < \frac{1}{4}$. The sharp reduction in superconducting at the commensurate boundaries of the dome should arise from the strong short range order and lesser discommensurations and defects. The experimentally seen flat value of $\approx 2 K$ for $x < \frac{1}{4}$ and for $x > \frac{1}{3}$is likely to be an effect of phase separation.
6.0cm
Our proposal of a critical and catalytic role of layer suggests ways to access and control low temperature electronic phases of the layer. Based on this we suggest two effects: i) ‘Electrical Modulation of Superconductivity’. Here we control (figure 4) superconductivity and superconducting by modifying the screening property of layer by external electric fields - DC, AC or pulsed fields. This has interesting consequences of being able to locally erase superconductivity by STM tips, dynamically create Josephson networks or create 2D superconductivity of desired shapes through appropriate capacitor shapes etc. Since microwaves are absorved by hydrogen bonded networks we can pump microwaves at appropriate frequencies ($\hbar \omega <
\Delta_{\rm sc}$, the superconducting gap) and dynamically polarize water dipoles and may influence its dielectric properties, and in turn control superconductivity.
ii\) ‘Electroresistance Effect’. By modifying the amplitude of charge glass order as well as $T_{\rm ch}$ in the non-superconducting state, by influencing the layer by external DC or AC electric field, we can change $\rho_{ab}$, the ab-plane resistivity.
Below we estimate the electric field required to completely suppress superconductivity. Having established a hydrogen bonded network it requires a finite energy to rotate a water molecule and orient its dipole moment along an external electric field. In infrared absorption and neutron scattering experiments[@icebook] the absorption band corresponding to rotation of molecules is in the range $60~{\rm to}~120~meV$. Assuming a random orientation, the average energy required to reorient a water molecule is $\approx 50~meV$, i.e., a potential of $50~{\rm mV}$ applied over the length $\approx 1~Au$ of the water dipole will orient the dipole moment of water along its field. If we have c-axis oriented film of thickness $1$ micron we need to apply a voltage $\approx 500~Volts$ across the film, in order to orient the majority of dipoles. Strong polarization of water dipoles reduces the dielectric constant, as is evident from equation (3). The resulting reduced screening of carriers in the layer allows charge order to grow and superconductivity gets suppressed.
A theoretical analysis, including some of the possible difficulties in observing the effects will be presented in a future publication.
To get a clear understanding of this complex system, and to see if our proposal is correct more experiments are necessary:
a\) [**Charge Order:**]{} It will be interesting to perform NMR, NQR, STM, $\mu SR$ and other local probe measurements to look for charge order in the vicinity of the commensurate fillings $x = \frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{2}{3}$ and $\frac{3}{4}$ and see how they differ between the two systems and .
b\) [**Spin order, singlets and gaps:**]{} Accompanying local charge order we expect a spin order at low temperatures (the scale of J is small, $\sim 6$ to $7~meV$). In general the enhanced singlet stabilization by the superexchange process will introduce some kind of spin gap phenomenon. If the charge order at $x = \frac{1}{4}$ leads to a Kagome lattice of spins it will be an interesting testing ground for some of the ideas of the spin liquid phase of spin-Kagome antiferromagnet, including possible novel excitations.
c\) [**Lower Doping:**]{} Experimentally, it has not been possible[@cava2] to make for $x < \frac{1}{4}$. It is likely[@cava2] that c-axis ionic bonding is weakened, by decreasing $x$ and presence of water layer, making a 3D structure unstable. It will be important to synthesize, by non-equilibrium means, meta stable compounds for $x < \frac{1}{4}$ to test the validity of RVB theory and also test our hypothesis of the role played by water.
d\) [**Replacing :**]{} It will be desirable to have a stable solid $Na_x CoO_2.y X$, where an intercalant ‘X’ not only increases the dielectric constant but also provides additional bonding between layers and make stable compounds for $x < \frac{1}{4}$.
e\) [**Higher doping:**]{} According to reference 6, the dopant induced dynamics, within the t-J model will favor ferromagnetic correlations and a consequent p-wave superconductivity at higher dopings slightly above $x = \frac{1}{3}$. It will be interesting to look for this.
f\) [**Inhomogeneous Superconductivity:**]{} If ice plays a central role, as suggested in this paper, density fluctuation in ice layer will directly influence superconductivity in nearby layers resulting in a corresponding fluctuation in the superconducting order parameter and possible well grown local charge ordered phase.
g\) [**Slow Relaxation:**]{} Since interacting water dipoles have very slow dielectric relaxation time scales[@icebook], they may consequently affect superconductivity and impose some anomalous relaxation/aging effects.
The present paper is phenomenological and qualitative in character. Any detailed quantitative calculations of and phase diagram for this complex system needs further experimental guidance. Issue of calculating local screening and dielectric constant in hydrogen bonded systems is known to have subtleties; added to this, we have conducting layers sandwiching water layers. We have made very crude estimates based on simple physical arguments and very approximate considerations, as our primary aim is to focus and identify how water could play a crucial role in this complex system.
We thank A.K. Mishra, V.N. Muthukumar, Debanand Sa, Manas Sardar and R. Shankar for discussion and Latha Malar Baskaran for reference \[18\].
K. Takada et al., Nature, [**422**]{} 53 (03) M. Foo et al., cond-mat/0304464 Y. Wang et al., cond-mat/0305455 B. Lorenz et al., cond-mat/0304537; F. Rivadulla et al., cond-mat/0304455 R. Jin et al., cond-mat/0306066 G. Baskaran, cond-mat/0303649 Brijesh Kumar, B.S. Shastry, cond-mat/0304210; Qiang-Hua Wang, Dung-Hai Lee and Patrick A. Lee, cond-mat/0304377; Masao Ogata, cond-mat/0304405 P.W. Anderson, Science, [**235**]{} 1196 (87) G. Baskaran, Z. Zou and P.W. Anderson, Sol. St. Commn, [**63**]{} 973 (87); G. Baskaran and P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. [**B 37**]{} 580 (88) J. Zaanen and O. Gunnarsson, Phys. Rev. [**B 46**]{} 7391 (89); V.J. Emery, S. A. Kivelson and O. Zachar, Phys. Rev. [**B 56**]{} 6120 (97); S.R. White and D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. [**B 60**]{} R753 (99); J.M. Tranquada et al., Nature [**375**]{} 561 (95) G. Baskaran, Mod. Phys. Lett., [**B 14**]{} 377 (00) R. Ray et al., Phys. Rev. [**B 59**]{} 9454 (99); Phys. stat. sol. [**B 215**]{} 703 (99) D.J. Singh, Phys. Rev. [**B 61**]{} 13397 (00) R.J. Balsys and R.L. Davis, Sol. St. Ionics, [**93**]{} 279 (96) R. Cava, M2S-Rio Meeting, 25-30 May 2003. V. F. Petrenko and R. W. Whitworth, Physics of Ice, (Oxford University Press, 1999) H. Frohlich, Theory of Dielectrics and Dielectric Loss (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1958) S.W. Rick and A.D.J. Haymet, J. Chem. Phys. [**118**]{} 9291 (2003)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Lars-Hendrik Frahm'
- Daniela Pfannkuche
bibliography:
- 'manuscript.bib'
title: 'Ultrafast ab-initio Quantum Chemistry Using Matrix Product States'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=10000 0.9truecm
The recent discovery[@first] of superconductivity below 39 K in MgB$_{2}$ has stimulated a great deal of effort among the scientific community and a large number of theoretical and experimental papers have been published within few months. The debate on the origin of this unexpected superconductivity is still open, although both experimental[@exper1; @exper2; @exper3] and theoretical [@an; @kortus; @kong] works indicate that MgB$_{2}$ is a BCS-like system. In this framework, the obvious relevant interaction in the superconducting transition is the electron-phonon (e-ph) coupling. Owing to the simple hexagonal structure (space group P$_{6}$mmm), four zone-center optical modes are predicted for MgB$_{2}$: a silent B$_{1g}$ mode, the E$_{2g}$ Raman mode, and the infrared active E$_{2u}$ and A$_{2u}$ modes. While the doubly-degenerate E$_{2u}$ and E$_{2g}$ modes are ascribed to in-plane stretching modes of the boron atoms, both non-degenerate A$_{2u}$ and B$_{1g}$ modes involve vibrations along the perpendicular direction (c axis). It is quite a general statement that the E$_{2g}$ mode is expected to allow for the strongest e-ph coupling[@an; @kortus; @kong] and then to play a relevant role in superconductivity. Raman experiments[@goncharov; @bohnen; @hlinka; @chen; @kunc] carried out on MgB$_{2}$ have shown that the spectrum is dominated by a quite large and asymmetric band around 600 cm$^{-1}$, ascribed to the E$_{2g}$ mode. The anomalous width of this phonon peak has been interpreted as a signature of the e-ph coupling.
Up to now, no other isostructural boride (XB$_{2}$) has shown the peculiar high temperature superconductivity of MgB$_{2}$. In particular, MgAl$_{2}$ is not superconducting. Indeed, several studies on the Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$ compounds have shown that superconductivity is progressively suppressed for increasing x and vanishes for x$>$0.5.[@slusky; @bianconi1; @xiang] In order to achieve a deeper understanding of the effects of Al doping, we have studied the evolution of the phonon spectrum of Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$ in the $0\leq x\leq 0.5$ range by means of both Raman and infrared spectroscopy.
Pure MgB$_{2}$ and Al doped polycrystalline samples have been synthesized at high temperature by direct reaction of the elements in a tantalum crucible under argon atmosphere. The samples, which show an average grain dimension around 1-2$\mu $m, have been characterized by x-ray diffraction and by resistivity measurements, in order to determine, in particular, the x-dependence of the superconductivity transition temperature T$_{c}$.[@bianconi1; @bianconi2].
The Raman spectra were measured in back-scattering geometry, using a micro-Raman spectrometer with a CCD detector and an adjustable notch filter. The sample was excited by the 632.8 nm line of a 16 mW He-Ne Laser. The confocal microscope was equipped with a 20X magnification objective which gives a laser spot about 10 $\mu $m$^{2}$ wide at the sample surface. The Raman shift explored ranges between 200 and 1100 cm$^{-1}$, the low frequency limit being due to the notch filter cutoff. Since the laser spot impinges on a few sample grains, the relative intensities of the observed spectral features were slightly different from point to point, depending on the random orientation of the grains. For each sample, Raman spectra were thus collected from different points and then averaged.
As shown in Fig. 1a, the spectrum of the undoped MgB$_{2}$ sample is dominated by a band centered around 600 cm$^{-1}$, in agreement with previous Raman experiments reporting a band centered between 580 and 630 cm$^{-1}$, characterized by a large width (200-300 cm$^{-1} $) and a relevant asymmetry.[@goncharov; @bohnen; @hlinka; @chen; @kunc] A close inspection of the MgB$_{2}$ spectrum of Fig. 1a reveals two weak shoulders on the low- and the high- frequency side of the 600 cm$^{-1}$ band ($\nu _{2}$), around 400 ($\nu _{1}$) and 750 cm$^{-1}$ ($\nu_{3}$), respectively. Although the origin of the central $\nu _{2}$ band is still questioned,[@chen; @kunc] it is generally assigned to the Raman-active mode E$_{2g}$, to which theoretical predictions attribute a peak frequency[@kortus; @kong; @bohnen; @kunc; @satta; @yildrim] ranging from 470 to 660 cm$^{-1}$. It is worth noticing that further spectral contributions observed in previous Raman experiments[@hlinka; @kunc] have been ascribed to peaks in the phonon density of states (around 430, 620, 710 and 780 cm$^{-1}$) derived from neutron scattering experiments.[@osborn] In a disordered or defective system, the momentum selection rules can indeed be violated, and the Raman (or infrared absorption) spectrum can reflect the phonon density of states.
The Raman spectrum was fitted by a combination of three contributions, each described by a Damped Harmonic Oscillator (DHO), since this profile has been successfully used in modelling broad phonon line-shapes in strongly correlated systems.[@dho; @prl] The complete fitting function here used is:
$$S(\nu )=[1+n(\nu )]\Bigg[ {\frac{{A\nu \Gamma }}{{\nu ^2+\Gamma ^2}}}%
+\sum_{i=1}^N{\frac{{A_i\nu \Gamma _i}}{{(\nu ^2-\nu _i^2)^2+\nu ^2\Gamma
_i^2}}}\Bigg]$$
The first term represents a large DHO function centered at $\nu $=0. It takes into account the wide unstructured background, which is a common feature of strongly correlated systems such as manganites and cuprates. The second term accounts for N phonon peaks, where $\nu _{i}$, A$_{i\text{ }}$and $\Gamma_{i} $ are their peak frequency, amplitude and linewidth, respectively. The quantity n($\nu $) is the Bose-Einstein thermal population factor. In Fig. 1a we report the best fit spectrum, the $\nu _{1}$, $\nu _{2}$, and $\nu _{3}$ components, and the tail of the background centered at $\nu $=0. As discussed above, the $\nu _{2}$ peak (centered at 605$\pm $10 cm$^{-1}$) can be ascribed to the E$_{g} $ mode, while the $\nu _{1}$ (at 415$\pm $20 cm$^{-1}$) and $\nu _{3}$ (at 780$\pm $30 cm$^{-1}$) peaks probably reflect optical bands in the phonon density of states.[@osborn]
The spectra of the doped Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$ samples are well reproduced by using Eq. (1) if, for x$>$0.2, the phonon number N is increased from 3 to 4. In Fig. 1b we report the Raman spectra for different Al doping after background subtraction. The $\nu _{3}$ contribution becomes well detectable in the x=0.08 spectrum. Both its intensity and peak frequency increase on further increasing x. For x$>$0.1, a new component ($\nu _{4}$) appears around 850 cm$^{-1}$ and, for x$>$0.25, the $\nu _{3}$ and $\nu _{4}$ peaks become the dominant contributions to the Raman spectrum. It is interesting to note that the spectrum at x=0.5 resembles that of the end-series compound (AlB$_{2}$), which is dominated by an intense and narrow peak centered around 980 cm$^{-1}$.[@bohnen]
Infrared absorption measurements were performed above 400 cm$^{-1}$ by using a Bomem MB100 interferometer operating with a resolution of 10 cm$^{-1}$. Following a standard procedure,[@noilasco] we measured the infrared signals transmitted by a pure CsI pellet (I$_{o}$($\nu $)) and by the sample powder dispersed in a CsI pellet (I($\nu $)). The optical density $O_{d}(\nu )$=ln(I$_{o}$($\nu $)/I($\nu $)) is proportional to the optical conductivity of the sample[@noilasco] and thus provides the spectral shape of the sample absorption. When this procedure is employed for measuring a powder metallic sample, the phonon spectrum is strongly reduced in intensity by the screening from free charges, and superimposed to a broad and intense background (see for example the case of metallic La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ powders[@noilasco]). The far infrared $O_{d}(\nu )$ of the measured Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$ are affected by intense backgrounds (see for example the MgB$_{2}$ case in Fig. 2a), which prevent reliable fits of the spectra. However, once the background is subtracted, one obtains a clear picture of the effect of Al doping on the far infrared spectrum of Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$, as shown Fig. 2b. The x=0 spectrum (see Fig. 2b) can be described by considering a broad peak centered around 460 cm$^{-1}$, accompanied by a very broad band around 600 cm$^{-1}$. Since the infrared active E$_{1u}$ and A$_{2u}$ phonons are predicted around 330 and 400 cm$^{-1}$,[@kortus; @kong; @bohnen; @kunc; @satta; @yildrim] the two observed bands might be ascribed to peaks in the phonon density of states,[@osborn] which become infrared active due to disorder, as noted above. Our MgB$_{2}$ spectrum is qualitatively in agreement with that previously reported, where a broad peak centered around 480 cm$^{-1}$ is accompanied by further components at higher frequencies.[@sundar] Our data (see Fig. 2b) show that the 460 cm$^{-1}$ peak becomes more evident with increasing the Al content. For x$>$0.17 a new absorption peak appears around 700 cm$^{-1}$ and strongly increases with further increasing doping. Both Raman and infrared spectra thus give evidence that the Al doping induces substantial modifications of the MgB$_{2}$ optical properties in the high-doping region. In particular, the appearance of new high-frequency contributions at high doping indicates remarkable structural changes.
A quantitative description of the Al doping effects can be achieved by analyzing the best-fit parameters of the Raman spectra. The $\nu _{1}$ peak does not significantly vary with doping, its peak frequency and width being almost constant in the 0-0.5 x range ($\nu _{1}\simeq $415 cm$^{-1}$, $\Gamma _{1}\simeq $100 cm$^{-1}$). More interesting information can be extracted from the x dependence of the peaks at higher frequencies. In Fig. 3 we report the best fit parameters $\nu _{i}$ and $\Gamma _{i}$ (i=2, 3, 4) as a function of x. In discussing these results, we stress that two different structural phases have been observed in x-ray diffraction measurements:[@slusky] a low-doping (LD) phase in the 0$<$x$<$0.10 range and a high-doping (HD) phase in the x$>$0.25 range. The two phases are structurally incompatible and a two phase region (LD + HD) at intermediate x (0.10$<$x$<$0.25) has been proposed.[@slusky] Novel diffraction studies confirm a structural change around x$=$0.10,[@xiang; @bianconi2] and transmission-electron-microscopy observations revealed for x$>$0.10 the existence of a superstructure, with doubled lattice constant along the c-axis.[@xiang] The existence of three major ordered phases for x$<$0.10, at x$=$0.30 and at x$=$0.50, and an overall disordered phase for 0.10$<$x$<$0.30 have also been suggested.[@bianconi2]
As shown in Fig. 3a, where vertical lines at x$=$0.10 and at x$=$0.25 separate the three regions, $\nu _{2}$ and $\nu _{3}$ are nearly constant in the stable LD region, which is structurally characterized by small variations of the lattice parameters.[@slusky; @xiang] The onset of the HD phase in the intermediate x-region is marked by the appearance of the new spectral feature ($\nu _{4}$). When the system enters in the pure HD phase, $\nu _{3}$ and $\nu _{4}$ strongly increase with x, while $\nu _{2}$ remains nearly constant. The latter result is well consistent with the assignment of the $\nu _{2}$ peak to the in-plane E$_{2g}$ stretching mode of the boron atoms, since the a (in-plane) lattice parameter do not significantly vary with x. [@slusky; @xiang] At the moment, our results do not allow a complete assignment of the observed Raman lines, possible through a polarization analysis of Raman spectra from high-quality single crystals. We just note that the increase of the $\nu _{3}$ and $\nu _{4}$ values, simultaneous to the remarkable compression of the c (out-of-plane) lattice parameter[@slusky] when x increases in the HD phase, suggests that the $\nu_{3}$ and $\nu_{4}$ peaks could be ascribed to out-of-plane vibrations.
As concerning the widths $\Gamma _{i}$ reported in Fig.3b, their values are affected by large errors in the LD phase owing to the nearly unstructured Raman spectra (see Fig.1). Bearing in mind the importance of the e-ph interaction on the width of the $\nu _{2}$ (E$_{2g}$) phonon, the most interesting information is the x dependence of $\Gamma _{2}$. As a matter of fact, consistently with the observed suppression of superconductivity,[@slusky; @xiang; @bianconi2] $\Gamma _{2}$ and thus the el-ph interaction strongly decreases when x increases in the HD phase. The overall decrease of $\Gamma _{3}$ and $\Gamma _{4}$ may also reflect the decrease of the e-ph interaction with increasing x.
Although a comparison among the absolute intensities of different spectra may be questionable, a comparative analysis of the peak integrated intensities $I_{i}$ can be safely performed. In Fig. 4a the $I_{2}/I_{3}$ and $I_{2}/I_{4}$ values as a function of x are reported. It is well evident that both the ratios decrease for x$>$0.25, albeit $I_{2}/I_{4}$ is much steeper than $I_{2}/I_{3}$. This result clearly reflects the progressive transformation of the structure from the LD to the HD phase. The comparison between the x-dependence of T$_{c}$ reported in Fig. 4b [@bianconi2] and the intensity ratios reported in Fig. 4a clearly shows the correlation between superconductivity and the phonon structures, i.e. the structural properties of Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$. The relevance of the $\nu _{2}$ mode with respect to the $\nu _{3}$ and in particular to the $\nu _{4}$ mode (characteristic of the HD phase) clearly decreases with increasing x in the HD phase, and conversely the transition to the superconducting state tends to be inhibited.
In conclusion, the measured Raman and infrared spectra give clear evidence of the structural difference between the low-doping and the high-doping phases of Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$.[@slusky; @xiang; @bianconi2] The x-dependence of the $\nu_{2}$ peak supports its assignment to the E$_{2g}$ mode. Therefore, the remarkable narrowing of the $\nu_{2}$ phonon observed for x$>$0.25, implying the decrease of the e-ph interaction, can be related to the suppression of superconductivity. Moreover, the decrease of the critical temperature can be directly related to the decrease of the relative intensity of the $\nu _{2}$ (E$_{2g}$) mode with respect to the $\nu_{3}$ and $\ \nu_{4}\ $ modes which dominate the high-doping phase.
Fig. 1- a) Raman spectrum of MgB$_{2}$ and the best fit curve from Eq.1 (solid line). The three phonon contributions (solid lines) and the $\nu = 0$ background (dashed line) are also shown separately. b) The Raman spectra of Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$ at x$=$0, 0.08, 0.17, 0.25, 0.33, 0.41, 0.50 after background subtraction. The spectra are shifted vertically for clarity.
Fig. 2 -a) Far infrared optical density of MgB$_{2}$. The intense background is very evident (dashed line). b) Optical densities of Mg$_{1-x}$Al$_{x}$B$_{2}$ at x$=$0, 0.17, 0.33, 0.41, 0.45 after background subtraction. The spectra are shifted vertically for clarity.
Fig. 3 - Best fit values of $\nu _{i}$ (a) and $\Gamma _{i}$ (b) (i=2,3,4) as function of x from the analysis of the Raman spectra. Vertical dashed lines indicate the x=0.10 and x=0.25 values.
Fig. 4 - a) Intensity ratios of the peak integrated intensities $I_{2}/I_{3}$ and $I_{2}/I_{4}$ as a function of x from the analysis of Raman spectra. b) T$_{c}$ as a function of x from Ref.16. The vertical dashed lines indicate the x=0.25 value.
J. Nagamatsu, N. Nakagawa, T. Muranaka, Y. Zenitani, J. Akimitsu, Nature 410, 63 (2001)
S.L. Bud’ko, G. Lapertot, C. Petrovic, C.E. Cunningham, N. Anderson P.C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1877 (2001)
T. Takahashi, T. Sato, S. Souma, T. Muranaka, J. Akimitsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4915 (2001)
G. Rubio-Bollinger, H. Suderov, S. Vieria, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5582 (2001)
J.M. An, W.E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4366 (2001)
J. Kortus, I.I. Mazin, K.D. Belashchenko, V.P. Antropov, L.L. Boyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4656 (2001)
Y. Kong, O.V. Dolgov, O. Jepsen, O.K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 64, 020501 (R)
A.F. Goncharov, V.V. Struzhkin, E. Gregoryanz, J. Hu, R.J. Hemley, H. Mao, G. Lapertot, S.L. Bud’ko, P.C. Canfield, cond-mat 0104042 (2001)
K.P. Bohnen, R. Heid, B. Renker, cond-mat 0103319 (2001)
J. Hlinka, I. Gregora, J. Pokorny, L. Plecenik, P. Kus, L. Satrapinsky, S. Benacka, cond-mat 0105275 (2001)
X.K. Chen, M.J. Kostantinovic, J.C. Irwin, D.D. Lawrie, J.P. Franck, cond-mat 0104005 (2001)
K. Kunc, I. Loa, K. Syassen, R.K. Kremer, K. Ahn, cond-mat 0105402 (2001)
J.S. Slusky, N. Rogado, K.A. Regan, M.A. Hayward, P. Khalifah, T. He, K. Inumaru, S.M. Loureiro, M.K. Haas, H.W. Zandbergen, R.J. Cava, Nature 410, 342 (2001).
A. Bianconi, D. Di Castro, S. Agrestini, G. Campi, N. L. Saini, A. Saccone, S. De Negri, M. Giovannini, cond-mat 0103211 (2001)
J.Y. Xiang, D.N. Zheng, J.Q. Li, L. Li, P.L. Lang, H. Chen, C. Dong, G.C. Che, Z.A. Ren, H.H. Qi, H.Y. Tian, Y.M. Ni, Z.X. Zhao, cond-mat 0104366 (2001).
A. Bianconi, D. Di Castro, S. Agrestini, N. L. Saini, A. Saccone, S. De Negri, M. Giovannini, G. Profeta, A. Continenza, G. Satta, S. Massidda, A. Cassetta, A. Pifferi, M. Colapietro (unpublished)
G. Satta, G. Profeta, F. Bernardini, A. Continenza, S. Massidda, cond-mat 0102358 (2001)
T. Yildrim, O. Gulseren, J.W. Lynn, C.M. Brown, T.J. Udovic, H.Z. Qing, N. Rogado, K.A. Regan, M.A. Hayward, J.S. Slusky, T. He, M.K. Haas, P. Khalifah, K. Inumaru, R.J. Cava, cond-mat 0103469 (2001)
R. Osborn, E.A. Goremychkin, A.I. Kolesnikov, D.G. Hinks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 00, 000, 2001
S. Yoon, H.L. Liu, G. Schollerer, S.L. Cooper, P.D. Han, D.A. Payne, S.W. Cheong, Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. B 58 (2795 (1998)
A. Congeduti, P. Postorino, E. Caramagno,M. Nardone, A. Kumar, D.D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1251 (2001)
P. Dore, G. De Marzi, R. Bertini, A. Nucara, P. Calvani, M. Ferretti, Physica C 350, 55 (2001)
C.S. Sundar, A. Bharathi, M. Premila, T.N. Sairam, S. Kalavathi, G.L.N. Reddy, V.S. Sastry, Y. Hariharan, T.S. Radhakrishnan, cond-mat 0104354 (2001)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Introducing the deformation theory of holomorphic Cartan geometries, we compute infinitesimal automorphisms and infinitesimal deformations. We also prove the existence of a semi-universal deformation of a holomorphic Cartan geometry.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India'
- 'Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, LJAD, France'
- 'Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Lahnberge, Hans-Meerwein-Straße, D-35032 Marburg, Germany'
author:
- Indranil Biswas
- Sorin Dumitrescu
- Georg Schumacher
title: Deformation Theory of holomorphic Cartan Geometries
---
Introduction
============
Let $G$ be a complex Lie group and $H < G$ a complex Lie subgroup with Lie algebras $\fg$, and $\fh$ respectively. The quotient map $G\to G/H$ defines a holomorphic principal $H$-bundle. Moreover, on the total space of this principal bundle, namely $G$, we have a tautological $\fg$-valued holomorphic $1$-form (the Maurer-Cartan form), constructed by identifying $\fg$ with the right-invariant vector fields. This $1$-form is an isomorphism of vector bundles and its restriction to the fibers of $G\to G/H$ coincide with the Maurer-Cartan form of $H$.
A holomorphic of type $(G,\, H)$ on a compact complex manifold $X$ is infinitesimally modeled on this. More precisely, on a holomorphic principal $H$-bundle $E_H$ over $X$ there is a holomorphic $1$-form $A$ with values in the Lie algebra $\fg$ of $G$ that induces an isomorphism from the tangent bundle of $E_H$ to the trivial bundle on $E_H$ with fiber $\fg$. This isomorphism is required to be $H$-invariant and on each fiber of $E_H$ it should be the Maurer-Cartan form [@Sh]. A fundamental result of E. Cartan shows that the obstruction for $A$ to satisfy the Maurer-Cartan equation of $G$ is a curvature tensor which vanishes if and only if $(E_H, A)$ is locally isomorphic to the $H$-principal bundle $G\to G/H$ endowed with the Maurer-Cartan form [@Sh].
Our aim here is to introduce the deformation theory of holomorphic on a compact complex manifold. We compute the tangent cohomology of a holomorphic $(E_H,A)$ in degree zero and one. Infinitesimal automorphisms of a holomorphic $(E_H,A)$ consist of all the $ad(E_H)$-valued holomorphic vector fields $\phi$ satisfying the condition that the Lie derivative $L_\phi(A)$ vanishes. The space of infinitesimal deformations of $(E_H,A)$ fits into a short exact sequence that we construct in the fourth section. The construction of the semi-universal deformation is worked out in the last section. Using the same methods a semi-universal deformation can also be constructed when the principal $H$-bundle and the underlying compact complex manifold are both moving.
Deformations of holomorphic Cartan geometries – Definition
==========================================================
We will denote by $G$ a connected complex Lie group, and by $H<G$ a closed connected complex subgroup. Furthermore $X$ is a compact complex manifold. Let $E_H$ denote a holomorphic principal $H$-bundle over $X$. Let $E_G= E_H\times_H G$ be the holomorphic principal $G$-bundle on $X$ obtained by extending the structure group of $E_H$ using the inclusion of $H$ in $G$. We denote by $T_M$ the holomorphic tangent bundle of a complex manifold $M$.
The action of the group $H$ on $E_H$ produces an action of $H$ on the tangent bundle $T_{E_H}$: for $p \in E_H$, a tangent vector $v\in T_p(E_H)$ and $h\in H$ we have $v\cdot h = R_{h*}v$, where $R_h$ is the right multiplication by $h$. For $\gamma\in \fg= {\rm Lie}(G)$ we have $h\cdot \gamma= ad(h^{-1}(\gamma))$.
Let $\pi:E_H\to X$ be the projection, and $\pi_* : T_{E_H} \to T_X$ the induced map. The adjoint bundle $ad(E_H)$ is defined as $E\times_H \fh$, where $\fh = {\rm Lie}(H)$. The space of vertical tangent vectors $\ker \pi_*$ is invariant under the action of $H$, and we have $$\label{a1}
ad(E_H)= ker(\pi_*)/H.$$ Given a section of $ad(E_H)$ we will use the same notation for its pull-back to $\ker(\pi_*) \subset T_{E_H}$.
\[de:Cartangeom\] A [*holomorphic Cartan geometry*]{} of type $(G,H)$ on $X$ is a pair $(E_H,A)$, where $E_H$ is a holomorphic principal $H$-bundle on $X$, and $A$ is a ${{\mathbb C} }$-linear holomorphic isomorphism of vector bundles $$A:T_{E_H}\isom E_H \times \fg$$ -3mm over $E_H$ such that
- $A$ is $H$-invariant, and
- the restriction of $A$ to fibers of $E_H\to X$ is equal to the Maurer-Cartan form.
An [*isomorphism*]{} of holomorphic Cartan geometries $\Phi:(E_H,A )\to (F_H,B)$ is given by a holomorphic isomorphism $\phi:E_H \to F_H$ of principal bundles that takes $A$ to $B$ so that $$\label{eq:iso}
\xymatrix{ &T_{E_H} \ar[r]^A \ar[dl] \ar[dd]_{\phi_*} & E_H \times \fg \ar[dd]^{\phi\times id_\fg}\\X & & \\& T_{F_H} \ar[lu]\ar[r]^B & F_H \times \fg
}$$ is a commutative diagram.
We note that the above isomorphism $A$ induces an isomorphism $$\label{eq:At_ad}
A_H: T_{E_H}/H \isom (E_H\times \fg)/H,$$ where $T_{E_H}/H$ is, by definition, the Atiyah bundle $At(E_H)$, which fits into the Atiyah sequence $$0\to ad(E_H) \to At(E_H) \to T_X \to 0$$ (see [@At]). We also have $(E_H\times \fg)/H \simeq ad(E_G)$, where the quotient is for the conjugation action mentioned earlier.
The isomorphism $A_H$ in induces a holomorphic connection on $E_G$ [@Sh], [@BD (2.8)], which in turn produces a holomorphic connection on $ad(E_G)$. Therefore, we have a holomorphic differential operator $$\label{eq:Carconn}
D: ad(E_G) \longrightarrow \Omega^1_X \otimes ad(E_G)$$ of order one.
Let us define now deformations of holomorphic Cartan geometries.
\[de:holfam\] Let $(E_H, A)$ be a principal $H$-bundle together with a holomorphic Cartan geometry.
- Let $S$ be a complex space, and let ${{\mathcal E} }_H$ be a holomorphic principal $H$-bundle on $X\times S$. Let ${{\mathcal E} }_{H,s}= {{\mathcal E} }|X\times \{s\}$ for $s\in S$. A holomorphic family of principal $H$-bundles with holomorphic Cartan geometries over $S$ consists of a principal $H$-bundle ${{\mathcal E} }_H$ over $X\times S$ together with a linear isomorphism ${{\mathcal A} }$ over $S$ $$\label{eq:famCg}
\xymatrix{T_{{{\mathcal E} }_H} \ar[r]^{{\mathcal A} }_\sim \ar[rd] & {{\mathcal E} }_H\times \fg \ar[d]\\ & S}$$ such that the restrictions ${{\mathcal A} }_s$ of ${{\mathcal A} }$ to fibers $T_{{{\mathcal E} }_{H,s}}$ over $s\in S$ define holomorphic Cartan geometries.
- Let $(S,s_0)$ be a complex space with a distinguished point (or a germ of a complex space). A deformation of $(E,A)$ over a space $(S,s_0)$ consists of
- a holomorphic family $({{\mathcal E} }_H,{{\mathcal A} })$ of holomorphic Cartan geometries over $S$, and
- an isomorphism $\Phi: (E_H,A) \isom ({{\mathcal E} }_{H,s_0}, {{\mathcal A} }_{s_0})$.
- Deformations are identified with their restrictions to any neighborhood of $s_0$ in $S$.
- Two deformations of $(E_H,A)$ over a space $(S,s_0)$ are called isomorphic, if (after replacing $S$ by a neighborhood of $s_0$, if necessary) there is an isomorphism of the respective families that induces the identity of $(E_H,A)$ via the maps $\Phi$ of the above type.
Deformations of holomorphic Cartan geometries
=============================================
The tangent cohomology of $E_H$ is equal to $H^{\bullet}(X, ad(E_H))$, where $ad(E_H)$ is the adjoint bundle of $E_H$ with fiber $\fh$ [@Don]. In particular in degrees $0$, $1$, and $2$ we have infinitesimal automorphisms, infinitesimal deformations, and the space containing obstructions respectively.
Infinitesimal automorphisms of holomorphic Cartan geometries
------------------------------------------------------------
We begin with tangent cohomology $T^0(E_H,A)$ of degree zero for holomorphic . Let $(E_H,A)$ be a holomorphic with $A$ taking values in $\mathfrak g$. From it follows that holomorphic section $\psi$ of $ad(E_H)$ over $U\, \subset\, X$ gives a $H$–invariant holomorphic vector field $\widetilde\psi$ over $E_H\vert_U$ which is vertical for the projection $\pi$. We will identify $\psi$ with $\widetilde\psi$. By $L_\psi$ we denote the Lie derivative with respect to this vector field $\widetilde\psi$.
\[pr:infaut\] The space of infinitesimal automorphisms is equal to $$\label{eq:infaut}
T^0(E_H,A) = H^0(X, ad(E_H))_A= \{\psi \in H^0(X, ad(E_H))\,\mid\, L_\psi(A)=0\}.$$
We consider for $F_H=E_H$. Now the infinitesimal action of the group of vertical automorphisms of the given principal bundle gives rise to the following diagram. We denote by $\psi\in H^0(X, ad(E_H))$ an infinitesimal automorphism of $E_H$. We have the following diagram of homomorphisms on $E_H$: $$\label{eq:infaut1}
\xymatrix{
& TE_H \ar[r]^A \ar[d]_{L_\psi} & E_H\times\fg \ar[d]^{\psi} \\& TE_H
\ar[r]^A & E_H\times \fg
}$$ Diagram is interpreted as follows. As mentioned before, holomorphic sections of $ad(E_H)$ are $H$-invariant, vertical sections of the holomorphic tangent bundle $T_{E_H}$. We apply $A$ to a holomorphic section $v$ of $T_{E_H}$; then $\psi$ is applied to $A(v)$, which is simply the Lie bracket on $\mathfrak g$ because $\psi$ is a function on $E_H$ with values in $\mathfrak h$. On the other hand, $\psi$ acts on holomorphic sections of $ad(E_H)$ by applying the Lie derivative $L_\psi$, which is the infinitesimal version of the adjoint action.
The infinitesimal automorphism $\psi$ is compatible with the holomorphic , if commutes for all sections $v$ of $ad(E_H)$, i.e.$$A(L_\psi(v))= \psi(A(v))= L_\psi(A)(v) + A(L_\psi(v))$$ for all $v$. Therefore, commutes if and only if $L_\psi(A)=0$.
Infinitesimal deformations of holomorphic Cartan geometries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let ${{\mathbb C} }[\epsilon] = {{\mathbb C} }[t]/(t^2)$, so that ${{\mathbb C} }[\epsilon]= {{\mathbb C} }\oplus \epsilon\cdot {{\mathbb C} }$ holds with $\epsilon^2=0$. The space $D=(\{0\}, {{\mathbb C} }[\epsilon])$ is also called double point with ${{\mathcal O} }_D={{\mathbb C} }[\epsilon]$. The tangent space $T_{S,s_0}$ of an arbitrary complex space $S$ at a point $s_0\in S$ can be identified with the space of all holomorphic mappings $D \to S$ such that the underlying point $0$ is mapped to $s_0$. A deformation of $H$-principal bundles (with holomorphic Cartan geometries) over $(D, 0)$ is called an infinitesimal deformation of principal bundles (of holomorphic Cartan geometries).
We assume that an (isomorphism class of an) infinitesimal deformation ${{\mathcal E} }_H$ of $E_H$ is given, corresponding to an element of $H^1(X,ad(E_H))$ [@Don]. This gives rise to exact sequences $$\label{eq:infdefEH}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] &\epsilon\cdot {{\mathbb C} }\ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & {{\mathbb C} }\oplus \epsilon\cdot {{\mathbb C} }\ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & {{\mathbb C} }\ar[r] \ar@{{(}->}[d] & 0\\
0 \ar[r]& T_{E_H} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{A}_\sim & T_{{{\mathcal E} }_H} \ar[r]\ar@{-->}[d]^(.7){{{\mathcal A} }} & T_{E_H}\ar[r]\ar[d]^A_\sim \ar@{-->}_(.7){{{\mathcal A} }_{ij}}[dll] & 0\\
0 \ar[r] & E_H\times \fg \ar[r] & {{{\mathcal E} }_H}\times \fg \ar[r]& E_H\times \fg \ar[r]& 0 \: ,
}$$ where the isomorphism ${{\mathcal A} }$ is still to be constructed.
Let us cover $X$ by a system $\mathfrak U$ of contractible, Stein, open subsets $U_i$ such that over any $U_i$ an isomorphism ${{\mathcal A} }_i$ does exist. The difference of any two maps ${{\mathcal A} }_i$ and ${{\mathcal A} }_j$ determines a cocycle ${{\mathcal A} }_{ij}\in Z^1(\mathfrak{U}, Hom(T_{E_H}, E_H\times \fg)^H)$ in the space of $H$-invariant homomorphisms. Suppose that ${{\mathcal A} }_{ij}$ is a coboundary. Then the morphisms ${{\mathcal A} }_i$ can be changed to define the desired (global) map ${{\mathcal A} }$. It can be verified immediately that the cohomology class of ${{\mathcal A} }_{ij}$ is uniquely determined by the infinitesimal deformation of the principal $H$-bundle $E_H$ and the holomorphic $A$.
All the above morphisms ${{\mathcal A} }_i$, ${{\mathcal A} }_{ij}$ can be chosen as $H$-invariant. Then the obstructions are cohomology classes of $Hom(At(E_H),ad(E_G))$.
Let $(E_H, A)$ be a holomorphic of type $(G,H)$ on $X$. Let ${{{\mathcal E} }_H}$ be an isomorphism class of infinitesimal deformations of $E_H$. Then the obstructions to extend the holomorphic $A$ to ${{\mathcal E} }_H$ are in $$H^1(E_H,Hom(T_{E_H}, E_H\times \fg)^H)$$ or equivalently in $$H^1(X, Hom(At(E_H), ad(E_G)).$$
We denote by $H^1(X, ad(E_H))_A$ the space of isomorphism classes of infinitesimal deformations of $E_H$ such that the $A$ of the central fiber can be extended, so $H^1(X, ad(E_H))_A\, \subset\, H^1(X, ad(E_H))$. Furthermore we denote by $T^1(E_H,A)$ the space of isomorphism classes of infinitesimal deformations of $(E_H,A)$.
If we assume that a holomorphic deformation $({{\mathcal E} }_H,{{\mathcal A} })$ of the holomorphic Cartan geometry $(E_H,A)$ does exist, then ${{\mathcal A} }$ is unique up to an $H$-invariant morphism $T_{E_H} \to E_H \times \fg$. This implies the following result.
Let $(E_H,A)$ be a holomorphic . Then there is an exact sequence $$0 \to H^0(E_H, Hom(T_{E_H}, E_H\times \fg)^H) \to T^1(E_H,A) \to H^1(X, ad(E_H))_A \to 0 ,$$ where $H^0(E_H, Hom(T_{E_H}, E_H\times \fg)^H)$ can be identified with $H^0(X,Hom(At(E_H), ad(E_G)))$.
Semi-universal deformation of principal bundles {#se:supb}
-----------------------------------------------
We begin the construction with a semi-universal deformation of $E_H$. A deformation over a complex space $S$ with base point $s_0$ is given by a holomorphic family ${{\mathcal E} }_H$ of principal $H$ bundles over $X\times S$, together with an isomorphism $\Xi: E_H \to {{\mathcal E} }_H|X\times\{s_0\}$. Semi-universality amounts to the following conditions (cf. also the more general Definition \[de:holfam\]):
- *(Completeness)* for any deformation $\ul\xi$ of $E_H$ over a space $(W,w_0)$, given by a holomorphic family ${{\mathcal E} }_{H,W} \to X\times W$ together with an isomorphism of the above type, there is a base change morphism $f:(W,w_0) \to (S,s_0)$ such that (after replacing the base space with open neighborhoods of the base points, if necessary) the pull back $f^*\ul\xi=(id_X \times f)^*({{\mathcal E} }_{H})$ and ${{\mathcal E} }_{H,W}$ are isomorphic with isomorphism inducing the identity map over $X\times\{w_0\}$.
- Let $(W,w_0)=(D,0)$ be as in [(i)]{}. Then any such base change $f$ is uniquely determined by the given deformation. The set of isomorphism classes of deformations over $(D,0)$ is called “tangent space of the deformation functor” or first tangent cohomology associated to the given deformation problem. For deformations of a holomorphic principal $H$-bundle on $X$ this space is known to be equal to $H^1(X,ad(E_H))$. (See [@Don]; see also [@BHH].)
For the sake of completeness we mention the map:\
Given a deformation $\ul\xi$ over $(W,w_0)$ we identify a tangent vector $v$ of $W$ at $w_0$ with a holomorphic map $f:(D,0)\to
(W,w_0)$. Then the map $\rho:T_{W,w_0} \to H^1(X,ad(E_H))$ maps $\ul\xi$ to the isomorphism class of $f^*\ul\xi$. We already computed the tangent cohomologies of order zero and one.
Semi-universal deformation for holomorphic Cartan geometries
============================================================
Morphisms of vector bundles {#su:movb}
---------------------------
Let again $X$ be a compact complex manifold, $S$ a complex space and $E_1,E_2$ holomorphic vector bundles on $X\times S$.
Let $\mathbf{An}_S$ be the category of complex analytic spaces over $S$ and $\mathbf{Sets}$ the category of sets. The objects of $\mathbf{An}_S$ are complex space $W\to S$ and the morphisms compatible holomorphic mappings.
We have the following functor $$F:Hom(E_1,E_2)_S : \mathbf{An}_S \to \mathbf{Sets}$$
- Any $f:W\to S$ is assigned to the set $$F(f)=F(f:W\to S) = Hom((id_X\times f)^*E_1,(id_X\times f)^*E_2),$$
- given a holomorphic map $\alpha$ $$\xymatrix{
W_1 \ar[r]^\alpha \ar[dr]_{f_1} & W_2\ar[d]^{f_2}\\ &S
}$$ we set $E_{i,W_i}= (id_X\times f_i)^*E_i$ for $i=1,2$. Then $F(\alpha)$ assigns to $$\kappa:\quad
\xymatrix{E_{1,W_2} \ar[r]^\beta \ar[rd] & E_{2,W_2} \ar[d]\\
& X \times W_2
}$$ the pull back $g^*\kappa$ via $g$ of $\kappa$: $$g^*\kappa:\quad
\xymatrix{E_{1,W_1} \ar[rr]^{(id_X\times \alpha)^*\beta} \ar[drr] && E_{2,W_1} \ar[d]\\
&& X \times W_1&
}$$
We will use the representability of the morphism functor. In the algebraic case it was shown by Grothendieck in [[@egaIII EGAIII 7.7.8 and 7.7.9]]{}. In the analytic case the corresponding theorem for complex spaces is due to Douady [@dou 10.1 and 10.2]. For coherent (locally free sheaves) ${{\mathcal M} }$, and ${{\mathcal N} }$ over a space ${{\mathcal X} }\to S$, one considers morphisms of the simple extensions ${{\mathcal X} }[{{\mathcal M} }]\to {{\mathcal X} }[{{\mathcal N} }]$.
The functor $F$ is representable by a complex space $g:R\to S$. There is a universal object in $F(g)$ $$\upsilon:\quad\xymatrix{ E_{1,R} \ar[r]^\gamma\ar[dr] & E_{2,R}\ar[d]\\
&X\times R
}$$ such that any other object over ${\widetilde}R \to S$ is isomorphic to ${\widetilde}g^*\upsilon$, where ${\widetilde}g: {\widetilde}R \to R $ is a holomorphic map over $S$.
Application to holomorphic Cartan geometries {#su:appcage}
--------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a compact complex manifold, $H<G$ connected complex Lie groups, and $(E_H,A)$ a a holomorphic Cartan geometry on $X$ of type $(G,H)$. Then $(E_H,A)$ possesses a semi-universal deformation.
We begin with a semi-universal deformation of $E_H$: $$\xymatrix{
E_H \ar[r]^\sim \ar[dr]& {{\mathcal E} }_H|X\times\{s_0\} \ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[d] & {{\mathcal E} }_H \ar[d]\\
& X\times \{s_0\}\ar@{^{(}->}[r] & X\times S\; ,
}$$ and look at the holomorphic vector bundles $$\xymatrix{
At({{\mathcal E} }_H) \ar[dr] && ad({{\mathcal E} }_G) \ar[dl]\\
&X\times S&
}\;$$ to which we apply the representability of the homomorphism functor. We have the following universal homomorphism $\eta$. (It can be checked easily that $At$ and $ad$ commute with base change). $$\xymatrix{At({{\mathcal E} }_{H,R}) \ar[rr]^\eta \ar[dr] \ar@/^2pc/[rrr] && ad({{\mathcal E} }_{G,R})\ar@/^2pc/[rrr]\ar[dl]& At({{\mathcal E} }_H)\ar[dr] && ad({{\mathcal E} }_G)\ar[dl]\\
&X\times R \ar[rrr]_{id_X\times h}\ar[d]&&&X\times S\ar[d]&\\
& R \ar[rrr]_h &&& S
}$$ Now the holomorphic Cartan geometry $A_H: At(E_H) \isom ad(E_G)$ amounts to a point $r_0\in R$, which is mapped to $s_0$ under $R\to S$ (observing the deformation theoretic isomorphisms of the given objects and distinguished fibers of the semi-universal families). We take the connected component of $R$ through $r_0$ and restrict it to an open neighborhood, where the universal morphism is an isomorphism. Going through the construction, we see that the restricted family yields a semi-universal deformation of the holomorphic $(E_H,A)$.
[MM-M]{}
Atiyah, M. F.: *Complex analytic connections in fibre bundles,* [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} **85** (1957), 181–207.
Biswas, I. and Dumitrescu, S.: *Branched Holomorphic Cartan Geometries and Calabi–Yau manifolds*, Inter. Math. Res. Not. (to appear), arXiv:1706.04407.
Biswas, I., Heu, V. and Hurtubise, J.: *Isomonodromic deformations of logarithmic connections and stability*, Math. Ann. [**366**]{} (2016), 121–140.
Biswas, I. and Schumacher, G.: *Kähler structure on moduli spaces of principal bundles. Differ. Geom. Appl.* [**25**]{} 136–146 (2007).
Donin, I. F.: *Construction of a versal family of deformations for holomorphic bundles over a compact complex space*, Math. USSR Sb. [**23**]{} (1974), 405–416.
Douady, A.: *Le problème des modules pour les sous-espaces analytiques compacts d’un espace analytique donné,* Ann. Inst. Fourier [**16**]{} (1966), 1–95.
Grothendieck, A.: *Élements de géometrie algebrique III, Étude cohomologique des faisceaux cohérents.* Publications Mathématiques, No. [**11**]{}, Paris, 1961.
Sharpe, R. W.: [*Differential geometry. Cartan’s generalization of Klein’s Erlangen program*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 166. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A celebrated 1922 theorem of Kuratowski states that there are at most $14$ distinct sets arising from applying the operations of complementation and closure, any number of times, in any order, to a subset of a topological space. In this paper we consider the case of complementation and [*two*]{} abstract closure operators. In contrast to the case of a single closure operation, we show that infinitely many distinct sets can be generated, even when the closure operators commute.'
author:
- |
Jeffrey Shallit\
School of Computer Science\
University of Waterloo\
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1\
Canada\
[[email protected]]{}\
- |
Ross Willard\
Department of Pure Mathematics\
University of Waterloo\
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1\
Canada\
[[email protected]]{}
title: 'Kuratowski’s Theorem for Two Closure Operators'
---
Introduction
============
Let $S$ be a topological space, and let $A$ be a subset of $S$. Let $\clo(A)$ denote the topological closure of $A$, and $\comp(A)$ denote $S - A$, the complement of $A$. In 1922, Kuratowski [@Kuratowski:1922] observed that if we start with an arbitrary $A$, and then apply the operations $\clo, \comp$ in any order, any number of times, at most $14$ distinct sets are generated. More precisely, the monoid of operations generated by $\clo$ and $\comp$ is of cardinality $14$. We call this monoid the [*Kuratowski monoid*]{}.
However, as Hammer [@Hammer:1960] observed, we do not really need all the axioms of a topological space; the same result holds in a more abstract setting. Let $S$ be a set, and let $k: 2^S \rightarrow 2^S$ be a map such that for all $A, B \subseteq S$, we have
1. $A \subseteq k(A)$; (the [*expanding*]{} property)
2. $A \subseteq B \implies k(A) \subseteq k(B)$; (the [*inclusion-preserving*]{} property)
3. $k(k(A)) = k(A)$ ([*idempotence*]{}).
We call such a map a [*closure operator*]{}. We can now consider the monoid $M$ generated by $k$ and $c$ under composition. The identity element of this monoid is denoted by $\epsilon$. We denote composition by concatenation so that, for example, $kck(A) = k(c(k(A)))$. Two elements $f, g$ of $M$ are equal if $f(A) = g(A)$ for all $A \subseteq S$.
Furthermore, there is a natural partial order on elements of $M$, given by $f \leq g \iff
f(A) \subseteq g(A)$ for all $A \subseteq S$. If $f \leq g$ and $g \leq f$, we write $f \equiv g$.
Hammer [@Hammer:1960] showed that $kckckck \equiv kck$. (This follows immediately from our Theorem \[kura\] below.) It now follows that the monoid generated by $\lbrace k, c \rbrace$ is $$\lbrace \epsilon, k, c, kc, ck, kck, ckc, kckc, ckck, kckck, ckckc, kckckc, ckckck, ckckckc \rbrace$$ and hence is of cardinality $14$.
In this note we consider what happens for the case of [*two*]{} closure operators $x$ and $y$.
For readers wanting to know practically everything about the Kuratowski theorem and its generalizations, the admirable survey of Gardner and Jackson is essential reading.
Two closure operators
=====================
As mentioned above, it is well-known that a single closure operator $k$ satisfies the relation $kckckck = kck$. This result can be easily generalized to [*two*]{} closure operators, as follows :
Let $p, q$ be closure operators. Then $pcqcpcq \equiv pcq$. \[kura\]
$pcqcpcq \subseteq pcq$: We have $L \subseteq q(L)$ by the expanding property. Then $cq(L) \subseteq c(L)$. By the inclusion-preserving property we have $pcq(L) \subseteq pc(L)$. Since this identity holds for all $L$, it holds in particular for $cpcq(L)$. Substituting, we get $pcqcpcq(L) \subseteq pccpcq(L)$. But $pccpcq(L) = pcq(L)$ by the idempotence of $p$.
$pcq \subseteq pcqcpcq$: We have $L \subseteq p(L)$ by the expanding property. Then, replacing $L$ by $cq(L)$, we get $cq \subseteq pcq$. Applying $c$ to both sides, we get $cpcq \subseteq ccq = q$. Applying $q$ to both sides, and using the inclusion-preserving property and idempotence, we get $qcpcq \subseteq qq = q$. Applying $c$ to both sides, we get $cq \subseteq cqcpcq$. Finally, applying $p$ to both sides and using the inclusion-preserving property, we get $pcq \subseteq pcqcpcq$.
Theorem \[kura\] would also hold if $c$ were replaced by any inclusion-reversing operation satisfying $cc \equiv \epsilon$.
Unlike the case of a single closure operator, our identity $pcqcpcq \equiv pcq$ does not suffice to prove that the monoid generated by $\lbrace c, p, q \rbrace$ is finite. Indeed, if $p$ and $q$ have no relations between them, then there is no obvious reason why any two distinct prefixes of $pqpqpq\cdots$ would be related.
We construct a simple example where the monoid generated by $\lbrace p, q \rbrace$ is infinite.
Consider $\Enn = \lbrace 0,1,2, \ldots \rbrace$. For $A \subseteq N$, define $$\begin{aligned}
p(A) &=& \begin{cases}
A, & \text{ if } A = \emptyset \text{ or } \sup A = \infty; \\
A \cup \lbrace (\sup A) + 1 \rbrace, & \text{ if } \sup A \text{ is odd; } \\
A, & \text{ otherwise; }
\end{cases} \\
q(A) &=& \begin{cases}
A, & \text{ if } A = \emptyset \text{ or } \sup A = \infty; \\
A \cup \lbrace (\sup A) + 1 \rbrace, & \text{ if } \sup A \text{ is even; } \\
A, & \text{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then it is easy to see that $p$ and $q$ are closure operators and $(pq)^n (\lbrace 0 \rbrace) = \lbrace 0, 1, \ldots, 2n \rbrace$. It follows that the monoid generated by $\lbrace p, q \rbrace$ is infinite. \[jeff\]
In order then for the monoid generated by $\{c,p,q\}$ to be finite, we would need additional restrictions on the closure operators $p$ and $q$. A natural restriction is to demand that $p$ and $q$ [*commute*]{}; that is, $pq \equiv qp$.
It turns out that the case of two commuting closure operators is quite interesting. For example, one quickly finds additional identities, such as (just to list a few): $$\begin{aligned}
pqcpcqcqcpcpq & \equiv & pqcpq \\
pqcpcpcqcqcpq & \equiv & pqcpq \\
pqcqcqcpcpcpcqcpq & \equiv & pqcpq \\
pqcqcpcpcpcqcpqcpq & \equiv & pqcpq \\
pqcqcqcpcqcqcpcqcqcpq & \equiv & pqcpq \\
pqcpcpcqcpcpcqcpcpcpq & \equiv & pqcpq . \\\end{aligned}$$
In this paper, we will show two results: there are infinitely many identities of this kind, but nevertheless there are still examples where the monoid generated is infinite.
Infinitely many identities
==========================
The goal of this section is to prove the following result.
\[infin-eq\] Let $p,q$ be commuting closure operators. For all $n \geq 1$ and $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{2n}
\in \{p,q,pq\}$, we have $pqca_1ca_2c\cdots a_{2n}cpq \equiv pqcpq$.
First note that $pq$ is also a closure operator, and for each $a \in \{p,q,pq\}$ the operator $cac$ is an *interior operator*, i.e., it is idempotent and inclusion-preserving and satisfies the *contracting* property: $A \supseteq cac(A)$. For clarity let $1$ denote the identity operator. It will suffice to prove $cpqca_1ca_2c\cdots a_{2n}cpq \equiv cpqcpq$. We have $pq\equiv pqa_2a_4\cdots a_{2n}$ and hence for any set $A$, $$\begin{aligned}
cpqcpq(A) &=& c(pqa_2a_4\cdots a_{2n})cpq(A)\\
&=& cpq(cc)a_2(cc)a_4\cdots (cc) a_{2n}cpq(A)\\
&=& (cpqc)1(ca_2c)1(ca_4c)1\cdots 1(ca_{2n}c)pq(A)\\
&\supseteq& (cpqc)a_1(ca_2c)a_3(ca_4c)a_5\cdots a_{2n-1}(ca_{2n}c)pq(A)\end{aligned}$$ on the one hand, while $$\begin{aligned}
cpqcpq(A) &=& cpqc(a_1a_3\cdots a_{2n-1}pq)(A)\\
&=& (cpqc)a_11a_31\cdots a_{2n-1}1pq(A)\\
&\subseteq& (cpqc)a_1(ca_2c)a_3(ca_4c)\cdots a_{2n-1}(ca_{2n}c)pq(A)\end{aligned}$$ on the other, proving $cpqcpq(A) = cpqca_1ca_2c\cdots a_{2n}cpq(A)$.
It may be of interest to note that the above reasoning can be carried out within the following first-order theory.
Let $T_{\rm 2com}$ be the theory with constants $1,p,q$, binary operation $\cdot$ (written informally as juxtaposition), unary operation $\overline{{\rule{.08in}{0in}\rule{0in}{.06in}}}$, binary relation $\leq$, and axioms that state that if $(M,1,\cdot, \overline{{\rule{.08in}{0in}\rule{0in}{.06in}}},\leq)$ is a model of $T_{\rm 2com}$ then:
1. $(M,1,\cdot)$ is a monoid.
2. $(M,\leq)$ is a poset.
3. $x \leq y$ and $u \leq v$ imply $xu \leq yv$ for all $x,y,u,v \in M$.
4. $\overline{\overline{x}} = x$.
5. $\overline{xy} = \overline{x}\cdot \overline{y}$.
6. $x \leq y$ implies $\overline{y} \leq \overline{x}$.
7. $\overline{1}=1$.
8. $1 \leq p=pp$ and $1\leq q=qq$.
9. $pq=qp$.
The intended models of $T_{\rm 2com}$ are defined as follows. For a nonempty set $S$, let $M(S)$ denote the set of all inclusion-preserving maps $f:2^S \rightarrow 2^S$. Let $1$ denote the identity map $2^S\rightarrow 2^S$. For $f,g \in M(S)$ define
- $f \leq g$ iff $f(A)\subseteq g(A)$ for all $A \subseteq S$.
- $f\cdot g = f\circ g$.
- $\overline{g}(A) = S \setminus g(S
\setminus A)$. (i.e., $\overline{g} = c \circ g \circ c$ where $c(A) := S \setminus A$ is the complementation operator.)
Note that $c \not\in M(S)$. Finally, choose two commuting closure operators $p,q$ on $S$. Then $(M(S), 1,p,q,\cdot,\overline{{\rule{.08in}{0in}\rule{0in}{.06in}}},\leq)$ is a model of $T_{\rm 2com}$. (Of course not all models of $T_{\rm 2com}$ have this form.)
Given $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{2n+1} \in \{p,q,pq\}$ we call the word $w=ca_0ca_1ca_2\cdots ca_{2n+1}$ in $\{p,q,c\}^\ast$ *$c$-balanced* and associate with it the term $t(w):=\overline{a_0}a_1\overline{a_2}a_3\cdots \overline{a_{2n}}a_{2n+1}$ in the language of $T_{\rm 2com}$. Observe that if $w_1,w_2$ are $c$-balanced words in $\{p,q,c\}$, then $T_{\rm 2com}\models t(w_1)=t(w_2)$ implies $w_1\equiv w_2$ whenever $p,q$ are commuting closure operators $p,q$. Hence an alternative proof of Theorem \[infin-eq\] can be provided by proving
For any $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{2n} \in \{p,q,pq\}$, $T_{\rm 2com} \models \overline{pq}a_1\overline{a_2}a_3\cdots \overline{a_{2n}}pq = \overline{pq}pq$.
Suppose $w_1,w_2$ are $c$-balanced words in $\{p,q,c\}^\ast$ with the property that $w_1\equiv w_2$ whenever $p,q$ are commuting closure operators on a set $S$. Does it follow that $T_{\rm 2com} \models t(w_1)=t(w_2)$?
An example with infinite generated monoid
=========================================
In this section improve Example 3 by constructing a pair of commuting closure operators $p,q$ such that the monoid generated by $\{c,p,q\}$ is infinite.
For $n\geq 1$ define $w_n$ to be the word $(cpcpcqcq)^n$. We will construct two commuting closure operators $p,q$ on an infinite set $S$ so that, interpreting $c$ as complementation, there exists a subset $A \subseteq S$ with the property that ${\{w_n(A)\,:\,\text{$n \geq 1$}\}}$ is infinite.
Define ${\mbox{\textsc{Even}}}= {\{2n\,:\,\text{$n \in \mathbb Z$}\}}$ and ${\mbox{\textsc{Odd}}}= \mathbb Z \setminus {\mbox{\textsc{Even}}}$. We first define four pairs $(p_{ij},q_{ij})$ of commuting closure operators ($i,j \in \{0,1\}$) on $\mathbb Z$ as follows: for $A \subseteq \mathbb Z$,
1. $p_{00}(A)=q_{00}(A)=A$.
2. $p_{11}(A)=q_{11}(A)= \mathbb Z$.
3. $p_{10}(\emptyset)=\emptyset$, $p_{10}(\{2n-1\}) = p_{10}(\{2n\}) =p_{10}(\{2n-1,2n\})
= \{2n-1,2n\}$, and $p_{10}(A)=\mathbb Z$ if there does not exist $n$ with $A \subseteq
\{2n-1,2n\}$.
$q_{10}(\emptyset)=\emptyset$, $q_{10}(\{2n\}) = q_{10}(\{2n+1\}) =q_{10}(\{2n,2n+1\})
= \{2n,2n+1\}$, and $q_{10}(A)=\mathbb Z$ if there does not exist $n$ with $A \subseteq
\{2n,2n+1\}$.
4. $p_{01}(A) = A \cup {\mbox{\textsc{Odd}}}$ and $q_{01}(A) = A \cup {\mbox{\textsc{Even}}}$.
For all $i,j \in \{0,1\}$, $p_{ij},q_{ij}$ are closure operators on $\mathbb Z$ and $p_{ij}q_{ij}=q_{ij}p_{ij}$.
Put $S = \mathbb Z \cup \{\top,\bot\}$. Define $p,q:2^S \rightarrow
2^S$ as follows: for $A \subseteq S$, $$\begin{aligned}
p(A) = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
p_{00}(A), & \mbox{if $A \cap \{\top,\bot\}=\emptyset$};\\
p_{10}(A \cap \mathbb Z) \cup \{\top\} & \mbox{if $A \cap \{\top,\bot\}=\{\top\}$};\\
p_{01}(A \cap \mathbb Z) \cup \{\bot\}& \mbox{if $A \cap \{\top,\bot\}=\{\bot\}$};\\
p_{11}(A \cap \mathbb Z) \cup \{\top,\bot\}& \mbox{if $A \cap \{\top,\bot\}=\{\top,\bot\}.$}
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for $q$. Since $p(A) \cap \{\top,\bot\} = q(A) \cap \{\top,\bot\} =
A \cap \{\top,\bot\}$ for all $A\subseteq S$, and since $p_{00} \leq p_{10},p_{01} \leq p_{11}$ and similarly for the $q_{ij}$, we can deduce from the previous lemma that $p,q$ are commuting closure operators on $S$. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
q(\{2n,\top\}) &=& q_{10}(\{2n\}) \cup \{\top\} ~=~ \{2n,2n+1,\top\}\\
c(\{2n,2n+1,\top\}) &=& (\mathbb Z\setminus \{2n,2n+1\}) \cup \{\bot\}\\
q((\mathbb Z\setminus \{2n,2n+1\}) \cup \{\bot\}) &=& q_{01}(\mathbb Z\setminus \{2n,2n+1\})
\cup \{\bot\}
~=~ (\mathbb Z\setminus \{2n+1\}) \cup \{\bot\}\\
c((\mathbb Z\setminus \{2n+1\}) \cup \{\bot\}) &=& \{2n+1,\top\}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $cqcq(\{2n,\top\}) = \{2n+1,\top\}$. A similar calculation shows $cpcp(\{2n+1,\top\}) = \{2n+2,\top\}$. Hence if $A=\{0,\top\}$ then $w_n(A)=\{2n,\top\}$ for all $n \geq 1$, as desired. We have shown
The operator $cpcpcqcq$ repeatedly applied to $S = \mathbb Z \cup \{\top,\bot\}$ results in infinitely many distinct sets.
Conclusion
==========
This paper leaves many questions unanswered. We end with two questions. Let $\Sigma$ be the set of all formal equations $w_1 = w_2$ where $w_1,w_2$ are words in $\{c,p,q\}^\ast$ with $w_1\equiv w_2$ whenever $p,q$ are commuting closure operators.
Is the set $\Sigma$ decidable?
Can all the members of $\Sigma$ be deduced from some finitely many of them? More precisely, is the monoid with generators $c,p,q$ and set of relations $\Sigma$ finitely presented?
[1]{}
E. Charlier, M. Domaratzki, T. Harju, and J. Shallit. Finite orbits of language operations. In A. H. Dediu, S. Inenaga, and C. Martín-Vide, editors, [ *Language and Automata Theory and Applications - 5th International Conference, LATA 2011*]{}, Vol. 6638 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pp. 204–215. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
B. J. Gardner and M. Jackson. The [Kuratowski]{} closure-complement theorem. (2008), 9–44. Preprint available at [http://www.latrobe.edu.au/]{} [ mathstats/department/algebra-research-group/Papers/GJ\_Kuratowski.pdf]{}.
P. C. Hammer. Kuratowski’s closure theorem. (1960), 74–80.
C. Kuratowski. Sur l’opération $\overline{A}$ de l’analysis situs. (1922), 182–199.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Insufficient requirements reusability, understandability and verifiability jeopardize software projects. Empirical studies show little success in improving these qualities separately. Applying object-oriented thinking to requirements leads to their unified treatment. An online library of reusable requirement templates implements recurring requirement structures, offering a starting point for practicing the unified approach.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'library.bib'
title: |
Object-oriented requirements:\
reusable, understandable, verifiable
---
object-oriented requirements, reusable requirements, understandable requirements, verifiable requirements
Introduction {#oor:intro}
============
industry is not actively applying requirements reuse [@Palomares2017], which is regrettable: it might help, if practiced, not only to save resources in the requirements specification phase, but also to obtain documents of better quality both in content and syntax. It might also decrease the risk of writing low quality requirements and lead to the reuse of design, code, and tests.
Bertrand Meyer in 1985 described seven understandability problems common to natural-language specifications [@meyer1993formalism] and proposed the process of passing them through a formal notation to produce their more understandable versions. He has more recently given a name to the approach – “The Formal Picnic Approach”[^1]. The amount of requirements and their volatility have grown, and the seven problems remain valid. Formal picnics should be practiced more actively and should be reusable across projects.
The general problem of reuse finds itself in requirements’ verifiability too. Requirements’ verifiable semantics follows several recurring patterns in most of the cases [@Dwyer1999]. If a pattern exists, it should be reused, and to be reused it should be encoded as a template. The template should also be connected to the main instruments of software verification – tests and contracts.
Applying object-oriented thinking to the problems of requirements reusability, understandability and verifiability draws a new roadmap towards addressing them simultaneously. A reusable library of requirement templates, taking the familiar form of object-oriented classes, provides a starting point for practicing the approach. Each template encodes a formal semantics pattern [@Dwyer1999] as a generic class reusable across projects and components, for verifying candidate solutions through either testing or program proving.
The Problem Explained {#oor:the_problem_explained}
=====================
Reusability {#oor:the_problem_explained:reusability}
-----------
Reusability has become a success story in the reuse of code [@Zaimi2015] and tests [@Tillmann2005], but not requirements. On that side too, many patterns recur again and again, causing undue repetition of effort and mistakes. The practice of industrial projects, however, involves little reuse of requirements. Textual copy and subsequent modification of requirements from previous projects are still the most commonly used requirements reuse techniques [@Palomares2017], which has already been long recognized as deficient in the world of code reuse.
The most critical factors inhibiting the industrial adoption of requirements reuse through software requirement patterns (SRP) catalogues are [@Palomares2017]:
- The lack of a well-defined reuse method.
- The lack of quality and incompleteness of requirements to reuse.
- The lack of convenient tools and access facilities with suitable requirements classification.
Scientific literature studying requirements reuse approaches pays little attention to these factors when measuring the studied approaches [@Irshad2018]. The degree of reuse is the most frequently measured variable, but it is measured under the assumption that the evaluated approach is fully practiced. This assumption does not meet the reality: most of the practitioners who declare to practice requirements reuse approaches, apply them very selectively [@Palomares2017]. Secondary studies, which study other studies, equally ignore the factors that matter to practitioners [@Irshad2018].
Understandability {#oor:the_problem_explained:understandability}
-----------------
Bertrand Meyer, in his work “On Formalism in Specifications”[@meyer1993formalism], described “the seven sins of the specifier” – a classification of the frequently recurring flaws in requirements specifications. Analyzing a specification of a well-known text-processing problem illustrated that even a small and carefully written natural-language requirements document may suffer from the following problems:
- *Noise* – the presence in the text of an element that does not carry information relevant to any feature of the problem. Variants: redundancy; remorse.
- *Silence* – the existence of a feature of the problem that is not covered by any element of the text.
- *Overspecification* – the presence in the text of an element that corresponds not to a feature of the problem but to features of a possible solution.
- *Contradiction* – the presence in the text of two or more elements that define a feature of the system in an incompatible way.
- *Ambiguity* – the presence in the text of an element that makes it possible to interpret a feature of the problem in at least two different ways.
- *Forward reference* – the presence in the text of an element that uses features of the problem not defined until later in the text.
- *Wishful thinking* – the presence in the text of an element that defines a feature of the problem in such a way that a candidate solution cannot realistically be validated with respect to this feature.
Identified in the times when software processes were following the Waterfall model, which takes good care of every software development lifecycle phase, these problems remain. Nowadays processes pursue continuity, and requirements analysts have little time to process new requirements before passing them to the developers. The processes are iterative and collecting requirements for another iteration often starts before the current iteration finishes. The pace of work lowers availability of expert developers for evaluating the new requirements’ verifiability. The pervasiveness of Internet technologies like Google Search brings problems too. Many sources of unclear origins now offer tons of potentially unchecked information, which is sometimes overly trusted.
Denying the progress makes no sense, however. Requirements engineering tools should help the practitioners to improve the quality of information they consume and rely on. The improved information should be reusable across projects.
Verifiability {#oor:the_problem_explained:verifiability}
-------------
The reusability concern applies to requirements’ verifiability as well. Dwyer et al. analyzed 555 specifications for finite-state verification from different domains and successfully matched 511 of them against 23 known patterns [@Dwyer1999]. The patterns were encoded in modeling notations without a guidance on how to reuse them across projects for verifying candidate solutions. The gap still exists, and the state-of-the-practice [@Palomares2017] and literature reviews [@Irshad2018] of requirements reuse approaches, as well as the studies they cite, do not evaluate requirements’ verifiability in the studied approaches.
Requirements reuse approaches should properly address the verifiability aspect: reusing non-verifiable requirements makes little sense. The appraoches should make it clear how to capture and reuse recurring verifiable semantics’ structures.
Running Example {#oor:running_example}
===============
Wikipedia represents a notable example of an intensely used and trusted Internet resource. The rest of the discussion relies on a Wikipedia page describing a 24-hour clock[^2] as a requirements document example. The “24-hour clock” document is prone to the seven requirements understandability problems [@meyer1993formalism]. It only has few statements relevant to clock behavior:
1. The 24-hour clock is a way of telling the time in which the day runs from midnight to midnight and is divided into 24 hours, numbered from 0 to 24.
2. A time in the 24-hour clock is written in the form hours:minutes (for example, 01:23), or hours:minutes:seconds (01:23:45).
3. Numbers under 10 usually have a zero in front (called a leading zero); e.g. 09:07.
4. Under the 24-hour clock system, the day begins at midnight, 00:00, and the last minute of the day begins at 23:59 and ends at 24:00, which is identical to 00:00 of the following day.
5. 12:00 can only be mid-day.
6. Midnight is called 24:00 and is used to mean the end of the day and 00:00 is used to mean the beginning of the day.
The rest of the text is *noise*. The “or” connective in Statement 2 results in *wishful thinking*: is it acceptable to decide between the two options for every clock object, or should the decision be taken once and uniformly applied to all objects? None of the requirements after Statement 2 talk about seconds, from which it follows that the author silently made the choice in favor of the “hours:minutes” format. This “sin” falls into the *silence* category. The “usually” qualification introduces the *wishful thinking* problem to Statement 3: how are the developers expected to check candidate solutions against this requirement? Statements 4 and 6 result in a *contradiction* each other: statement 4 says that midnight is 00:00, while statment 6 defines *24:00* as midnight and *00:00* as the beginning of the day. The contradiction may arise as a result of *forward referencing*: *24:00* and *00:00* are only defined in 6, while first used in 1 and 4. The last part of Statement 4 is a *remorse*: the author implicitly admits that the first part of the statement was not enough and adds the “which is…” part. Statement 5 introduces an *ambiguity*, since the document never defines the “mid-day”. Moreover, terms like “mid-day”, “midnight”, “afternoon” should be defined through specific clock states; it is not clear then what the author means by saying that a specific state can only be mid-day/midnight/afternoon: it can be whatever, depending on the terminology.
The illustration of the object-oriented requirements approach handles a fragment of Statement 1.: “the day runs from midnight to midnight”, referred to as “Statement 1.1”. Understanding this requirement’s treatment will suffice to understand the approach. A GitHub repository [^3] hosts the complete treatment of the “24-hour clock” example.
Reuse Methodology {#oor:reuse_methodology}
=================
Requirements reuse methodologies are essentially bidimensional [@Irshad2018]. The first dimension, known as *development for reuse*, describes the procedure of identifying and capturing new requirement patterns. The second dimension, known as *development with reuse*, describes the process of searching and reusing the captured patterns for specifying new requirements with lower efforts as compared to specifying them without the patterns.
Development for Reuse {#oor:reuse_methodology:dev_for_reuse}
---------------------
Given a collection of requirements:
1. Perform the standard commonality and variability analysis on the collection.
2. Capture the identified commonality in an object-oriented class.
3. Capture the semantical commonality through a contracted routine [@Tillmann2005], [@Naumchev2016CompleteDrivers] to support verification.
4. Capture the structural commonality through a string function to support formal picnics.
5. Parameterize the identified variability points through abstraction and genericity.
Development with Reuse {#oor:reuse_methodology:dev_with_reuse}
----------------------
Given an informal requirement:
1. Analyze the requirement’s meaning and structure.
2. Find the most appropriate requirement template class through the IDE’s search facilities.
3. Inherit from the found template in a new class representing the requirement.
4. Refine the abstractions into domain definitions.
5. Replace the genericity with the specified types and domain definitions.
6. Perform a formal picnic to see if the new string representation of the requirement has a different meaning from the original one.
7. Verify candidate solutions through running [@Tillmann2005] or proving [@Naumchev2016CompleteDrivers] the contracted routine.
Technical Artifacts {#oor:technical_artifacts}
===================
Two major technical contributions support the method.
Library of Templates {#oor:technical_artifacts:eiffel_library}
--------------------
A ready-to-use GitHub library[^4] of template classes captures known requirement patterns [@Dwyer1999]. The library represents a result of applying the *development for reuse* process to the patterns and provides basis for *development with reuse*. The library is written in Eiffel for readability, but the method scales to other object-oriented languages with support for genericity.
Library of Multirequirement Patterns {#oor:technical_artifacts:onenote_library}
------------------------------------
An online OneNote notebook [^5] rearranges the original collection of patterns [^6] in the form of multirequirements [@Meyer13Multi] to support their understanding. Dwyer et al. have initially developed the patterns in 5 notations: LTL, CTL, GIL, Inca, QRE. Their online collection consists of 5 large pages corresponding to these notations. The alternative collection consists of 23 pages making it possible to study individual patterns in all the 5 notations simultaneously. The representations are clickable and lead to their sources in the original repository developed by Dwyer et al. Each page includes a link leading to the corresponding template in the GitHub library.
Applying a Template {#oor:applying_template}
===================
The following illustration handles the “Statement 1.1” requirement by applying a reusable template class from the GitHub library. The requirement fits into the “Global Response” pattern [@Dwyer1999]. The pattern reads: “S responds to P globally”, for events S and P. It is the most frequently used pattern: out of the 555 analyzed requirements [@Dwyer1999], 241 represented this pattern. For “Statement 1.1”, both S and P map to the midnight event: “midnight responds to midnight globally”. This new statement paraphrases the original one, “the day runs from midnight to midnight”.
Class *STATEMENT\_1\_1* (Figure \[fig:oor:env:es\]) captures the requirement. The class inherits from:
- A generic application of class *RESPONSE\_GLOBAL* to classes *CLOCK* and *MIDNIGHT*, where *RESPONSE\_GLOBAL* is a generic template encoding the “Global Response” pattern. The *RESPONSE\_GLOBAL \[CLOCK, MIDNIGHT, MIDNIGHT\]* application reads: “for type *CLOCK*, *MIDNIGHT* response to *MIDNIGHT* globally”.
- Class *CLOCK\_REQUIREMENT* recording domain information common to all clock requirements: the fact that the *tick* routine advances a clock’s state, and the *start* routine initializes a new clock.
The *CLOCK* class is a candidate solution implementing the “clock” concept, and the *MIDNIGHT* class captures the definition of midnight through effecting the deferred *holds* Boolean function inherited from generic class *CONDITION* applied to the *CLOCK* class. The generic application emphasizes the fact that the notion of midnight applies to the notion of clock.
The classes have something in common: the “note” section at the bottom with Web links of two kinds. Links named “Source”, when followed, highlight the fragments in the original requirements documents from which the enclosing requirement classes were derived. Links named “GitHub”, when followed, lead to the enclosing classes’ locations on GitHub. The “Source” link in *STATEMENT\_1\_1*, for example, highlights, when followed, the “the day runs from midnight to midnight” phrase in the Google document[^7], and brings the comment on this phrase to the reader’s attention (Figure \[fig:oor:env:gd\]). The comment contains the GitHub link leading back to the *STATEMENT\_1\_1* class on GitHub; this link is identical to the “GitHub” link in the *STATEMENT\_1\_1* class’ “note” section.
Formal Picnic {#oor:formal_picnic}
=============
The *RESPONSE\_GLOBAL* class implements its string representation through redefining the standard *out* function present in all Eiffel classes. Any instruction that expects a string argument, such as *print*, automatically invokes this function to get the argument’s string representation if the argument has a non-string type.
{width="60.00000%"}
Routine *run* of class *TESTER* (Figure \[oor:formal\_picnic\]) is a configurable entry point of the console application illustrating formal picnics and verification of object-oriented requirements.
Line 11 of *TESTER* outputs the structured string representation of the *STATEMENT\_1\_1* object-oriented requirement. The *.default* expression returns the default object of the *STATEMENT\_1\_1* class, and the *print* instruction puts the object’s string representation to the “Output” window below the “TESTER” window. The requirement’s name, “STATEMENT\_1\_1”, goes before the colon and its string representation goes after.
The requirements analyst now has two comparable string representations of the requirement: the original and the generated one. Comparing them facilitates analysis and may result in asking clarifying questions to the customer and in additional communication.
Verification {#oor:verification}
============
The template classes, including *RESPONSE\_GLOBAL*, contain instruments of their own verification in the form of a contracted routine called “verify”. The *run* routine of the *TESTER* class may call *verify* to test a candidate solution.
{width="\textwidth"}
Line 15 of the *TESTER* class (Figure \[fig:oor:verification\]) tests class *CLOCK* as a candidate solution of the *STATEMENT\_1\_1* requirement. Line 13 instantiates a *CLOCK* variable, while lines 14 and 15 use the variable as test input. The following discussion explains the nature of line 14. The line is commented to illustrate the problem that the line fixes when uncommented.
The *verify* routine has a precondition. For the *STATEMENT\_1\_1* class, the precondition becomes the *holds* Boolean function from the *MIDNIGHT* class. This function returns *True* only for the *24:00* time, and the newly instantiated *clock* variable is set to time *00:00*. Line 14 fixes this mismatch, and its removal crashes the execution. The “Call Stack” window provides information related to the failure: a precondition tagged “p\_holds” is violated in *STATEMENT\_1\_1*, inherited from the *RESPONSE\_GLOBAL* template class. The testing code should set the *clock* variable’s state to time *24:00* before testing *STATEMENT\_1\_1*; line 14 does exactly this. *STATEMENT\_0* is a requirement class saying that the midnight state should be in principle achievable by *CLOCK*. The *EXISTENCE\_GLOBAL* pattern [@Dwyer1999] captures this semantics. Line 14 tests *CLOCK* against *STATEMENT\_0* by trying to reach the midnight state on the input variable. Uncommenting the line will remove the precondition violation.
The process of deriving *STATEMENT\_0* is an example of how the verification process may help identify a new requirement and learn a new template.
Program proving and Design by Contract may be used instead of testing. The automatic prover (AutoProof [@tschannen2015autoproof] in the context of Eiffel) should be applied to the requirements classes, *STATEMENT\_0* and *STATEMENT\_1\_1*. The prover will statically check the contracted *verify* routine according to the principles of Hoare logic [@hoare1969axiomatic]. The prover will only accept the routine if the *CLOCK* class has a strong enough and correct contract [@Naumchev2016CompleteDrivers]. The illustration relies on testing because AutoProof, in its current state, requires a lot of additional annotations to check classes like *STATEMENT\_1\_1*, and explaining these annotations goes beyond the object-oriented requirements idea’s essentials.
Assessment {#oor:assessment}
==========
The approach helps to fix the identified problems undermining the lack of requirements reuse:
- *The lack of a well-defined reuse method*: the reuse method is object-oriented software construction, which is a well-defined method.
- *The lack of quality and incompleteness of requirements to reuse*: the templates library implements the existing collection of specification patterns proven to cover most of the cases, which makes the library complete and quality in that sense.
- *The lack of convenient tools and access facilities with suitable requirements classification*: the tools and access facilities are object-oriented IDEs and GitHub, with all their powerful features. The classification is that of the Dwyer et al.’s collection, proven to be practically relevant.
The approach helps to fix the requirements understandability problems:
- *Noise*: only those requirements remain that fall into an existing verifiable requirement template.
- *Silence*: an attempt to verify existing object-oriented requirements may uncover missing requirements, as it was the case with *STATEMENT\_0*.
- *Overspecification*: only those requirements remain that fall into an existing verifiable requirement template. Implementation details cannot map to a requirement template.
- *Contradiction*: one notion may be defined in only one way, otherwise the IDE will raise a compilation error. The contradiction caused by two inconsistent definitions of midnight was resolved by defining this notion in the form of the *MIDNIGHT* class.
- *Ambiguity*: little can be done to remove the possibility for different interpretations – the requirements interpretation process is performed by a cognitive agent anyway. If an interpretation is identified as erroneous, however, switching to another template will automatically update both the generated string representation and the underlying verifiable semantics. In other words, the templates may help to reduce the effort spent on fixing the consequences of the misinterpretation.
- *Forward reference*: the approach removes this problem. There is no notion of requirements’ order in the object-oriented approach, and meaningful statements are connected by the standard “client-supplier” relationship, extensively supported by the object-oriented IDEs.
- *Wishful thinking*: only those requirements remain that fall into an existing verifiable requirement template. The compiler will not accept a template’s application in which the verifiable semantics is not fully defined.
The approach helps to fix the requirements verifiability problem. The GitHub library of classes fixes the lack of reusable templates covering the identified verifiable specification patterns. The approach makes it possible to capture and reuse newly identified patterns using the existing object-oriented techniques complemented with contracts.
Besides the benefits, the approach has some limitations:
- Requirements analysts’ familiarity with the principles of object-oriented analysis and design.
- Software developers’ familiarity with the principles of Hoare logic based reasoning.
Supporting Work {#oor:supporting_work}
===============
The idea to use a programming language as a requirements notation is not new [@Meyer13Multi], [@Naumchev2016UnifyingExample], [@Naumchev2017], [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1710-02801] and is well justified. Many groups of stakeholders prefer descriptions of operational activity paths over declarative requirements specifications [@Sindre2003]. A demand exists for educating developers capable of both abstracting in a problem space and automating the transition to a solution space [@Whittle2014].
Other approaches to requirements reuse do not share the aspirations towards connecting the requirements and the solution spaces, as follows both from the state-of-the-practice [@Palomares2017] and the literature [@Irshad2018] studies. The studied approaches focus on reusing natural language, use cases, domain models and several other artifacts disjoint from the solution space.
The decision to express requirements in a programming language may bridge the gap. It may also be the only way to bring the developers closer to the requirements they implement: industry practitioners are generally not keen to switching their tools [@Dalpiaz2018]. The advanced state of code reuse has all chances to skyrocket the state of requirements reuse if the requirements take the form of code.
Future Work {#oor:future_work}
===========
Intelligent tools should be embedded into existing text editors for:
- Detecting known patterns in what requirements analysts specify manually.
- Proposing reusable templates corresponding to the identified patterns.
- Identifying new patterns in requirements that do not map to existing patterns.
Natural language processing (NLP) would be an appropriate instrument for implementing these tools [@Dalpiaz2018].
[^1]: <https://tinyurl.com/ycn526rm>
[^2]: <https://tinyurl.com/ybocy485>
[^3]: <https://tinyurl.com/y6w7nlcs>
[^4]: <https://tinyurl.com/ybd4b5un>
[^5]: <https://1drv.ms/u/s!AsXOYPvbmuEyh4IsDdYj-i6V5yX0OA>
[^6]: <http://patterns.projects.cs.ksu.edu>
[^7]: <https://tinyurl.com/y96rj2v3>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use an elastic rod model with contact to study the extension versus rotation diagrams of single supercoiled DNA molecules. We reproduce quantitatively the supercoiling response of overtwisted DNA and, using experimental data, we get an estimation of the effective supercoiling radius and of the twist rigidity of B-DNA. We find that unlike the bending rigidity, the twist rigidity of DNA seems to vary widely with the nature and concentration of the salt buffer in which it is immerged.'
author:
- |
Sébastien Neukirch\
Bernoulli Mathematics Institute\
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,\
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland,\
and\
Laboratoire de Physique Statistique,\
Ecole Normale Supérieure,\
F-75231 Paris cedex 05, France.
title: Getting DNA twist rigidity from single molecule experiments
---
[**PACS numbers**]{}: 36.20.-r, 62.20.Dc, 87.15.La, 05.45.-a\
[**Keywords**]{}: elastic twisted rods, contact, numerical path following, biomechanics.\
At first the DNA molecule can be seen as the passive carrier of our genetic code. But in order to understand how a $2 \;m$ long string of DNA can fit into a $10 \; \mu m$ nucleus, it is clear that one has to consider the mechanical properties of the molecule. Namely the fact that the DNA double helix is a long and thin elastic filament that can wrap around itself or other structures. Furthermore, the elastic properties of DNA play an important role in the structural dynamics of cellular process such as replication and transcription. Although the basic features of DNA were elucidated in the years following the discovery of the double helix geometry, it is only during the past decade that few groups, using different micro-techniques, have been able to manipulate single DNA molecules in order to test their mechanical properties.
A first way to manipulate a single molecule of DNA is to attach a polystyrene bead at each of its two ends. One bead is then stuck to a micropipette and the other is held in an optical trap. One pulls on the molecule by moving the pipette and measures the force through the displacement in the trap. This artefact is called an optical tweezer [@Quake97]. Of course elastic properties of a DNA molecule will in general depend on the sequence of base pairs (bp) it is made of. Nevertheless for long molecules, i.e. more than a hundred bp, the behavior of the molecule can be described by a coarse-grained model known as the worm like chain [@kratky+porod:1949]. In this model, DNA is considered as a semi-flexible polymer with bending persistance length $A$. This is the contour length over which correlations between the orientation of two polymer segments is lost. It can be viewed as the ratio of the elastic bending rigidity $K_0$ to the thermal energy $k_B \,
T$. The common accepted value is $A=50 \; nm$ in physiological buffer. Another way of manipulating a single DNA molecule is to use a magnetic tweezer [@strick+al:1996]. Here the molecule is locked on a glass surface at one end, and glued to a magnetic bead at the other end. The bead is now controlled by a magnet that one rotates in order to input a twist constraint in the system. The pulling force is tuned via the monitored distance between the magnet and the bead. The end-to-end distance of the DNA molecule is measured thanks to a microscope. Experiments are carried under constant pulling force $f$. One gradually rotates the magnet around an axis perpendicular to the glass surface while monitoring the relative extension of the molecule $z=Z/L$ where $L$ is the total contour length of the molecule and $Z$ is the distance in between the bead and the glass surface, see fig. (\[fig magnetic tweezer\]). Force is measured using the Brownian motion of the bead. No direct measurement of the twist moment is possible with magnetic tweezers. Consequently the twist persistence length $C$ is not directly available.
![The magnetic tweezer experiment.[]{data-label="fig magnetic tweezer"}](magnetic_tweezer.xfig.eps){width="0.65\linewidth"}
When no rotation is put in, the DNA molecule behaves like a semi-flexible polymer, i.e. the relative extension $z$ is a function of the temperature $T$, the persistence length $A$ and the applied pulling force $f$: $$z(n=0)=1-\left( \frac{4 \, k_B \, T}{A\, f}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\label{equa z wlc}
$$ This relation is used to extract the bending persistence length $A$ from experimental data. Then under gradually increased rotation, the extension $z$ decreases with the number of turns $n$ put in and eventually the molecule starts to wrap around itself. Geometrically speaking, the DNA molecule is coiling around itself in a helical way. Since the molecule is already a double helix, we speak about supercoiling. Each helical wave of the super helix is called a plectoneme. Different attempts has been made to model this experiment, introducing the concepts of wormlike rod chain [@bouchiat+mezard:2000], or torsional directed random walk [@moroz+nelson:1997] but without taking into account the possibility of contact, or dealing with the plectonemes in an ad hoc way [@marko+siggia:1995].
Here we present an elastic model that specifically includes the self-contact of the DNA molecule, but does not take into account thermal fluctuations. Our point is that, in the regime where plectonemes are formed, the relevant physical information is already present in our zero-temperature elastic rod model with hard-wall contact. Due to the base pair conformation, it seems natural to consider DNA as an elastic rod with a non-symmetric cross-section (i.e. two different bending rigidities). Nevertheless it has been shown that when dealing with a long enough molecule (more than a few dozen base pairs), one could simplify the model and work with an effective rod having a symmetric cross-section (i.e. one bending rigidity that is the harmonic mean of the two raw rigidities) [@kehrbaum+maddocks:2000]. In order to focus on supercoiling, we consider the simplest elastic rod model than includes twist effects and can have 3D shapes. Following the classic terminology of [*Euler planar elastica*]{} for twistless 2D shapes, we call the present model the [*Kirhhoff ideal elastica*]{} [@neukirch+henderson:2002]. The elastic energy reads: $$E = \frac{1}{2} \, \int_0^L \left( K_0 \, \kappa^2(s) + K_3 \, \tau^2(s)
\right) ds \nonumber$$ where $s$ is the arc-length, $\kappa(s)$ the curvature of the centre line, $\tau(s)$ the twist rate of the cross section around the centre line (which in the case of an ideal elastica is a constant of $s$), and $K_0$ and $K_3$ are the bending and twist rigidities respectively. The Kirchhoff equilibrium equations read: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}'(s)+{\mbox{\boldmath $ p $}}(s) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $ 0 $}} \label{equa force balance}\\
{\mbox{\boldmath $ M $}}'(s)+{\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}'(s) \times {\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}(s) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $ 0 $}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}(s)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $ M $}}(s)$ are the internal force and moment respectively. The external force per unit length ${\mbox{\boldmath $ p $}}(s)$ can model an electrostatic repulsion, gravity or hard-wall contact. The centre line of the rod is given by ${\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}(s)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $ t $}}(s)={\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}'(s)$ is its tangent. In the case of an ideal rod it can be shown [@heijden+al:2001] that: $$\begin{aligned}
K_0 \, {\mbox{\boldmath $ t $}}'(s) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $ M $}}(s) \times {\mbox{\boldmath $ t $}}(s)\\
K_0 \, {\mbox{\boldmath $ d_1 $}}'(s) & = & \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $ M $}}(s) - \tau \left( K_3 - K_0 \right)
{\mbox{\boldmath $ t $}}(s)\right) \times {\mbox{\boldmath $ d_1 $}}(s)
$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath $ d_1 $}}(s)$ is a unit vector, lying in the cross section, that follows the twist of the centre line. For a DNA molecule, it is generally taken as the vector pointing toward the major groove.
For the parts free of contact, we have ${\mbox{\boldmath $ p $}}(s) \equiv {\mbox{\boldmath $ 0 $}}$. In case of self-contact there are two points along the rod, say at arclength $s_1$ and $s_2$, where the inter-strand distance $|{\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}(s_1)-{\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}(s_2)|$ is equal to twice the radius of the circular cross-section (which we denote by $\rho$). At point $s_1$, we introduce a finite jump in the force vector ${\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}(s)$: $${\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}(s<s_1) = {\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}(s>s_1) + \frac{ \Delta F_{12} }{2 \rho} \, \left(
{\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}(s_1) - {\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}}(s_2) \right)$$ where $\Delta F_{12}$ is a positive real number. The same treatment is done at point $s_2$, with the same $\Delta F_{12}$ [@heijden+al:2001; @coleman+swigon:2000]. This corresponds to having a Dirac function for ${\mbox{\boldmath $ p $}}(s)$ in (\[equa force balance\]). In case of continuous sections of contact ${\mbox{\boldmath $ p $}}(s)$ is a function with changing direction and intensity. In our model we only consider cases where the contact occurs either at discrete points or along straight lines. This model has already been used [@stump+al:1998; @gaspar+nemeth:2001] and is well described in [@coleman+swigon:2000].
Ideally we are looking for equilibrium configurations of the ideal elastica that match the boundary conditions corresponding to the magnetic tweezer experiment. Nevertheless, in case of a long rod ($L \gg \rho$) with a large number of turns $n$ put in, the exact geometry of the boundary conditions are less important, and we choose clamped ends as used before [@heijden+al:2001]. We numerically find equilibrium configurations matching the boundary conditions using classical path following techniques; first a self made algorithm relying on multiple (or parallel) shooting, then using the code AUTO [@Doedel:1991] that discretises the boundary value problem with Gauss collocation points. The different types of solutions (straight, buckled, supercoiled) are found in the following way. We fix the radius $\rho$ and the vertical component $f$ of the force vector ${\mbox{\boldmath $ F $}}(s=0)$ acting on the bead. We first consider a straight rod with no rotation $n=0$. Then we twist the rod by gradually increasing $n$. At a certain bifurcation value, the path of straight solutions crosses another path of buckled solutions. Following this new path, we end up crossing another path of solutions with one discrete contact point. This latter path will itself intersect a path of configurations with two contact points. Solutions with up to three discrete contact points have been found [@heijden+al:2001]. Eventually the configurations with three discrete contact points bifurcate to solutions including a line of contact in addition of discrete contact points. We call them [*supercoiled configurations*]{}. In a supercoiled configuration, the parts of the rod which are in continuous contact have an helical shape. We call this twin super-helix a [*ply*]{}. The super-helix is defined by its radius $\rho$ and its helical angle $\theta$ (see fig. (\[fig magnetic tweezer\])). Each time we change the fixed pulling force $f$ or the radius $\rho$, the entire numerical continuation has to be rerun. Since we do not consider thermal fluctuations, the first part of our numerical response curve does not correspond to what is found experimentally. On the other hand our model reproduces quite precisely the part of the response curve where the distance $z$ decreases linearly with the number of turns $n$, provided we identify $\rho$ not with the crystallographic radius of the DNA molecule but with an effective supercoiling radius due to electrostatic as well as entropic repulsion. We numerically find that in the linear regime the helical angle $\theta$ does not vary with $n$. We fit numerical solutions curves as in [@stump+al:2000] and we find that $\theta$ only depends on $f$, $K_0$, and $\rho$: $$f=\frac{K_0}{\rho^2} \, \phi_3(\theta) \mbox{ with }
\phi_3(\theta)=1.65805 \, \theta^4 \label{equa T R theta} \, .$$
This result enables us to extract the effective supercoiling radius $\rho$ and the twist rigidity $K_3$ from magnetic tweezer experiments on DNA. First we note that the number of turns $n$ applied to the magnetic bead can be interpreted as the excess link of the DNA molecule: $n=\Delta Lk$. Link is normally defined for a closed ribbon but carefull use of a closure permits the introduction of the link of an open DNA molecule [@starostin:2003; @rossetto+maggs:2003]. We use the Călugăreanu-White-Fuller theorem to decompose the excess link: $$(n=) \, \Delta Lk=\Delta Tw + Wr \label{eq calugareanu}$$ where $\Delta Lk$ (resp. $\Delta Tw$) is the difference between the actual link (resp. twist) and the intrinsic link (resp. twist) of the double helix. The writhe $Wr$ is the average number of crossings of the centre line one sees when looking at the molecule from (all the possible) different viewpoints.
$$\epsfxsize=0.55\linewidth \epsfbox{z_sig_sel_monovalent.eps}$$
In the ply part, the twist rate is related to the helical angle $\theta$ via a mechanical balance [@coleman+swigon:2000; @neukirch+heijden:2002]: $$\tau = (-\epsilon) \frac{K_0}{2\rho \, K_3} \,
\left( \tan 2\theta-\sin 2\theta \right) \, ,
\label{eq twist ply}$$ where $\epsilon=\pm 1$ stands for the chirality of the ply [@neukirch+heijden:2002]. Since the twist rate is constant along the rod, we have $\Delta Tw=\tau \,
L/(2\pi)$. Generally writhe is not additive but using Fuller theorem [@aldinger:1994] with a carefully choosen reference curve we may write : $$Wr=Wr_{loop}+Wr_{tails}+Wr_{ply}.$$ Here we neglect $Wr_{loop}$ and $Wr_{tails}$. Carefully choosing a reference curve to apply Fuller theorem or directly computing the writhe from the double integral yields [@starostin:2003]: $$Wr_{ply}=(-\epsilon) \frac{L_{ply}}{4\pi \,\rho} \sin 2\theta \, .
\label{eq writhe ply}$$ The total contour length (or number of base pairs) $L$ of the DNA molecule is given and we write: $$L_{ply}=L-L_{loop}-L_{tails} \, .$$ We neglect $L_{loop}$ and we use an heuristic equation for $ L_{tails} $ : $$L_{tails}= Z(\sigma) \, \frac{L}{Z(0)},$$ which means that when the molecule is supercoiled the tails parts, which are not supercoiled, are as disordered as the molecule was when no rotation was put in. For positive supercoiling ($n>0$) we get a left handed ply ($\epsilon=-1$). From (\[eq calugareanu\]), (\[eq twist ply\]), and (\[eq writhe ply\]) we obtain: $$\Delta Lk=
\frac{L}{4\pi \rho} \left[
\frac{K_0}{K_3} \, \left( \tan 2\theta-\sin 2\theta \right)+
\sin 2 \theta \left(1-\frac{Z}{Z(0)}\right)
\right].
\label{eq link total}$$ Introducing the supercoiling ratio $\sigma=\Delta Lk/Lk_0$ and taking $h=10.5$ base pairs per turn and $\delta z=0.34 \, nm$ of rise for each base pair, we get an helical pitch for the DNA double helix $H=h \, \delta z = 3.57 \, nm$ and we have: $Lk_0=L/H$. Equation (\[eq link total\]) can then be inverted to give an approximation of the linear part of the response curve in the $(\sigma,z)$ plane : $$\frac{z}{z(0)}=
1+
\frac{K_0}{K_3}\left( \frac{1}{\cos 2 \theta}-1\right)-
\frac{4 \pi \rho}{H \sin 2 \theta} \, \sigma \label{equa linear part}$$
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
f \mbox{ (pN)} & \theta \mbox{ (rad)} & \rho \mbox{(nm)} & K_3/K_0 \\
\hline
0.25 & 0.427 & 6.85 & 1.88 \\
0.33 & 0.449 & 6.60 & 1.87 \\
0.44 & 0.467 & 6.17 & 1.92 \\
0.57 & 0.469 & 5.47 & 1.84 \\
0.74 & 0.504 & 5.55 & 2.01 \\
1.1 & 0.488 & 4.26 & 1.86 \\
1.31 & 0.471 & 3.64 & 1.58 \\
2.2 & 0.503 & 3.21 & 1.65 \\
2.95 & 0.507 & 2.81 & 1.62 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
$$\epsfxsize=0.55\linewidth \epsfbox{z_sig_sel_bivalent.eps}$$
We use (\[equa T R theta\]) and (\[equa linear part\]) to extract information from experimental response curves of extension-rotation experiments. Since experiments are carried at given (fixed) $f$ and since $K_0$ is obtained from (\[equa z wlc\]) with $K_0=A \, k_B T$, then from each experimental curve in the $(\sigma,z)$ plane we only need : $(i)$ the relative extension at $\sigma=0$, which we denote by $z(0)$, $(ii)$ the slope of the linear part, which we denote by $\alpha$, $(iii)$ the ordinate at the origin of the straight line fitting the linear part of the response curve, which we denote by $z_{\beta}$. Using (\[equa T R theta\]) and (\[equa linear part\]) we get an equation for $\theta$ : $$\alpha=-\frac{4\pi \, z(0)}{H \sin 2 \theta} \,
\sqrt{\frac{K_0}{f} \phi_3(\theta)}$$ Once we know $\theta$, we can extract the effective supercoiling radius $\rho$ from (\[equa T R theta\]) and the effective stifnesses ratio from (\[equa linear part\]): $$\frac{K_3}{K_0} = \left(\frac{1}{\cos 2\theta}-1 \right) \Big/
\left(\frac{z_{\beta}}{z(0)}-1 \right)$$
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
f \mbox{ (pN)} & \theta \mbox{ (rad)} & \rho \mbox{ (nm)} & K_3/K_0 \\
\hline
0.45 & 0.307 & 2.79 & 1.09 \\
1.45 & 0.319 & 1.67 & 1.00 \\
4.3 & 0.348 & 1.15 & 0.99 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Results are shown in table \[table monovalent\] and \[table bivalent\] and can be compared to results of [@bryant+al:2003] where another micro-technique was used and a value of $K_3 \simeq 100 \, nm \, k_B \, T$ (in a 100mM NaCl + 40 mM Tris-HCl buffer) was found. From our results, we see that the effective supercoiling radius decreases with the intensity of the pulling force, and with the strength of the salt buffer. Fitting experimental data with (\[equa z wlc\]) yields $K_0 = 51 \, nm \,
k_B \, T$ for fig. \[fig 48kbp\] and $K_0 = 57 \, nm \, k_B \, T$ for fig. \[fig 11kbp\]. This means that the bending rigidity does not vary widely with the salt properties of the buffer. On the other hand, present results imply that the twist rigidity strongly decreases with the salt strength. This in turns implies that the electrostatic contribution (repulsion of the charges lying on the sugar-phosphate backbone) to this effective twist rigidity is rather important.
It is a pleasure to thank G. Charvin, V. Croquette, and D. Bensimon for supplying us with data from experiments.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Over the last few years, the complexity of web applications has increased to provide more dynamic web applications to users. The drawback of this complexity is the growing number of errors in the front-end applications. In this paper, we present [BikiniProxy]{}, a novel technique to provide self-healing for the web. [BikiniProxy]{}is designed as an HTTP proxy that uses five self-healing strategies to rewrite the buggy HTML and Javascript code. We evaluate [BikiniProxy]{}with a new benchmark of [555]{}reproducible Javascript errors, [DeadClick]{}. We create [DeadClick]{}by randomly crawling the Internet and collect all web pages that contain Javascript errors. Then, we observe how [BikiniProxy]{}heals those errors by collecting and comparing the traces of the original and healed pages. To sum up, [BikiniProxy]{}is a novel fully-automated self-healing approach that is specific to the web, evaluated on [555]{}real Javascript errors, and based on original self-healing rewriting strategies for HTML and Javascript.'
author:
- Thomas Durieux
- Youssef Hamadi
- Martin Monperrus
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Fully Automated HTML and Javascript Rewriting for Constructing a Self-healing Web Proxy'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
According to [@rankinglib], at least 76% of all websites on the Internet use Javascript. The Javascript code used in today’s web page is essential: it is used for social media interaction, dynamic user-interface, usage monitoring, advertisement, content recommendation, fingerprinting, etc, all of this being entirely part of the “web experience”. For example, when a user browses the website [cnn.com](cnn.com), she is loading more 125 than Javascript files, which represent a total of 2.8 megabytes of code.
The drawback of this complexity is the growing number of errors in web pages. For instance, a common Javascript error is due to uninitialized errors, resulting in an error message such as `cannot read property X of null` where `X` is a variable name. Searching for this error message on Github and Google respectively gives 179000 and 27318 results (data from March 9th, 2018). Ocariza at al. [@ocariza2011Javascript] have performed a systematic study showing that the majority of the most visited websites in 2011 contain Javascript errors.
In this paper, we propose a novel technique to provide self-healing for the web. It is along the line of previous work on self-healing software (e.g. [@gurguis2005towards]), also called failure-oblivious computing (eg. [@rinard2004enhancing; @durieux2017dynamic]), automated recovery and remediation (e.g. [@candea2003jagr]). The majority of the self-healing literature focuses on the C/Unix runtime. On the contrary, we are interested in the Javascript/browser runtime, which is arguably much different. Indeed, the topic of self-healing of Javascript errors is a very little researched area [@carzaniga2010automatic; @carzaniga2015automatic].
Our novel self-healing technique is founded on two insights. Our first key insight is that a proxy between the client browser and the web server can be used for providing the self-healing capabilities. Our second key insight is that the most common Javascript errors can be fixed by automated rewriting of HTML or Javascript code.
In this paper, we present a novel self-healing proxy for the web, called [BikiniProxy]{}. It consists of five self-healing strategies, that are specifically designed for Javascript errors. Those strategies are based rewriting, defined as automated modification of the code: automated addition or modification of HTML elements and automated transformation of Javascript abstract syntax trees.
Our approach does not make any assumption on the architecture or libraries of web applications. First, proxy servers are used in most web architectures. Second, our approach does not require a single change to existing web pages and applications. As such, [BikiniProxy]{}is highly applicable and could be embedded in a service like Amazon/CloudFlare[^1].
We evaluate our approach as follows. First, we set up a crawler to randomly browse the Internet, for each browsed page, it logs the Javascript errors, if any, occurring during the loading of the page content. Second, we observe how [BikiniProxy]{}heals those errors by collecting and comparing traces. Over 8 full days, our crawler has visited 96174 web pages, and identified 4282 web pages with errors. We observed that 3727 errors were either transient (due to asynchronicity [@ocariza2011Javascript]) or fixed by the developer after crawling. Eventually, we evaluated [BikiniProxy]{}on [555]{}web pages with errors, representing an unbiased sample of real field errors. [BikiniProxy]{}is able to make all errors disappear in 176/555 of the cases, that is 31.76%. In the best cases, the self-healing provides the user with new features or new content. We provide detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis on the main categories of self-healing outcome. To sum up, [BikiniProxy]{}is a novel fully-automated self-healing approach that is specific to the web, evaluated on [555]{}real Javascript errors, and based on original self-healing rewriting strategies for HTML and Javascript.
Our contributions are:
- The design and implementation of a novel self-healing proxy, [BikiniProxy]{}, for today’s web.
- Five self-healing strategies for the web, specifically designed to automatically recover from the most frequent errors in Javascript.
- A benchmark of [555]{}real web pages with Javascript errors. Special care has been taken so that all error are fully reproducible for today and future experiment in this research area.
- An evaluation of [BikiniProxy]{}over the [555]{}Javascript errors from our benchmark, showing that [BikiniProxy]{}makes all errors disappear for 31.76% of web pages with errors. This quantitative evaluation is complemented by a qualitative analysis of [BikiniProxy]{}’s effectiveness.
- An open-source implementation of [BikiniProxy]{}, publicly available for future research [@repo].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. explains the background of [BikiniProxy]{}. details the [BikiniProxy]{}approach. details the evaluation. details the threats to validity of the contribution. presents the related works and Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
The Complexity of Today’s Web
-----------------------------
A web page today is a complex computational object. A modern web page executes code and depends on many different resources. Those resources range from CSS styles of thousands of lines, external fonts, media objects, and last but not least, Javascript code.
For example, when a user browses the website [cnn.com](cnn.com), he is loading more than 400 resources and 125 of them are Javascript, which represents a total of 2.8mb of code. Anecdotally, back in 2010, the same web page [cnn.com](cnn.com) contained 890kb of Javascript code [@ocariza2011Javascript] (68% less code!)
Today’s web page Javascript is essential: it is used for social media interaction, usage monitoring, advertisement, content recommendation, fingerprinting, etc, all of this being entirely part of the “web experience”. Consequently, 76% of all websites on the Internet use Javascript [@rankinglib]. To this extent, a web page today is a program, and as such, suffers from errors.
Javascript Errors
-----------------
Web pages and applications load and execute a lot of Javascript code [@ocariza2017study]. This code can be buggy, in fact, the top 100 of the most visited websites contains Javascript errors [@ocariza2011Javascript]. One kind of Javascript error is an uncaught exception, which is similar to uncaught exceptions in modern runtimes (Java, C\#, Python). Those errors are thrown during execution if the browser state is invalid like when accessing a property on a null element (a null dereference).
If an error is not caught by the developer, the execution of the current script is stopped. In Javascript, there is a different “execution scope” for each loaded scripts (i.e. for each HTML script tag) and for each asynchronous call. Consequently, contrary to classical sequential execution, in a browser, only the current execution scope is stopped, and the main thread continues running. This means that one can observe several uncaught exceptions for a single page.
The uncaught errors are logged in the browser console that is accessible with the developer tool. Most browsers provide an API to access all the errors that are logged in the browser console. This means that it is relatively easy to monitor Javascript errors in web applications.
Web Proxies
-----------
A web proxy is to be an intermediate component between a client browser and web server. In essence, a proxy transmits the client request to the server, receives the response from the server, and forwards it to the client browser. On the web, proxies are massively used for different purposes.
1. A `Network Proxy` is used to expose a service that is not directly accessible, because of network restrictions [@luotonen1998web]. The proxy, in this case, is a bridge between two networks and its only task is to redirect requests and responses. For example, a popular network proxy is nginx, it is used to expose websites on port 80 which are indeed served on other ports $>1024$, this avoids granting root access to web applications.
2. A `Cache Proxy` is a proxy that is used to cache some resources directly in the proxy in order to improve the serving time to an external resource [@pistriotto2000method]. The cache proxy stores the response of the server locally and if a request is made for the same resource, the local version is directly sent to the client without sending the request to the server. A wildly used cache proxy is, for example, a content-delivery network (CDN) that provides optimized access to static resources on the Internet.
3. A `Security Proxy` is used to verify whether a client browser is legitimate to access a server [@krueger2010tokdoc]. This type of proxy can be used for example to protect a server against Denial-of-service attacks.
4. A `Load-balancer Proxy` is used on popular applications to distribute the load of users on different backend servers [@bowman2003load]. A load balancer can be as simple as a round-robin, but can also be more sophisticated. For instance, a load-balancer can try to find the least loaded server available in the pool.
Self-healing Software
---------------------
Self-healing software refers to the idea that it is possible to engineer fully automated error recovery for software. Berger nicely puts it as software seatbelts and airbags [@Berger2012]. For instance, self-healing can consist of restoring invariants [@demsky2003automatic]. The literature uses different expressions to refer to this very same idea: automated recovery [@gu2016automatic], failure-oblivious computing [@rinard2004enhancing], runtime repair [@lewis2010runtime]. Note that “runtime repair” and “program repair”, although they share the word “repair” are fundamentally different [@monperrus2014critical; @baudry2015multiple]: the former happens at runtime in production, and does not involve patches for developers, while the latter is offline and consists of generating patches for human developers. Despite its potential impact, self-healing capabilities for web applications is a very little researched area [@carzaniga2010automatic; @carzaniga2015automatic].
In this paper, we propose a novel kind of web proxy, a self-healing proxy, for automatically recovering at runtime from Javascript errors in web browsers.
Contribution {#sec:contribution}
============
![The Architecture of [BikiniProxy]{}. The key idea is that all requests are proxied by “[BikiniProxy]{}”. Then, if an error is detected, a self-healing strategy based on HTML and/or JS rewriting is automatically applied.[]{data-label="fig:architecture"}](architecture_bikiniproxy){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We now present [BikiniProxy]{}, a novel approach to fully automate self-healing of HTML and Javascript in production.
The intuition behind [BikiniProxy]{}is that a proxy between web applications and the end-users could provide the required monitoring and intercession interface for automatic error handling. This is the concept of `self-healing proxy` that we explore in this paper.
Architecture {#sec:architecture}
------------
presents the architecture of [BikiniProxy]{}. [BikiniProxy]{}is composed of three main parts.
1. [BikiniProxy]{}(see ) is a stateless HTTP proxy that intercepts the HTML and Javascript requests between the browser (also called “client” in this paper) and the web server.
2. The JS/HTML Rewriter service (see ) that contains the self-healing strategies to handle Javascript errors.
3. The Monitoring and Self-healing Backend (see ) stores information about the known errors that have happened and the success statistic of each self-healing strategies for each error.
Let us start with a concrete example. Bob, a user of the website <http://foo.com> browses the page [[`gallery.html`]{}]{} and uses [BikiniProxy]{}to improve his web experience. Since [BikiniProxy]{}is a proxy, when Bob opens [[`gallery.html`]{}]{}, the request goes through the proxy. When the request is made, [BikiniProxy]{}queries the backend to know whether another, say Alice, has experienced errors on [[`gallery.html`]{}]{}. Indeed, Alice’s browser got a [[`jQuery is not defined`]{}]{} error two days before. The backend sends this error to the proxy, which consequently launches the JS/HTML Rewriter service to handle the error. For [[`gallery.html`]{}]{}, the rewriting is HTML-based and consists of by injecting the library jQuery in the HTML response. [BikiniProxy]{}also injects its error monitoring framework before sending the rewritten response to Bob’s browser. The rewritten page is executed by Bob’s browser, [BikiniProxy]{}’s monitoring tells the proxy that Alice’s error does not appear anymore, meaning that the rewriting strategy made it disappeared.
shows the workflow of [BikiniProxy]{}. [BikiniProxy]{}receives the HTTP request from the browser (line ). Then it redirects the request to the Web Server (line ) like any proxy. For each HTML response, [BikiniProxy]{}injects a framework (line ) to monitors the Javascript errors in the client browser. When an error happens on the client browser, it is sent to [BikiniProxy]{}’s backend for being saved in a database.
[BikiniProxy]{}uses the backend to know which Javascript resource has thrown an error in the past: for each HTML and Javascript resource, [BikiniProxy]{}queries the backend service with the URL of the requested resource to list all the known errors (line ). If there is at last one known error, [BikiniProxy]{}triggers the JS/HTML Rewriter service to apply the self-healing strategies on the fly to the requested content (line ). Then the response is sent to the client (line ) with a unique id to monitor the effectiveness of the applied self-healing strategy.
\[def:resource\] A web **resource** is a content on which a web page is dependent. For instance, an image or a Javascript script is a web resource. In this paper, a web resource is defined by 1) an URL to address the resource; 2) its content (whether text-based or binary-based) and 3) the HTTP headers that are used to serve the resource. The resource can be used as an attribute of an HTML tag (<script>, <img>, <link >, <iframe>, etc.) or used as an AJAX content.[^2]
\[algo:bikiniproxy:request\] \[algo:bikiniproxy:response\] \[algo:bikiniproxy:inject\] \[algo:bikiniproxy:errors\] \[algo:bikiniproxy:rewrite\] \[algo:bikiniproxy:send\]
### The Proxy {#sec:proxy}
A proxy intercepts the HTML code and the Javascript code that is sent by the web server to the client browser. By intercepting this content, the proxy can modify the production code and therefore change the behavior of the web application. One well-known example of such a change is to minimize the HTML and Javascript code to increase the download speed.
In [BikiniProxy]{}, the proxy automatically changes the Javascript code of the web application to handle known errors. [BikiniProxy]{}is configured with what we call “self-healing strategies”. A self-healing strategy is a way to automatically recover from a certain class of errors, see . In [BikiniProxy]{}, the proxy is made stateless, in order to scale well to massive amounts of requests.
### JS/HTML Rewriter {#sec:repair_models}
The role of the JS/HTML Rewriter is to rewrite the content of the Javascript and HTML resources in order to: 1) monitor the Javascript errors that happen in the field 2) change the behavior when a Javascript resource has been involved in an error in the past. In this paper, a “known error” is an error that has been thrown in the browser of a previous client, that has been detected by the monitoring feature of [BikiniProxy]{}and that has been saved in the [BikiniProxy]{}backend (see ).
We design for [BikiniProxy]{}, five self-healing strategies that target the most frequent Javascript errors that we observe when we craw the Internet.
1. HTTP/HTTPS Redirector that changes HTTP URLs to HTTPS URLs.
2. HTML Element Creator that creates missing HTML elements.
3. Library Injector injects missing libraries in the page.
4. Line Skipper wraps a statement with an if to prevent invalid object access.
5. Object Creator initializes a variable with an empty object to prevent further null dereferences.
In addition, the JS/HTML Rewriter is plugin-based, it can be easily extended with new self-healing strategies to follow the fast evolution of the web environment.
#### HTTP/HTTPS Redirector
The modern browsers have a policy to block unsecured content (i.e. HTTP resources) in secured web pages (HTTPS). For example, `https://foo.com` cannot load\
`http://foo.com/f.js` (no https). The rationale is that the unsecured requests can be easily intercepted and modified to inject scripts that will steal information from the secure page, for example, your banking information.
As of 2018, we still are in a period of transition where both HTTP and HTTPS web pages exist, and some websites provide access to their content with both HTTP and HTTPS protocol. Consequently, it happens that the developers forget to change some URL in their HTTPS version and those resources are blocked, resulting in incomplete web pages or Javascript errors.
The self-healing strategy of HTTP/HTTPS Redirector is to change all the HTTP URL by HTTPS URL in HTTPS pages. By doing this, all resources are loaded and the unwanted behavior due to blocked resources is fixed.
#### HTML Element Creator
As shown by Ocariza et al. [@ocariza2017study], most of the Javascript errors are related to the DOM. This is especially true when the developers try to dynamically change the content of a specific HTML element using getElmentById, like:
document.getElmentById("elementID")
.innerText = "Dynamic content";
Since the HTML and the Javascript are provided in different files, it is not rare that an HTML element with an ID is removed or changed without changing the associated Javascript code. For example, if DOM element [[`elementID`]{}]{} is removed, [[`document.getElmentById(...)`]{}]{} returns [[`null`]{}]{} and the execution results on a null dereference when the property [[`innerText`]{}]{} is set.
When an error happens, [BikiniProxy]{}determines if the error is related to the access of a missing element in the DOM: it does so by looking at the Javascript code at the failure point. If it is the case, “HTML Element Creator” extracts the query that the Javascript used to access the element and create an empty and invisible HTML element in the DOM. The Javascript code then runs without error and the execution continues without affecting the client browser.
#### Library Injector
In Javascript, it is a common practice to rely on external libraries to facilitate the development of the web applications. Some of these libraries are extremely popular and are used by millions of users every day, like jQuery or AngularJS. Sometimes, these libraries are not correctly loaded into web pages, and this produces a very characteristic error: for example, [[`jQuery is not defined`]{}]{} [BikiniProxy]{}parses those errors and determines which library is missing.
To do so, [BikiniProxy]{}has an initial offline training phase, missing libraries are simulated on a test website, and reference errors are collected for the top 10 libraries presented in [@rankinglib]. Based on these reference errors, error parsing rules have been manually written to determine which library is missing. When Library Injector detects that a web page contains an error related to a missing library, it injects the related library in the web page. The rewritten page contains the missing library and the web page can be completely loaded.
#### Line Skipper
The errors [[`XXX is not defined`]{}]{} and [[`XXX is not a function`]{}]{} in Javascript are errors that are related to invalid access to a variable or a property. [[`XXX is not defined`]{}]{} is triggered when an identifier (name of variable / function) is used but was never defined in the current scope. For example if we call [[`if(m){}`]{}]{} without defining [[`m`]{}]{}, the execution ends with the error [[`’m’ is not defined`]{}]{}.
The second error, [[`XXX is not a function`]{}]{}, is triggered when a variable that is not a function is called. For example, the code [[`var func = null; func()`]{}]{} will trigger the error [[`func is not a function`]{}]{}.
To avoid these errors, Line Skipper wraps the statement that contains the invalid code with an if that verifies that the element is correctly defined for the first error, [[`if (typeof m != ’undefined’ && m) {if(m){}}`]{}]{}. And to verify that a variable contains a reference to function, [BikiniProxy]{}rewrites the Javascript code as follows [[`if (typeof func === ’function’) {func()}`]{}]{}.
presents the algorithm of Line Skipper. First Line Skipper extracts the line, column, and URL of the resource from the failure point of the error. Line Skipper verifies that the current request is the resource that contains the error. Then Line Skipper extracts the AST from the Javascript code and looks for the element that is not defined. durieux2017productionFinally, the AST is transformed back to a textual form to be sent back to the client.
#### Object Creator
One of the most frequent error types at runtime is null dereference [@toperror], and this also occurs much in Javascript [@ocariza2017study]. Since Javascript is an untyped language, all null dereferences happening when setting properties can be handled with a generic empty object. For example, the code [[`var m = null; m.test = ”;`]{}]{} will trigger the error [[`Cannot set property test of null`]{}]{} and can be avoided by adding [[`if (m == null) {m = {};}`]{}]{} before setting [[`m.test`]{}]{}.
The strategy of Object Creator is to initialize all null variables with a generic Javascript object before setting a property. When the execution continues, all the properties set in the generic object are readable later in the execution.
### Monitoring and Self-healing Backend {#sec:backend}
The Monitoring and Self-healing Backend fulfills three tasks. The first task is to receive and store all the Javascript errors happening on client browsers. The Backend provides an API for [BikiniProxy]{}to query if a specific resource (URL) contains known errors.
The second task of the backend is to monitor the effectiveness of the different self-healing strategies. Each time that the section of the Javascript code rewrite by one of the five self-healing strategies is executed, an event is sent to [BikiniProxy]{}backend to keep track of the activation of the different strategies. Based on the number of activation and the number of errors per page, we can estimate the effectiveness of the self-healing strategies.
The third task is to provide a layout of communication with the developers about the monitored errors and the effectiveness of all self-healing strategies. For example, the following message can be given to the developer: “The strategy `Library Injector` has injected jQuery 22 times in the page [[`gallery.html`]{}]{} to handle the error [[`jQuery is not defined`]{}]{}”. This is valuable information to assist the developers in designing a permanent fix. And [BikiniProxy]{}backend also provides a visual interface that lists all the errors that the end-users face during the browsing of the web page.
Implementation {#sec:implementation}
--------------
In this section, we present the prototype implementation of [BikiniProxy]{}. The source code and the usage examples are publicly available in [@repo]. The implementation of [BikiniProxy]{}’s proxy is made in Javascript, based on a popular open-source proxy, anyproxy, by Alibaba.[^3] The self-healing strategies based on HTML rewriting use htmlparser2[^4]. The self-healing strategies based on rewriting the Javascript abstract syntax tree (AST) use the library babel.js[^5].
Applicability
-------------
The usage of [BikiniProxy]{}is practically zero cost, and as such, it is widely applicable. First, it requires no change to the original web pages or applications. Second, the usage of an HTTP proxy in web application is very common. A [BikiniProxy]{}self-healing proxies can be set up by: 1) a company in front of their web content; 2) a SaaS-based provider 3) a hosting service. Thus, [BikiniProxy]{}is an highly-applicable solution.
[BikiniProxy]{}can be a new technology to enrich an existing proxy solution. For example, Cloudflare by Amazon [^6] is a professional proxy provider developed by Amazon.com. It provides different services for websites: it offers caching, protection against DDoS (Attack by Denied-of-Service), etc. [BikiniProxy]{}’s approach would perfectly integrate into Cloudflare (or another proxy company) to provide further added value.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
In our evaluation, we answer the following research questions.
[[[**RQ1. \[Effectiveness\] How is [BikiniProxy]{}effective at automatically fixing Javascript errors in production, without any user or developer involvement?**]{}]{}]{}The first research question studies if it is possible to handle field Javascript errors with our proxy based approach. We will answer this question by showing how real-world errors have been handled with one of our implemented self-healing strategies.
[[[**RQ2. \[Outcome\] What is the outcome of [BikiniProxy]{}’s self-healing strategies on the page beyond making the error disappear?**]{}]{}]{}In this research question, we explore what are the possible outcomes of [BikiniProxy]{}on buggy web pages. We will answer this research question by presenting real-world case studies of different possible outcomes.
[[[**RQ3. \[Comparison\] Do the different self-healing strategies perform equivalently?**]{}]{}]{} Finally, we present to which extent the different self-healing strategies are used: Which type of errors are handled by the five self-healing strategies?
Protocol
--------
We set up the following experimentation protocol to evaluate [BikiniProxy]{}. Our idea is to compare the behavior of an erroneous web page, against the behavior of the same, but self-healed page using our [BikiniProxy]{}. The comparison is made at the level of “web trace”, a concept we introduce in this paper, defined as follows.
A [web trace]{}is the loading sequence and rendering result of a web page. A [web trace]{}contains 1) the URL of the page 2) all the resources (URL, content, see Definition \[def:resource\]) 3) all the Javascript errors that are triggered when executing the Javascript resources and 4) a screenshot of the page at the end of loading.
Given a benchmark of web pages with Javascript errors, the following steps are made. The first step is to collect the [web trace]{}of each erroneous web page.
The second step is to collect the new [web trace]{}of each erroneous web page with [BikiniProxy]{}(Recall that all resources are rewritten by [BikiniProxy]{}self-healing strategies). In addition to the [web trace]{}, we also collect data about the self-healing process: the strategies that have been activated, defined by the tuple (initial error, strategy type).
The third step is to compare for each web page the original [web trace]{}against the self-healed [web trace]{}. The goal of the comparison is to identify whether [BikiniProxy]{}was able to heal the Javascript errors. For instance, the comparison may yield that all errors have disappeared, that is a full self-healing.
Construction of a Benchmark of Javascript Field Errors {#sec:benchmark}
------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate [BikiniProxy]{}, we need real-world Javascript that are reproducible. For each reproducible errors, we want to compare the behavior of the web page with and without [BikiniProxy]{}. To our knowledge, there is no publicly available benchmark of reproducible Javascript errors. Consequently, we create a new benchmark, we call it the [DeadClick]{}benchmark. The creation of our benchmark is composed of the following steps:
1. randomly browse the web to discover web pages on Internet that have errors (see )
2. collect the errors and their execution traces (see )
3. ensure that one is able to reproduce the errors in a closed environment(see )
### Web Page Finder {#sec:url_finder}
The first step of the creation of [DeadClick]{}is finding web pages that contain errors. In order to have a representative picture of errors on the Internet, we use a random approach. Our methodology is to take randomly two words from the English dictionary, and to combine those two words in a Google search request. A fake crawler then opens the first link that Google provides. If an error is detected on this page, the page URL is kept as tentative for the next step. The pros and cons of this methodology are discussed in
[0.9]{}[X|r]{} Crawling stats & Value\
\# Visited Pages & [96174]{}\
\# Pages with Error & [4282]{}(4.5%)\
Benchmarks stats & Value\
\# Pages with Reproduced Errors & [555]{}\
\# Domains & 466\
\# Average \# resources per page & 102.55\
\# Average scripts per page & 35.51\
\# Min errors per page & 1\
\# Average errors per page & 1.49\
\# Max errors per page & 10\
\# Average pages size & 1.98mb\
![Bar plot of the number of requests by content-type.[]{data-label="fig:contenttype"}](requestByContentType){width="\columnwidth"}
### Web Trace Collector {#sec:state_collector}
The Javascript environment is highly dynamic and asynchronous. It means that many errors are transient and as such are not reproducible in the future, even in a very short period of time after their observation.
For identifying reproducing errors, our idea is to collect the [web trace]{}of the erroneous page and to try to reproduce the exact same [web trace]{}in a controlled environment, see
We implement the trace collection using the library puppeteer from Google[^7], which provides an API to control Chrome in a programmatic manner. The big advantage of this library is that it uses the same browser engine as Chrome end-users, meaning that, by construction, [DeadClick]{}is only composed of errors that really happen on user browsers.
Since Javascript is mostly asynchronous, the Web Trace Collector waits for the end of loading where loading is defined as follows: 1) it opens the URL, 2) it waits for seven seconds, in order to load and execute all resources, in particular, Javascript files. 3) it scrolls the page to the bottom, in order to trigger additional initialization and Javascript execution. 4) it waits again for one second.
During this process, the Web Trace Collector logs 1) all errors that occur in the browser console and 2) all the requests (including the HTTP headers and the body) made from the browser. When the page is completely loaded, a screenshot of the page is taken, it provides a visual representation of the page. At the end of this process, for each page, the collected data is stored on disk if at least one error has been logged during the page browsing.
### Web Page Reproduction {#sec:reproduction_proxy}
The last step of the benchmark creation consists of verifying that the collected errors can be reproduced. We consider that we succeed to reproduce the behavior of the web page when the observed errors during reproduction are identical to the ones in the originally collected [web trace]{}.
The reproduction of the error is done by browsing the erroneous page again but instead of using the resources from Internet, the Web Page Reproduction is cut from the Internet and only serves the resources stored on disk. In addition, it denies all the requests that have not been observed during the initial collection of the page.
[r|X|r|r|r||r|r]{} \# & Error messages & \# Web Pages & \# Domains &
-------------------
\# Initial Errors
-------------------
&
----------------------
\#Healed Errors
with [BikiniProxy]{}
----------------------
&
-------------
Improvement
-------------
\
1 & XXX is not defined & 200 & 166 & 307 & 184 & 59.93%\
2 & Cannot read property XXX of null & 156 & 126 & 176 & 42 & 23.86%\
3 & XXX is not a function & 92 & 86 & 111 & 11 & 9.9%\
4 & Unexpected token X & 54 & 51 & 61 & 2 & 3.27%\
5 & Cannot set property XXX of null & 21 & 17 & 24 & 11 & 45.83%\
6 & Invalid or unexpected token & 18 & 12 & 21 & 0 & 0%\
7 & Unexpected identifier & 13 & 11 & 15 & 0 & 0%\
8 & Script error for: XXX & 8 & 3 & 10 & 2 & 20%\
9 & The manifest specifies content that cannot be displayed on this browser/platform. & 5 & 5 & 7 & 0 & 0%\
10 & adsbygoogle.push() error: No slot & 4 & 4 & 7 & 0 & 0%\
& 53 different errors & 555 & 466 & 826 & 248 & 30.02%\
Description of [DeadClick]{}
----------------------------
gives the main statistics of [DeadClick]{}. The Web Page Finder visited a total of [96174]{}pages, and [4282]{}of the pages contains at least one error (4.5%), out of which [555]{}errors have been successfully reproduced. The final dataset contains errors from 466 different URL domains representing a large diversity of websites. There is on average 1.49 error per page, and each page has between one and ten errors.
presents the top 10 of the errors present in [DeadClick]{}. In total [DeadClick]{}contains 53 different error types for a total of 826 collected errors. 69% of the Javascript errors are the first three error types: [[`XXX is not defined`]{}]{}, [[`Cannot read property XXX of null`]{}]{} and [[`XXX is not a function`]{}]{}.
presents the number of requests for the top 9 resource types. The external resources are mostly Javascript files. The rest of the distribution illustrates how complex modern web pages are. For sake open of open-science, [DeadClick]{}and its mining framework are available on Github [@repo].
RQ1: Effectiveness of Self-healing Web Applications
---------------------------------------------------
[0.97]{}[X|r|r]{} Metric Name & \# Pages & Percent\
All Errors Disappeared & 176/[555]{}& 31.76%\
Some Errors Disappeared & 42/[555]{}& 7.58%\
Different/Additional Errors & 140/[555]{}& 25.27%\
No Strategy Applied & 196/[555]{}& 35.31%\
We now present the results of this first research question. shows the top 10 types of errors in the considered benchmark and how they are handled by [BikiniProxy]{}. The first column contains the rank of the error type. The second column contains the error type, represented by the message of the error. The third column shows the number of web pages that contain this errors. The fourth column presents the number of different domains where the error is present. The fifth column contains the initial number of occurrences of the error in the [DeadClick]{}. The sixth column contains the number of healed error with [BikiniProxy]{}. The seventh column contains the percentage of the evolution, a negative percentage represents a decrease of the number of errors, a positive percentage an increase in the number of errors.
The first major result lies in the first row. It presents the error “XXX is not defined”, which is the most common on the web according to our sampling. This error is present in 200 web pages across 166 different domains. It is thrown 307 times (meaning that some web pages throw it several times). With [BikiniProxy]{}, this error is healed 184/307 times, which represents a major improvement of 59.93%.
A second major result is that [BikiniProxy]{}is able to handle at least one error for the five most frequent Javascript errors. It succeeds to heal between 3.27% and 59.93% of the five most frequent Javascript errors in our benchmark. Overall, 248 errors are automatically healed, meaning that [BikiniProxy]{}reduces by 30.02% the number of errors in the benchmark;
Now we discuss the categories of healed errors. We identify whether:
1. *All errors disappeared:* no error happens anymore in the page loaded with [BikiniProxy]{}, meaning that one or a combination of rewriting strategies have removed the errors.
2. *Some errors disappear:*, there are fewer errors than in the original [web trace]{}.
3. *Different errors appear:* at least one error still, and it is a new error (new error type or new error location) that has never been seen before.
4. *No strategy applied:* the error type is not handled by any of the strategies and thus there are the same errors than in the original [web trace]{}.
presents the number of web pages per category. The first line of shows that the number of web pages that have all the Javascript errors healed by [BikiniProxy]{}: [BikiniProxy]{}is able to handle all errors for 176/[555]{}(31.76%) of the [DeadClick]{}benchmark. The second line shows the number of web pages that have been partially self-healed, by partially, we mean that the number of Javascript errors decrease with [BikiniProxy]{}but are still not zero: with [BikiniProxy]{}, 42 web pages contain fewer errors than before. The third line shows the number of web pages that have new errors than before: in 140/[555]{}(25.27%) of the faulty pages, [BikiniProxy]{}is able to handle some errors but the rest of the execution produce new errors. The last line shows the number of web pages where none of the strategies has been applied: in 196/[555]{}(35.13%) the errors are of a type that is not considered by [BikiniProxy]{}. To better understand the case where no strategy can be applied, we perform a manual qualitative analysis.
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
![The two buttons in orange are missing in the original buggy page. When [BikiniProxy]{}is enabled, the two orange buttons provide the user with new user-interface features.[]{data-label="fig:new_feature"}](new_button.png){width="\columnwidth"}
### Case study: Unhandled Errors
The errors are unhandled when none of the five [BikiniProxy]{}rewriting strategies succeed to heal the errors. In our experiment, 196/[555]{}of web pages have errors not healed, which represents 35.13% of the erroneous web pages of [DeadClick]{}. The first cause of non-healed errors is that the error type is not supported. For example, the web page <http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/artificer> is loading a JSON file. However, the JSON file is invalid and the browser does not succeed to parse it which produces an [[`Unexpected token <`]{}]{} error. None of the five strategies is able to handle malformed JSON errors. The second cause of non-healed errors is that the self-healing strategies has not enough information to rewrite the resource. For example, the web page <http://moreas.blog.lemonde.fr/2007/02/28/le-pistolet-sig-sauer-est-il-adapte-a-la-police/> contains the error [[`Cannot read property ’parents’ of undefined`]{}]{}, this error should be healed with “Object Creator” rewriting. However, the trace of the error does not contain the URL of the resource that triggers this error, because the Javascript code has been unloaded. Consequently, “Object Creator” is not able to know which resource has to be rewritten to handle the error.
In summary, shows that [BikiniProxy]{}is almost able to heal all the errors from a third of [DeadClick]{}. The second third of the benchmark is pages that cannot be healed with [BikiniProxy]{}. The last third contains web pages that are partially headed or that the self-healing strategies produce new errors.
[The results of this research question shows that [BikiniProxy]{}is effective the handle the five most frequent Javascript errors present in our benchmark. With the currently implemented self-healing rewriting strategies, [BikiniProxy]{}is able to fully heal 248/826 (30.02%) of all errors, representing 196/555 (31.76%) of all buggy web pages of our benchmark.]{}
RQ2: Outcome
------------
In this second research question, we focus on category “All Errors Disappeared”, and further refines the classification as follows:
1. The errors have disappeared but no behavioral change can be seen by the end-user.
2. The errors have disappeared and new UI features (eg. new buttons) are available to the end-user.
3. The errors have disappeared and new content is available for the end-user.
Contrary to RQ1, it is not possible to automatically classify all pages with this refined category, because it requires human-based assessment of what is new content or new features. For this reason, we answer to this RQ with a qualitative case study analysis.
### Case study: Error Handled but No Behavior Change
A healed error does not automatically result in a behavior change in the application. For example, this is the case of website <https://cheapbotsdonequick.com/source/bethebot>, which triggers the error [[`module is not defined`]{}]{}. This error is triggered by line [[`module.exports = tracery;`]{}]{}. This type of line is used to make a library usable by another file in a Node.js environment. However, Node.js has a different runtime from a browser, and the module object is not present, resulting in the error. With [BikiniProxy]{}, the self-healing strategy “Object Creator” automatically initializes the variable [[`module`]{}]{}, however, since this line is the last line of the executed Javascript file, this has absolutely no further consequence on the execution or the page rendering. This means that the error was irrelevant. However, from a self-healing perspective, this cannot be known in advance. From a self-healing engineering perspective, the takeaway is that it is more simple to heal irrelevant errors than to try to predict their severity in advance.
### Case study: new Feature Available
One possible outcome of [BikiniProxy]{}is that the self-healing strategy unlocks new features. For example, this the case of <https://bluecava.com/>. This page has an error, shown in , which is triggered because the developer directly accesses the content of Ajax requests without checking the status of the request. However, there are requests that are denied due to cross-domain access restrictions implemented in all browsers. Since the developer did not verify if there is an error before accessing the property ’id’ on a null variable, the Javascript event loop crashes.
With [BikiniProxy]{}, the self-healing strategy “Object Creator” ensures the initialization of the variable if it is null. This execution modification allows the execution to continue and to finally enter in an error handling block written by the developer, meaning that the event loop does not crash anymore. The execution of the page continues and results in two buttons being displayed and enabled for the end-user. presents the two buttons that are now available for the user.
Uncaught TypeError:
Cannot read property 'id' of null
at bluecava.js?v=1.6:284 ...
at post (bluecava.js?v=1.6:40)
at identify (bluecava.js?v=1.6:156) ...
### Case study: new content available
One other outcome of [BikiniProxy]{}is that additional content is displayed to the end-user.
Let us consider the web page <http://personal.lse.ac.uk/birchj1/> that is the personal page of a researcher. This page triggers the following error: [[`$ is not defined at (index):20`]{}]{}
This error is thrown because a script in the HTML page calls the jQuery library before the library is loaded. The script that throws the error is responsible to change the visibility of some content in the page. Consequently, because of the error, this content stays hidden for all visitors of the page.
Using [BikiniProxy]{}, the error is detected as being caused by a missing jQuery library. This error is healed by rewriting strategy “Library Injector” Consequently, [BikiniProxy]{}rewrites the content of the page by injecting the jQuery library and sends back the rewritten page to the browser. When the rewritten script is executed, jQuery is available, and consequently, the script is able to change the visibility of hidden HTML elements, resulting in newly visible content.
presents the visual difference between the page without [BikiniProxy]{}(left side), and loaded with [BikiniProxy]{}(right side). All the elements in a grey box on the right-hand side are missing on the left image, they have appeared thanks to self-healing.
RQ3: Strategies
---------------
[0.97]{}[X|r|r|r]{} Self-healing Strategies & \# Activations &
--------------
\# Supported
Error Types
--------------
: The number of activations of each self-healing strategy and the number of error types that the strategy can handle.[]{data-label="tab:strategies_comparison"}
\
Line Skipper & 233 & 4\
Object Creator & 109 & 2\
Library Injector & 75 & 3\
HTTP/HTTPS Redirector & 18 & NA\
HTML Element Creator & 14 & 2\
In this research question, we compare the five different self-healing strategies of [BikiniProxy]{}. For each strategy, shows the number of times it has been activated to heal errors of [DeadClick]{}, and the last column presents the number of different error types for which the strategy has been selected. For example, the first row of shows that “Line Skipper” has been selected to handle 233 errors, and it has healed four different error types.
The most used strategy is “Line Skipper” with 233 activations. It is also the strategy that supports the highest number of different error type: 1) “XXX is not defined”, 2) “XXX is not a function”, 3) “Cannot read property XXX of null”, 4) “Cannot set property XXX of null”. The second most used strategy is “Object Creator” with 109 errors for which it has initialized a null variable. This strategy handles two different error types: “Cannot set property XXX of null” and “Cannot read property XXX of null”. These two strategies have something in common, they target the failure point, the symptom, and not the root cause (the root cause is actually unknown). For example, the error [[`CitedRefBlocks is not defined`]{}]{} is triggered in the web page <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC504719/>, because the function [[`CitedRefBlocks`]{}]{} is not defined. Line Skipper strategy avoids the error by skipping the method call, it is a typical example of a fix at the failure point and not at the root cause of the absence of [[`CitedRefBlocks`]{}]{}.
On the contrary, “Library Injector” addresses the root cause of the problem: the missing library is extracted from the error message and it is used to rewrite the content of the request. In this case, [BikiniProxy]{}exploits the fact that we have a direct relation between root cause (no included library) and symptom (unknown used library name) for this error type.
The case of “HTTP/HTTPS Redirector” is the opposite. Recall that “HTTP/HTTPS Redirector” directly looks in the HTML body of the resource if there are scripts that will be blocked. This means that the rewriting addresses the root cause of potential future problems. For example, the page <https://corporate.parrot.com/en/documents> tries to load the resource <http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js>, but the request is blocked by the browser (HTTP request in an HTTPS page). Consequently, the Google tracking library is not loaded and function [[`urchinTracker`]{}]{} is not defined, resulting in the error [[`urchinTracker is not defined`]{}]{}. “HTTP/HTTPS Redirector” strategy rewrites the URL of the resource in the <SCRIPT>tag to <https://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js>, and this fixes the error of the page. This strategy can potentially fix error types that we cannot envision, hence, we do not know the exact number of handled error types, so we put “NA” in .
Finally, strategy “HTML Element Creator” is applied to more rare errors happening only 14 times in our benchmark.
Threat to validity {#sec:threats_validity}
==================
We now discuss the threats to the validity of our experiment. First, let us discuss internal validity. Our experiment is relying on the implementation of our prototype, consequently, a bug in our code may threaten the validity of our results. However, since the source code of the approach and of the benchmark is publicly available [@repo], future researchers will be able to identify these potential bugs.
Second, a threat to the external validity relates to the representativeness of the benchmark. An open question is whether our sampling of the Web is representative. First, recall that by construction, there is no cherry-picking because the page selection is fully random. However, the remaining threats are: 1) our sampling is done over the English web 2) our sampling is impacted by Google (recall that we select the first result). 3) whether 96174 visited pages is enough compared to the trillions of pages of the Internet. To our knowledge, there is no work on the representativity of a web sample for Javascript bugs, and as such no definitive answer to this question.
Our approach has been carefully designed to maximize representativity, with two main advantages: 1) the randomness of keyword choice allows us to discover website about many different topics, done by a variety of persons, with different backgrounds (on website on CSS done by a web developer is likely to have fewer errors then a website on banana culture done by a hobbyist). 2) the ranking of Google provides us with a filter which favors popular websites. If errors are detected on those websites, they likely affect many users. It means that if [BikiniProxy]{}heals those errors, it would have a large impact.
Related Work {#sec:rw}
============
#### Javascript Error
Several studies on client-side Javascript been have been made by Ocariza et al [@ocariza2011Javascript; @ocariza2013empirical; @ocariza2017study]. In 2011, they have shown that most websites contain Javascript errors even in the top 100 of Alexa [@ocariza2011Javascript]. They have also investigated [@ocariza2013empirical; @ocariza2017study] the nature of the Javascript errors as follows. They manually analyze Javascript bug reports from various web applications and Javascript libraries. They find that the majority of reported Javascript bugs are related to the Document Object Model (DOM). None of this work has explored self-healing strategies for the web.
Now, we discuss the works on reproducing Javascript errors or to extract regression tests. Wang et al. [@wang2017jstrace] present a technique to reproduce sequence of events that leads to a Javascript error. Schur et al. [@schur2014procrawl] present a fully automatic tool to generate test scripts based on the behavior of multi-user web applications. The goal of those works is different ours: the focuses on creating tests while we focus on healing the error on the fly, in production.
Hanam et al. [@hanam2016discovering] present BugAID a data mining technique for discovering common unknown bug patterns in server-side Javascript. Hanam et al. focus on server-side bugs, on the contrary, [BikiniProxy]{}targets client-side Javascript code and it heals the errors on the fly.
#### Javascript Program Repair
There have been several repair tools targeting Javascript front-end code. Ocariza et al. [@ocariza2014vejovis] present Vejovis, a technique that suggests Javascript code modifications to handle DOM-related errors. Pradel et al. [@pradel2015typedevil] and Bae et al. [@bae2014safewapi] proposed tools for detecting type inconsistencies and web API misuses in Javascript respectively. They also present common fault types and common web API misuse patterns. Roy et al. [@roy2013x] present X-PERT, an automatic technique to detect cross-browser issues in web applications. Those works are offline program repair, producing suggestions for developers, while [BikiniProxy]{}is online self-healing, in production, without the developer is the loop.
Carzaniga et al. [@carzaniga2010automatic] propose a technique that automatically applies workarounds to handle API issues. The workarounds are based on a set of manually written API-specific alternative rule. The manual step makes the approach not fully automated. On the contrary, our approach does not require a manual database of workarounds to be set up. In subsequent work, the same group has proposed a way to automatically mine those workarounds [@carzaniga2015automatic]. However, those workarounds do not consider generic Javascript errors as we do, they target API specific errors for which workarounds have been identified or mined.
#### Proxy-based Approaches
Several approaches use a proxy-based architecture in their contribution. Kiciman et al. [@kiciman2007ajaxscope] present a web proxy named AjaxScope, that instruments the Javascript code to monitor the performance of web applications. It does monitoring and not self-healing. Zhang et al. [@Zhang2017InteractionPF] present a technique to change the user interface of mobile applications on the fly. In particular, they aim at providing accessible UIs to blind users.
#### Self-healing in Production
Rx [@qin2005rx] is a self-healing system that changes the environment upon failures. Rx employs checkpoint-and-rollback for re-executing the buggy code when failures happen. Assure [@sidiroglou2009assure] is a self-healing system also based on checkpointing. Perkins et al. [@perkins2009automatically] propose ClearView, a system for automatically repairing errors in production by monitoring low-level registers to learn invariants. When ClearView detects that an invariant is violated, it forces the restoration of the system to a previous valid state. Rinard et al. [@rinard2004enhancing] present a technique called “failure-oblivious computing” to avoid illegal memory accesses by wrapping each memory operation during the compilation process. Long et al. [@long2014automatic] also explore this idea with the concept of “recovery shepherding”.
All those techniques target low-level code, typically C code, which is significantly different from Javascript and a browser runtime. [BikiniProxy]{}is a self-healing for a different software stack, and its five rewriting strategies can be considered as novel failure-oblivious computing models for the web. Gu et al. [@gu2016automatic] present Ares, a runtime error recovery technique for Java exceptions using JavaPathFinder (JPF). Those contributions target Java program and modify the source code of the application in production.
Carzaniga et al. [@carzaniga2012self; @carzaniga2013automatic] present ARMOR a technique for self-healing Java applications based on workaround that can be deployed at runtime. Armor injects checkpoint and rollback mechanism in the application, this mechanism is used to rollback when a failure is detected and explore workaround alternatives.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have presented [BikiniProxy]{}, a novel technique to provide self-heal capabilities for client-side Javascript errors. This technique can be used without modifying the code or setup of web applications. The concept of self-healing proxy that we propose in this paper is novel, and complements network, minimization, optimization and security proxies. We have evaluated our technique on [555]{}web pages with Javascript errors, randomly collected on the Web. Our qualitative and quantitative evaluation has shown that [BikiniProxy]{}is able to make all Javascript errors disappear and to provide the user with new features and content. Future work is required to devise new self-healing rewriting strategies for solving the maximum number of Javascript runtime errors.
[^1]: https://cloudflare.com
[^2]: AJAX means requested programmatically in Javascript code
[^3]: anyproxy Github repository: <https://github.com/Alibaba/anyproxy>
[^4]: htmlparser2 Github repository: <https://github.com/fb55/htmlparser2>
[^5]: babel.js Github repository: <https://github.com/babel/babel>
[^6]: <https://cloudflare.com>
[^7]: puppeteer repository <https://github.com/google/puppeteer>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study a class of bilevel convex optimization problems where the goal is to find the minimizer of [[an objective function]{}]{} in the upper level, among the set of all optimal solutions of [[an optimization]{}]{} problem in the lower level. A wide range of problems in convex optimization can be formulated [[using]{}]{} this class. [[An important example is the case where an optimization problem is ill-posed.]{}]{} [[In this paper, our interest lies in addressing the bilevel problems, where the lower level objective is given as a finite sum of separate nondifferentiable convex component functions. This is the case]{}]{} in a variety of applications in distributed optimization, such as large-scale data processing in machine learning and neural networks. [[To the best of our knowledge, this class of bilevel problems, with a finite sum in the lower level, has not been addressed before. Motivated by this gap, we]{}]{} develop an iterative regularized incremental subgradient method[[,]{}]{} [[where the agents update their iterates in a cyclic manner using a regularized subgradient]{}]{}. Under a suitable choice of [[the]{}]{} regularization [[parameter sequence]{}]{}, we establish the convergence of the proposed algorithm and [[derive a]{}]{} rate of $\mathcal{\cal O} \left({1}/k^{0.5-\epsilon}\right)$ [[in terms of]{}]{} the lower level objective function for an arbitrary small $\epsilon>0$. [[We]{}]{} present the performance of the algorithm on a binary text classification problem.'
author:
- 'Mostafa Amini$^{1}$ and Farzad Yousefian$^{2}$[^1]'
title: '**An Iterative Regularized Incremental Projected Subgradient Method for a Class of Bilevel Optimization Problems** '
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider a class of bilevel optimization problems as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:SL-INC} \tag{$P_f^h$}
\displaystyle \mbox{minimize}& \qquad h(x)\\
\mbox{subject to} & \qquad x \in X^* \triangleq \arg\min_{y\in X}f(y) \notag.\end{aligned}$$ where $f,h :\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ [[denote the lower and upper level objective functions, respectively, and $X \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n $ is a constraint set]{}]{}. This is called the *selection problem* ([@Tseng07; @Sabach17]) as we are selecting among optimal solutions of a lower level problem, one that minimizes the objective function $h$. [[In particular]{}]{}, we [[consider the case where the lower level objective function is]{}]{} given as $f(x) \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{m} f_i(x)$, where $f_i:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the $i$th component function for $i=1,\cdots,m$. We make the following basic assumptions.
\[assum:properties\]
The set $X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is nonempty, compact and convex; also $X\subseteq int(dom(f) \cap dom(h))$.
The functions $f_i(x)$ for $i=1,\cdots, m$ are proper, closed, convex, and possibly nondifferentiable.
The function $h$ is strongly convex with parameter $\mu_h>0$ and possibly nondifferentiable.
[[Next]{}]{}, we [[present]{}]{} two instances of the applications of formulation .
Example problems
----------------
[**(i) Constrained nonlinear optimization:**]{} [[Consider a constrained]{}]{} convex optimization problem [[given]{}]{} as $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \mbox{minimize}& \qquad h(x)\\
\mbox{subject to} &\qquad q_i(x) \leq 0, \ \hbox{for } i=1,\cdots,m\\
&\qquad x\in X\end{aligned}$$ where $X \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ [[is an easy-to-project constraint set]{}]{}, $h,q_i :\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ for all $i=1,\cdots,m$ [[are convex (and possibly nonlinear) funcitons]{}]{}. This problem can be reformulated as by setting (cf. [@Solodov072]) $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{m} f_i(x)= \sum_{i=1}^{m} \max \{0, q_i(x)\}.\end{aligned}$$ [**(ii) Ill-posed distributed optimization:**]{} An [[optimization]{}]{} problem is called ill-posed when it has multiple optimal solutions or it is very sensitive to data perturbations [@Tikhonov77]. For instance, in applications arising in machine learning, consider the *empirical risk minimization problem* where the goal is to minimize the total loss $\sum_{i=1}^{m} \mathfrak{L} (a_ix,b_i)$, where $a_i$ is the input, $b_i$ is the output of $i$th observed datum and $\mathfrak{L}$ is the loss function. For example, in *logisitic loss regression*, $\mathfrak{L}$ is merely convex. In these cases, another criterion such as sparsity may be taken into account for the optimal solution. So, to induce sparsity, a secondary objective function $h$ is considered in the given problem. For instance, the well-known *elastic net* regularization can be used as function $h$. Hence, to address ill-posedness, the following bilevel optimization model is considered [@Tseng07; @Sabach17]: $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \mbox{minimize}& \qquad \|x\|_1 + \mu \|x\|_2^2\\
\mbox{subject to} &\qquad x \in \arg \min_{y \in X} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \mathfrak{L} (a_i^T y,b_i),\end{aligned}$$\
where $\mu>0$ regulates the trade-off between $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ norms.
\[fig:fiveplots\]
Existing methods
----------------
Problem [[,]{}]{} that is also referred to as *hierarchical optimization*[[,]{}]{} is a particular case of *mathematical program with generalized equation (or equilibrium) constraint* [@Kocvara04; @Pang96]. There has been a few approaches to tackle this problem. Note that in all approaches the following minimization problem and its minimizer have been extensively utilized.
\[def:reg minimizer\] [[Given a parameter $\lambda > 0$]{}]{}, the regularized problem corresponding to , [[is defined]{}]{} as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reg form INC}
\displaystyle \mbox{minimize}& \qquad f_\lambda (x) \triangleq f(x)+ \lambda h(x)\\
\mbox{subject to} &\qquad x \in X\notag.
\end{aligned}$$ Also, let $x_\lambda^*$ denote the unique minimizer of this problem. We may categorize the existing algorithms as follows.
[**(i) Exact regularization:**]{} The regularization technique has been highly used in some applications such as signal processing with $h(x)= \|x\|_2^2$ or $h(x)= \|x\|_1$ [@Tikhonov77; @Beck09]. This technique needs a proper parameter $\lambda$ which is difficult to determine in most of cases. To address this issue, Mangasarian et al. [@Mangasarian79; @Mangasarian85] introduced *exact regularization*. A solution of problem is called *exact* when it is in the set $X^*$. The main drawback of this approach is that the threshold below which for any $\lambda$ the regularization is exact, is very difficult to determine a priori [[(see [@Tseng07])]{}]{}.
[**(ii) Iterative regularization:**]{} In this approach[[,]{}]{} the idea is to develop a single-loop scheme where the regularization parameter is updated iteratively during the algorithm. In [@Solodov07], an *explicit* descent algorithm is proposed, where problem is solved as [[a single]{}]{}-level unconstrained problem iteratively. [[In the smooth case,]{}]{} the convergence is shown when $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \lambda_k =\infty$ and $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \lambda_k=0$. For nonsmooth cases, a bundle method was proposed, which has a descent step for the weighted combination of objective functions in the lower and upper levels [@Solodov072]. Another algorithm called *hybrid steepest descent method* (HSDM) and its extensions were developed in [@Yamada11; @Neto11]. The main drawback of all these works is that no complexity analysis was provided for the [[underlying algrotihm]{}]{}. In [@Yousefian17], the rate of $\mathcal{\cal O} (1/k^{1/6-\epsilon})$ is derived for a special case of problem [[,]{}]{} where the objective function is $\|\cdot\|_2$ and the constraint is solutions of a stochastic variational inequality problem. Recently, a primal-dual algorithm in [@Rosasco18] was offered that uses the idea of iterative regularization. Despite [[a sublinear rate in terms of $h$]{}]{}, the algorithm can only be applied to continuously differentiable [[and small-scale (i.e., $m=1$)]{}]{} regimes. [**(iii) Minimal norm gradient:**]{} In [@Beck14], the *minimal norm gradient* (MNG) method was developed for solving [[problem with $m=1$]{}]{}. The rate of $\mathcal{\cal O} (1/\sqrt{k})$ was derived for the convergence with respect to lower level problem. The main disadvantage of the MNG method is that it is a two-loop scheme where at each iteration a minimization problem should be solved.
[**(iv) Sequential averaging:**]{} The *sequential averaging method* (SAM), developed in [@Xu04], was [[employed]{}]{} in [@Sabach17] for solving the problem in a more general setting. The proposed method is proved to have the rate of convergence of $\mathcal{\cal O} (1/k)$ in terms of the function $f$. The method is called *Big-SAM*. [[Despite that it is a single-loop scheme, sequential averaging schemes require smoothness properties of the problem and seem not to lend themselves to distributed implementations.]{}]{}
Main Contributions
------------------
[[For more details on the main distinctions between our work and the existing methods see Table \[fig:fiveplots\]. In none of the existing methods,]{}]{} the finite sum form for the lower level problem is [[considered]{}]{}. The sum structure is very rampant in practice when we have separate objective functions related to different agents in a distributed setting. This is the case for example in machine learning for very large datasets [@Bottou05], where each $f_i$ represents an agent that is cooperating with others. When the complete information of all the agents, i.e. summation of all (sub)gradients is not available, these agents can be treated distinctly. Due to its wide range of applications in distributed optimization, finite sum problem has been extensively studied. Among popular methods are *incremental (sub)gradient* (IG) [@Bertsekas99; @Nedich01] and *incremental aggregated (sub)gradients* (IAG) [@Blatt07; @Tseng14] for deterministic and *stochastic average gradient* (SAG) [@Roux12], SAGA [@Defazio14] and MISO methods [@Mairal13] for stochastic regimes. These algorithms have faster convergence and are computationally efficient in large-scale optimization since a very less amount of memory is required at each step in order to store only one agent’s information and subsequently update the iterate based on that [@Ozdaglar17]. Despite the widespread use of these first-order methods, they do not address [[the]{}]{} bilevel problem .
Motivated by the existing lack in the literature and inspired by the advantages of incremental approaches, in this paper, we let the lower level objective function to be a summation of $m$ components. Then we use the idea of incremental subgradient optimization to address problem . We let functions in both levels to be nondifferentiable. We then prove the convergence of our proposed algorithm as well as the $\mathcal{\cal O} (1/k^{0.5-\epsilon})$ rate of convergence.
An interesting research question that is remained as a future direction to our research is if we can establish the convergence of iterative regularized IAG method in solving problem or similarly SAG, SAGA and MISO in stochastic regimes.
[**Notation**]{} The inner product of two vectors $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^n$, is shown as $x^Ty$. Also, $\|\cdot\|$ denotes Euclidean norm known as $\|\cdot\|_2$. For a convex function $f$ with the domain dom$(f)$, any vector $g_f$ with $f(x)+g_f^T(y-x) \leq f(y)$ for all $x,y \in \hbox{dom}(f)$, is called a subgradient of $f$ at $x$. We let $\partial f(x)$ and $\partial h(x)$ denote the set of all subgradients of functions $f$ and $h$ at $x$. Let $f^*$ be the optimal value and $X^*$ represent the set of all optimal solutions of [[the]{}]{} lower level problem in and $x^*$ shows any element of this set . Likewise, $x^*_h$ [[denotes]{}]{} the optimal solution of problem [[, and]{}]{} $x^*_{\lambda}$ denotes the optimal solution of problem . [[Also, we let $\mathcal{P}_X(x)$ denote the Euclidean projection of vector $x$ onto the set $X$.]{}]{}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec: alg out\], we present the algorithm outline. Then, we discuss the convergence analysis in Section \[sec: conv ana\], and derive the convergence rate in Section \[sec:rate result\]. We present the numerical results in Section \[sec:num\], and conclude in Section \[sec:rem\].
Algorithm outline {#sec: alg out}
=================
In this section, we introduce the *iterative regularized incremental projected (sub)gradient* (IR-IG) for generating a sequence that converges to the unique optimal solution of . See Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\].
. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mainstep}
x_{k,i+1} := \mathcal{P}_X \left(x_{k,i} - \gamma_k\left(g_{f_{i+1}}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} g_h(x_{k,i})\right) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{k+1}:=S_k+\gamma_{k+1}^r, \quad \bar x_{k+1}:=\frac{S_k \bar x_k+\gamma_{k+1}^r x_{k+1}}{S_{k+1}}.\label{def:averagingII}
\end{aligned}$$ $\bar x_{N}.$
IR-IG method includes two main steps. First, the agents update their iterates in an incremental fashion similar to the standard IG method. This step takes a circle around the all components of function $f$ to update the iterate. However, The main difference lies in the secondary objective function $h$, which is added by a vanishing multiplier $\lambda_k$. Second, we do averaging in order to accelerate the convergence speed of the algorithm. For this, we consider a weighted average sequence $\{\bar x_k\}$ defined as below: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weighted alg INC}
\bar x_{k+1} := \sum_{t=0}^{k} \psi_{t,k} x_t, \hbox{ where } \psi_{t,k} \triangleq \frac{\gamma_t^r}{\sum_{i=0}^{k} \gamma_i^r},
\end{aligned}$$ in which $r<1$ is a constant, controlling the weights. Note that in Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\] follows from the relation by applying induction, (see e.g., Proposition 3 in [@Yousefian18]).
Convergence analysis {#sec: conv ana}
====================
In this section, [[our goal is to show that]{}]{} the generated sequence $\{\bar x_k\}$ by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\] converges to the unique optimal solution of problem [[(see Theorem \[thm conv for xbar INC\])]{}]{}.
\[bound on gradient by beck\] (a) Note that from Theorem 3.16, pg. 42 of [@Beck17], Assumption \[assum:properties\] implies that there exist constants $C_f, C_h \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\|g_{f_i}(x)\| \leq C_f$ and $\|g_{h}(x)\| \leq C_h$ for all $i=1,\cdots, m$ and $x\in X$, where $g_{f_i}(x) \in \partial f_i(x)$ and $g_{h}(x) \in \partial h(x)$.\
(b) From Theorem 3.61, pg. 71 of [@Beck17], functions $f_i$ and $h$ are Lipschitz over $X$ with parameters $C_f$ and $C_h$, respectively, i.e., for all $i=1,\cdots, m$ and $x,y\in X$ $$\begin{aligned}
|f_i(x)-f_i(y)| \leq C_f \|x-y\|, \quad |h(x)-h(y)| \leq C_h \|x-y\|.
\end{aligned}$$ [[(c) Assumption \[assum:properties\](a,b) imply that the optimal solution set, $X^*$, is nonempty.]{}]{}
Here, we start with a lemma which helps bound the error of optimal solutions of the problem for two different values of $\lambda$. We will make use of this lemma in the convergence analysis. The proof for this lemma can be done in a same fashion to that of Proposition 1 in [@Yousefian17].
\[lemma:err\_inequalitygeneral\] Let Assumption \[assum:properties\] hold. Suppose $\{x_{\lambda_k}^* \}$ be the sequence of the optimal solutions of problem with parameter $\lambda:= \lambda_k$. Then,
- $\|x_{\lambda_k}^*-x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^*\|\leq \frac{C_h}{\mu_h}\left |1-\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k} \right|$.
- If $\lambda_k \rightarrow 0$, then the sequence $\{x_{\lambda_k}^*\}$ converges to the unique optimal solution of problem , i.e., $x_{h}^*$.
To get started, we also need a recursive upper bound on the term $ \|x_{k+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \|$. This is provided by the following lemma and will be used in Proposition \[conv x\_k INC\] to prove the convergence of sequence $\{x_k\}$ generated by the algorithm to $x_h^*$.
\[[**A recursive error bound**]{}\] \[lemma: an error bound INC\] Let Assumption \[assum:properties\] hold and $0<\mu_k\lambda_k \mu_h \leq 2m$. Then, for the sequence $\{x_k\}$ generated by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\] and for all $k>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left \|x_{k+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 & \leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{2m} \right) \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right \|^2 \\ & + \frac{3m C_h^2}{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h^3}\left |1-\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k} \right|^2 + 6 m^2 \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2),
\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{\lambda_k}^*$ is the unique optimal solution of problem with $\lambda:=\lambda_k$.
Using and the nonexpansiveness property of projection, we have\
$ \left \|x_{k,i+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \\= \left \|\mathcal{P}_X \left(x_{k,i} - \gamma_k\left(g_{f_{i+1}}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} g_h(x_{k,i})\right) \right) - \mathcal{P}_X(x_{\lambda_k}^*) \right \|^2 \\
\leq \left \|x_{k,i} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 + \gamma_k^2 \left \|g_{f_{i+1}}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} g_h(x_{k,i}) \right \|^2 \\-2\gamma_k \left ( g_{f_{i+1}}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} g_h(x_{k,i})\right )^T\left( x_{k,i} - x_{\lambda_k}^*\right ).\\
$
By boundedness of subgradients from Remark \[bound on gradient by beck\](a), the definition of subgradient for $f_{i+1}$, and the strong convexity of $h$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \left \|x_{k,i+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2\\ & \leq \left \|x_{k,i} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 +2 \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) - 2\gamma_k \left( f_{i+1}(x_{k,i})- f_{i+1}(x_{\lambda_k}^*) \right) \\
& - \frac{2\gamma_k \lambda_k}{m} \left( h(x_{k,i}) - h(x_{\lambda_k}^*) \right) - \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \left \|x_{k,i} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \\
& = \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left \| x_{k,i} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 - 2\gamma_k \left( f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} h(x_{k,i}) \right) \\& + 2\gamma_k \left(f_{i+1}(x_{\lambda_k}^*)+ \frac{\lambda_k}{m} h(x_{\lambda_k}^*) \right) +2 \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2).
\end{aligned}$$ Taking summation from both sides over $i$, using $x_{k,0}=x_k, x_{k,m}=x_{k+1}$, and that $\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h >0$, we obtain [[$$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left \|x_{k,i+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \nonumber \\
&\leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left \|x_k - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \left \| x_{k,i} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \nonumber \\& + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)
- 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left( f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} h(x_{k,i}) \right) \nonumber\\&+ 2\gamma_k \left(f(x_{\lambda_k}^*)+ \lambda_k h(x_{\lambda_k}^*) \right), \label{ineq1 INC}
\end{aligned}$$]{}]{} where we used the definition of function $f$ in the second inequality. Now by rearranging the terms and adding and subtracting $f(x_k)+\lambda_k h(x_k)$ we obtain [[$$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \\ &\leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left \|x_k - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)\\
& - 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left((f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) - f_{i+1}(x_{k}) ) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} (h(x_{k,i}) -h(x_{k})) \right) \\& + 2\gamma_k \underbrace{\left(f(x_{\lambda_k}^*)+ \lambda_k h(x_{\lambda_k}^*) -f(x_k)-\lambda_k h(x_k) \right)}_{Term1}\\
&\leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left \|x_k - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)\\
& + 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left( \underbrace{|f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) - f_{i+1}(x_{k}) |}_{Term2} + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} \underbrace{|h(x_{k,i}) -h(x_{k})|}_{Term3} \right),
\end{aligned}$$]{}]{} where $Term1\leq 0$ is used due to optimality of $x_{\lambda_k}^*$ for $f+\lambda_k h$. Also, from Remark \[bound on gradient by beck\](b) we know that $Term2 \leq C_f\|x_{k,i} - x_k\|$ and $Term3 \leq C_h\|x_{k,i} - x_k\|$. So, We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{incrementalineq1}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \nonumber \\ &+ 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)
+ 2 (C_f+\lambda_k C_h) \gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \| x_{k,i} - x_k\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we find an upper bound for $\| x_{k,i} - x_k\|$. We have\
$ \| x_{k,1} - x_k\|\\ =\left \|\mathcal{P}_X \left(x_{k,0} - \gamma_k\left(g_{f_1}(x_{k,0}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} g_h(x_{k,0})\right) \right)- \mathcal{P}_X(x_k) \right \|\\
\leq \gamma_k \left \|g_{f_1}(x_{k,0}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} g_h(x_{k,0})\right \| \leq \gamma_k \left( C_f + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} C_h \right).\\
$ For $i>0$, in a similar way, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| x_{k,i+1} - x_k\| \leq \| x_{k,i} - x_k\|+ \gamma_k \left( C_f + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} C_h \right).
\end{aligned}$$ So for $i=0,1, \cdots, m-1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq2 INC}
\| x_{k,i+1} - x_k\| &\leq (i+1)\gamma_k \left( C_f + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} C_h \right) \nonumber \\&\leq (i+1)\gamma_k \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with , we will obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{incrementalineq2}
\left \|x_{k+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 &\leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \nonumber \\ &+ 6 m^2 \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2).
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we relate $x_k$ to $x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^*$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2=\left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 + \left \|x_{\lambda_k}^* - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 \\ & + \underbrace{2 \left(x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right)^T \left(x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right)}_{Term4}.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying the fact that $2a^Tb \leq \|a\|^2/\alpha + \alpha \|b\|^2 $ for all $a,b \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\alpha>0$ for $Term4$ when $\alpha = 2m/{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 =\left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 + \left \|x_{\lambda_k}^* - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 \\ & + \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{2m} \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 + \frac {2m} {\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h} \left \|x_{\lambda_k}^* - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2\\
& = \left( 1+ \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{2m} \right) \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 + \left(1+ \frac{2m}{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}\right)\left \|x_{\lambda_k}^* - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lemma:err\_inequalitygeneral\](a), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \leq \left( 1+ \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{2m} \right) \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right\|^2 \\ & + \left(1+ \frac{2m}{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}\right) \frac{C_h^2}{\mu_h^2}\left |1-\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k} \right|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Plugging this inequality into we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x_{\lambda_k}^* \right \|^2 \leq \left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left( 1+ \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{2m} \right) \left \|x_{k} - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \right \|^2 \\& +\left( 1- \frac{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}{m} \right) \left(1+ \frac{2m}{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h}\right) \frac{C_h^2}{\mu_h^2}\left |1-\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k} \right|^2 \\& + 6 m^2 \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2). \end{aligned}$$ The desired result is obtained [[from]{}]{} $0<\mu_k\lambda_k \mu_h \leq 2m$.
We will make use of the following result in Proposition \[conv x\_k INC\].
\[lemma conv lemma\] Let $\{\nu_k\}$ be a sequence of nonnegative scalars and let $\{\alpha_k\}$ and $\{\beta_k\}$ be scalar sequences such that: $$\begin{aligned}
&\nu_{k+1} \leq (1-\alpha_k)\nu_k + \beta_k \qquad \hbox{for all } k \geq 0,\\
&0 \leq \alpha_k \leq 1, \ \beta_k \geq0, \ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\alpha_k=\infty, \ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\beta_k <\infty, \ \lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $\lim_{k \to \infty} \nu_k = 0$.
\[assumptions for conv INC\] Assume that for all $k \geq 0$ we have $(a)\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ are non-increasing positive sequences with $\gamma_0\lambda_0 \leq \frac{2m}{\mu_h}.$\
$(b) \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\gamma_k\lambda_k= \infty.$ $ \qquad (c) \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\gamma_k\lambda_k}\left(\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k}-1\right)^2 <\infty.$\
$(d) \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \gamma_k^2 < \infty.$\
$(e) \lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{1}{\gamma_k^2\lambda_k^2}\left(\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k}-1\right)^2=0.$ $\qquad (f) \lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\gamma_k}{\lambda_k}=0.$
\[conv x\_k INC\] Consider problem . Let Assumption \[assum:properties\] and \[assumptions for conv INC\] hold and $\{x_k\}$ be generated by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\]. Then,
- $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \|x_k-x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^*\|^2=0$.
- If $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \lambda_k=0$, $x_k$ converges to the unique optimal solution of problem , i.e., $x_h^*$.
\(a) Consider the result from Lemma \[lemma: an error bound INC\]. We let $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_k &\triangleq \|x_k - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^*\|^2, \ \alpha_k \triangleq \frac{\gamma_k\lambda_k \mu_h}{2m}\\ \beta_k &\triangleq \frac{3m C_h^2}{\gamma_k \lambda_k \mu_h^3}\left(1-\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k} \right)^2 + 6 m^2 \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2).
\end{aligned}$$ From Assumption \[assumptions for conv INC\](a,b,c), since $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\} $ are positive and $\gamma_0\lambda_0 \leq 2m/\mu_h$, we have $0 \leq \alpha_k \leq 1$ and $ \beta_k \geq0$ and also $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\alpha_k=\infty$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\beta_k <\infty$. To show that all the necessary assumptions for Lemma \[lemma conv lemma\] are satisfied, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k} &=\frac{6m^2 C_h^2}{\mu_h^4}\lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{1}{\gamma_k^2\lambda_k^2}\left(\frac{\lambda_{k-1}}{\lambda_k}-1\right)^2 +\frac{12m^3C_f^2}{\mu_h}\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{\gamma_k}{\lambda_k} \\& +
\frac{12m^3C_h^2}{\mu_h}\lim_{k\to \infty} \gamma_k\lambda_k.
\end{aligned}$$ Considering Assumption \[assumptions for conv INC\](e,f), we only need to show that $\lim_{k\to \infty} \gamma_k\lambda_k=0$. Since $\{\lambda_k\}$ is non-increasing for all $k\geq 0$, we have $\lambda_0^2 {\gamma_k}/{\lambda_k} \geq \gamma_k\lambda_k$. So by Assumption \[assumptions for conv INC\](f), $\lim_{k \to \infty} \gamma_k\lambda_k=0$. Consequently $\lim_{k \to \infty} \frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k}=0$. Now Lemma \[lemma conv lemma\] can be applied. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \nu_k = \lim_{k \to \infty} \|x_k - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^*\|^2=0.
\end{aligned}$$
\(b) Applying the triangular inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|x_k -x_h^*\|^2 \leq 2\|x_k - x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^* \|^2 + 2 \|x_{\lambda_{k-1}}^*-x_h^*\|^2, \ \hbox{for all } k \geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ From part (a), $\|x_k -x_h^*\|^2$ converges to zero. Also, from Lemma \[lemma:err\_inequalitygeneral\](b), we know that when $\lambda_k \rightarrow 0$ the sequence $\{x_{\lambda_k}^*\}$ converges to the unique optimal solution of problem , i.e., $x_h^*$. Therefore the result holds.
To have previous proposition work, we require that sequences $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ satisfy Assumption \[assumptions for conv INC\]. Below, we provide a set of feasible sequences for this assumption. The proof is analogous to that of Lemma 5 in [@Yousefian17].
\[lemma condition for sequences INC\] Assume $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ are sequences such that $\gamma_k=\frac{\gamma_0}{(k+1)^a}$ and $\lambda_k=\frac{\lambda_0}{(k+1)^b}$ where $a,b,\gamma_0$ and $\lambda_0$ are positive scalars and $\gamma_0\lambda_0 \leq \frac{2m}{\mu_h}$. If $a>b$, $a>0.5$ and $a+b<1$, then the sequences $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ satisfy Assumption \[assumptions for conv INC\].
The following is a useful lemma in proving convergence that we will apply in Theorem \[thm conv for xbar INC\].
\[lemma thm for avr\] Let $\{u_t\}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a convergent sequence with the limit point $\hat u\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $\{\alpha_k\}$ be a sequence of positive numbers where $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k=\infty$. Suppose $\{v_k\}$ is given by $v_k\triangleq \left({\sum_{t=0}^{k-1} \alpha_t u_t}\right)/{\sum_{t=0}^{k-1} \alpha_t}$ for all $k\ge1$. Then, $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} v_k=\hat u.$
Now, we can illustrate our ultimate goal in this section which is showing the convergence of the sequence $\{\bar{x_k}\}$ generated by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\] to $x_h^*$
\[thm conv for xbar INC\] Consider problem . Let Assumption \[assum:properties\] hold. Also assume $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ are sequences such that $\gamma_k=\frac{\gamma_0}{(k+1)^a}$ and $\lambda_k=\frac{\lambda_0}{(k+1)^b}$ where $a,b,\gamma_0$ and $\lambda_0$ are positive scalars and $\gamma_0\lambda_0 \leq \frac{2m}{\mu_h}$. Let $\{\bar x_k\}$ be generated by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\]. If $a>b$, $a>0.5$, $a+b<1$ and $ar \leq 1$, then $\{\bar x_k\}$ converges to $x_h^*$.
Considering the given assumptions, by Lemma \[lemma condition for sequences INC\] we can see that Assumption \[assumptions for conv INC\] holds. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\bar x_{k+1}-x_h^*\|=\left\|\sum_{t=0}^{k} \psi_{t,k} x_t-\sum_{t=0}^{k}\psi_{t,k} x_h^*\right\|\leq \sum_{t=0}^{k} \psi_{t,k}\|x_t-x_h^*\|,
\end{aligned}$$ applying $\sum_{t=0}^{k} \psi_{t,k}=1$ from and the triangular inequality. Now consider the definition of $\psi_k$ and let $\alpha_t \triangleq \gamma_t^r$, $u_t \triangleq \|x_t-x_h^*\|$ and $v_{k+1} \triangleq \sum_{t=0}^{k} \psi_{t,k} \|x_t-x_h^*\|$. Since $ar \leq1$ we have $\sum_{t=0}^\infty \alpha_t=\sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma_t^{r}=\sum_{t=0}^\infty (t+1)^{-ar}=\infty$. The sequence $\{\lambda_t \}$ is decreasing to zero due to $b>0$, So, from Proposition \[conv x\_k INC\](b), $u_t=\|x_t-x_h^*\|$ converges to zero. Therefore, for $\hat u=0$ we can apply Lemma \[lemma thm for avr\] and thus, $\|\bar x_{k+1}-x_h^*\|$ converges to zero.
Rate analysis {#sec:rate result}
=============
In this section, we first find an error bound with respect to the optimal values of the lower level function $f$ which indeed shows the feasibility of [[the problem]{}]{} . Then, we apply it to derive a convergence rate for the algorithm.
\[lemma averaging\] Consider the sequence $\{\bar x_N\}$ generated by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\]. Let Assumption \[assum:properties\] hold and $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ be positive and non-increasing sequences. Then, for all $N\geq 1$ and $z\in X$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&f(\bar x_N)-f^*\leq \left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r\right)^{-1} \left( m \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \right. \cr\\& \left.
+m^2 C_f \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 2 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \lambda_k + 2M^2\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $M_h, M$ are scalars such that $\|h(x)\|\leq M_h$, $\|x\| \leq M$ for all $x \in X$.
[[Similar to]{}]{} relation , we [[can have]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x^* \right \|^2 \leq \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& - 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left( f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) + \frac{\lambda_k}{m} h(x_{k,i}) \right) + 2\gamma_k \left(f^*+ \lambda_k h(x^*) \right) \\
& \leq \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& - 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) + 2\gamma_k f^*+ 4\gamma_k \lambda_k M_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Adding and subtracting $f(x_k)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x^* \right \|^2 \leq \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& - 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left( f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) - f_i(x_k) \right) + 2\gamma_k \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right)+ 4\gamma_k \lambda_k M_h\\
& \leq \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& + 2\gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \left| f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) - f_i(x_k) \right| + 2\gamma_k \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right)+ 4\gamma_k \lambda_k M_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Remark \[bound on gradient by beck\](b), $| f_{i+1}(x_{k,i}) - f_i(x_k)| \leq C_f\|x_{k,i} - x_k\|$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x^* \right \|^2 \leq \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& + 2 C_f \gamma_k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \|x_{k,i} - x_k\| + 2\gamma_k \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right)+ 4\gamma_k \lambda_k M_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\left \|x_{k+1} - x^* \right \|^2 - \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 \leq 2\gamma_k \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right) \nonumber\\
& + 2 m \gamma_k^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) + 2 m^2 C_f \gamma_k^2 \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 4\gamma_k \lambda_k M_h.\label{ineq3 INC}
\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides by $\gamma_k^{r-1}$ and adding and subtracting $\gamma_{k-1}^{r-1} \|x_k - x^*\|^2$ to the left hand side, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma_k^{r-1} \left \|x_{k+1} - x^* \right \|^2 - \gamma_{k-1}^{r-1} \|x_k - x^*\|^2 + \left( \gamma_{k-1}^{r-1}-\gamma_k^{r-1}\right) \left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 \\& \leq 2 \gamma_k^r \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right) + 2 m \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& + 2 m^2 C_f \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 4 \gamma_k^r \lambda_k M_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{\gamma_k\}$ in non-increasing and $r<1$ we have $ \gamma_{k-1}^{r-1} \leq \gamma_k^{r-1} $. Also, by the triangle inequality $\left \|x_k - x^* \right \|^2 \leq 2\|x_k\|^2+2\|x^*\|^2 \leq 4M^2$. So, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma_k^{r-1} \left \|x_{k+1} - x^* \right \|^2 - \gamma_{k-1}^{r-1} \|x_k - x^*\|^2 + 4M^2\left( \gamma_{k-1}^{r-1}-\gamma_k^{r-1}\right)\\ & \leq 2 \gamma_k^r \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right) + 2 m \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\
& + 2 m^2 C_f \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 4 \gamma_k^r \lambda_k M_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking summation over $k=1,2, \cdots, N-1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} \left \|x_N - x^* \right \|^2 - \gamma_{0}^{r-1} \|x_1 - x^*\|^2 + 4M^2\left( \gamma_{0}^{r-1}-\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1}\right) \\& \leq 2 \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right) \label{ineq4 INC}+ 2 m \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)
\\ & + 2 m^2 C_f \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 4 M_h \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \lambda_k .
\end{aligned}$$ Removing non-negative terms from the left-hand side of the preceding inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&- \gamma_{0}^{r-1} \|x_1 - x^*\|^2 - 4M^2\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} \leq 2 \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right) \nonumber \\ & + 2 m \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)
+ 2 m^2 C_f \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) \nonumber \\& + 4 M_h \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \lambda_k .
\end{aligned}$$ From for $k=0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left \|x_1 - x^* \right \|^2 & \leq 2\gamma_0 \left( f^* - f(x_0)\right) + 2 m \gamma_0^2 (C_f^2 + \lambda_0^2 C_h^2) \\
& + 2 m^2 C_f \gamma_0^2 \left( C_f + \lambda_0 C_h \right) + 4\gamma_0 \lambda_0 M_h + 4M^2.
\end{aligned}$$ By multiplying both sides of the preceding inequality by $\gamma_{0}^{r-1}$ and summing it with the relation , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&- 4M^2\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} \leq 2 \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \left( f^* - f(x_k)\right) + 4 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \lambda_k \\& + 2 m \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2)
+ 2 m^2 C_f \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) .
\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging the terms we have $$\begin{aligned}
&2 \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \left( f(x_k) - f^*\right) \leq 2 m \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \\&
+ 2 m^2 C_f \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 4 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \lambda_k + 4M^2\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} .
\end{aligned}$$ Now we divide both sides by $2\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r$ and use the definition of $\psi_{k,N-1}$ in , $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \psi_{k,N-1} \left( f(x_k) - f^*\right) \\& \leq \left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r\right)^{-1} \left( m \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} (C_f^2 + \lambda_k^2 C_h^2) \right. \cr\\& \left.
+m^2 C_f \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \left( C_f + \lambda_k C_h \right) + 2 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r \lambda_k + 2M^2\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ We know $\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \psi_{k,N-1}=1$ also $f(\bar x_N) \leq \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \psi_{k,N-1}f(x_k)$ because of convexity of $f$. So, we obtain the desired result.
The following lemma, will be used to find a convergence rate statement in Theorem \[thm rate\].
\[Lemma 9, page 418 in [@Yousefian17]\]\[lemma:ineqHarmonic\] For any scalar $\alpha\neq -1$ and integers $\ell$ and $N$ where $0\leq \ell \leq N-1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{N^{\alpha+1}-(\ell+1)^{\alpha+1}}{\alpha+1}&\leq \sum_{k=\ell}^{N-1}(k+1)^\alpha \\& \leq (\ell+1)^\alpha+\frac{(N+1)^{\alpha+1}-(\ell+1)^{\alpha+1}}{\alpha+1}.
\end{aligned}$$
In the following theorem[[,]{}]{} we present a rate statement for Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\].
\[**[A rate statement for Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\]]{}\] \[thm rate\] Assume $\{\bar x_N\}$ is generated by Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\] to solve problem . Let Assumption \[assum:properties\] and \[assumptions for conv INC\] hold and also $0<\epsilon<0.5$ and $r<1$ be arbitrary constants. Assume for $0<\epsilon<0.5$, $\{\gamma_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ are sequences defined as $$\gamma_k=\frac{\gamma_0}{(k+1)^{0.5+0.5\epsilon}} \hbox{ and } \lambda_k=\frac{\lambda_0}{(k+1)^{0.5-\epsilon}},$$ such that $\gamma_0$ and $\lambda_0$ are positive scalars and $\gamma_0\lambda_0 \mu_h \leq 2m$. Then,\
(a) The sequence $\{\bar x_N\}$ converges to the unique optimal solution of problem , i.e., $x_h^*$.\
(b) $f(\bar x_N)$ converges to $f^*$ with the rate ${\cal O}\left(1/N^{0.5-\epsilon}\right)$.**
Throughout, we set $a:=0.5+0.5\epsilon$, $b:=0.5-\epsilon$.
\(a) From the values of $a$ and $b$, and that $r<1$ and $0<\epsilon<0.5$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
a>b>0,\ a>0.5, \ a+b=1-0.5\epsilon<1,\\ ar= 0.5(1+\epsilon)r <0.5(1.5)=0.75<1.
\end{aligned}$$ This implies that all conditions of Theorem \[thm conv for xbar INC\] are satisfied. Therefore, $\{\bar x_N\}$ converges to $x_h^*$ almost surely.
\(b) Since $\{\lambda_k\}$ is a non-increasing sequence from Lemma \[lemma averaging\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
&f(\bar x_N) - f^* \leq \left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^r\right)^{-1} \left( m \left(C_f^2 + \lambda_0^2 C_h^2\right) \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} \right. \cr\\& \left.
+m^2 C_f\left( C_f + \lambda_0 C_h \right) \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \gamma_k^{r+1} + 2 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \lambda_k \gamma_k^r + 2M^2\gamma_{N-1}^{r-1} \right). \end{aligned}$$ We have $\gamma_k=\gamma_0/(k+1)^a$ and $\lambda_k=\lambda_0/(k+1)^b$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
& f(\bar x_N) - f^* \\& \leq \left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\gamma_0^r}{(k+1)^{ar}}\right)^{-1} \left( m \left(C_f^2 + \lambda_0^2 C_h^2\right) \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\gamma_0^{r+1}}{(k+1)^{a(r+1)}} \right. \cr\\& \left.
+m^2 C_f\left( C_f + \lambda_0 C_h \right) \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\gamma_0^{r+1}}{(k+1)^{a(r+1)}} + 2 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\lambda_0 \gamma_0^r}{(k+1)^{ar+b}} \right. \cr\\& \left. + 2M^2\gamma_0^{r-1}N^{a(1-r)} \right). \end{aligned}$$ Rearranging the terms, we have [[$$\begin{aligned}
&f(\bar x_N) - f^* \leq \left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\gamma_0^r}{(k+1)^{ar}}\right)^{-1} \\& \times\left( 2 M_h \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\lambda_0 \gamma_0^r}{(k+1)^{ar+b}} + 2M^2\gamma_0^{r-1}N^{a(1-r)} \right. \cr\\& \left.
+\left( m^2 C_f\left( C_f + \lambda_0 C_h \right)+ m \left(C_f^2 + \lambda_0^2 C_h^2\right) \right) \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{\gamma_0^{r+1}}{(k+1)^{a(r+1)}} \right). \end{aligned}$$]{}]{} Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
&\hbox{ Term1}= \left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{1}{(k+1)^{ar}}\right)^{-1} N^{a(1-r)},\\
&\hbox{Term2}=\left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{1}{(k+1)^{ar}}\right)^{-1}\left(\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\frac{1}{(k+1)^{ar+b}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\hbox{Term1} \leq\frac{N^{a(1-r)}}{\frac{N^{1-ar}-1}{1-ar}}=\frac{(1-ar)N^{a(1-r)}}{N^{1-ar}-1}={\cal O}\left(N^{-(1-a)}\right), \\
&\hbox{Term2} \leq\frac{\frac{(N+1)^{1-ar-b}-1}{1-ar-b}+1}{\frac{N^{1-ar}-1}{1-ar}} =\frac{(1-ar)\left((N+1)^{1-ar-b}-1\right)}{(1-ar-b)\left(N^{1-ar}-1\right)} \\& + \frac{1-ar}{N^{1-ar}-1} ={\cal O}\left(N^{-b}\right) + {\cal O}\left(N^{-(1-ar)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ So, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(\bar x_N)-f^*\leq {\cal O}\left(N^{-\min \{1-ar,1-a,b\}}\right)= {\cal O}\left(N^{-\min \{1-a,b\}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we used $1-a\leq 1-ar$. Replacing $a$ and $b$ by their values, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(\bar x_N)-f^*\leq {\cal O}\left(N^{-\min \{0.5-0.5\epsilon,0.5-\epsilon\}}\right)={\cal O}\left(N^{-(0.5-\epsilon)}\right).\end{aligned}$$
[c| c c c]{} & $x_0=-10\times\mathbf{1}_n$ & $x_0=\mathbf{0}_n$ & $x_0=10\times\mathbf{1}_n$\
\
[90]{} $(10,1)$
&
&
&
\
[90]{} $(1,10)$
&
&
&
\
[90]{} $(0.1,0.1)$
&
&
&
\[fig:fiveplots\]
Numerical results {#sec:num}
=================
In this section, we apply the IR-IG method on a text classification problem. In this problem we assume to have a summation of hinge loss function, i.e., $\mathcal{L}(\langle x,a\rangle, b) \triangleq \max \{0, 1-b \langle x,a\rangle\}$ for any sample $a,b$ in the lower level of . The set of observations $(a_i,b_i)$ are derived from the Reuters Corpus Volume I (RCV1) dataset (see [@Lewis04]). This dataset has categorized Reuters articles, from 1996 to 1997, into four groups: *Corporate/Industrial, Economics, Government/Social* and *Markets*. In this application, we use a subset of this dataset with $N=50,000$ articles and 138,921 tokens to perform a binary classification of articles only with respect to the *Markets* class. Each vector $a_i$ represents the existence of all tokens in article $i$, and $b_i$ shows whether the article belongs to the *Markets* class. To decide that a new article can be placed in the *Markets* class, the problem in the lower level should be solved such that the optimal solution is a weight vector of the tokens regarding the *Markets* class which minimizes the total loss. However, to make such a decision, an optimal solution with a large number of nonzero components are undesirable. [[To induce sparsity,]{}]{} we consider the [[following]{}]{} bilevel problem:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{numeric upper2}
\displaystyle \mbox{minimize}& \ h(x)\triangleq \frac{\mu_h }{2}\|x\|_2^2+ \|x\|_1\\
\mbox{subject to} & \ x \in \arg\min_{y \in \mathbb{R}^n } \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=1}^{N/m}{ \mathcal{L}(a_{(i-1)N/m+j}^Ty, b_{(i-1)N/m+j})}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where, we let $\mu_h=0.1$ and we consider each batch of $N/m=1000$ articles to be one component function with the total number of component functions $m=50$. The function $h$ is strongly convex with parameter $\mu_h$. [[We]{}]{} let $\gamma_k$ and $\lambda_k$ be given by the rules in Theorem \[thm rate\]. We [[study the sensitivity of the method by changing]{}]{} $x_0$, $\gamma_0$, $\lambda_0$, and the averaging parameter $r<1$. We finally report the logarithm of average of the loss function $\mathcal{L}$. The plots in Fig. 1 show the convergence of the IR-IG method for the problem . The results show the convergece of Algorithm \[algorithm:IRIG\] with different initial values such as the starting point or parameters $\gamma_0, \lambda_0$ while when we pick a smaller $r$ the algorithm is faster in all the cases.
Concluding remarks {#sec:rem}
==================
Motivated by the applications of incremental [[gradient schemes]{}]{} in distributed optimization, especially in machine learning and large data training, we develop an iterative regularized incremental first-order method, called IR-IG, for solving a class of bilevel convex optimization. We prove the convergence of IR-IG and establish the corresponding rate in terms of the [[lower]{}]{} level objective function. We finally [[apply IR-IG to]{}]{} a binary text classification problem [[and]{}]{} demonstrate the [[performance]{}]{} of [[the proposed algorithm]{}]{}.
[99]{}
A. Beck, First-order methods in optimization, MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2017.
A. Beck and S. Sabach, A first-order method for finding minimal norm-like solutions of convex optimization problems, Mathematical Programming, 147(2) (2014), 25-46.
A. Beck and M. Teboulle, A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems, SIAM journal on imaging sciences, 2(1) (2009), 183-202.
D. Bertsekas, Nonlinear programming, Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA, 1999.
D. Blatt, A. Hero, and H. Gauchman, A convergent incremental gradient method with a constant step-size, SIAM Journal Of Optimization, 18 (2007), 29-51.
L. Bottou and Y. Le Cun, On-line learning for very large data sets, Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 21 (2005), 137-151.
A. Defazio, F. Bach, and S. Lacoste-Julien, SAGA: A fast incremental gradient method with support for non-strongly convex composite objectives, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014, 1646-1654.
M. P. Friedlander and P. Tseng, Exact regularization of convex programs, SIAM Journal Of Optimization, 18(4) (2007), 1326-1350.
G. Garrigos, L. Rosasco, and S. Villa, Iterative regularization via dual diagonal descent, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 60(2) (2018), 189-215.
M. G[ü]{}rb[ü]{}zbalaban, A. Ozdaglar, and P. A. Parillo, On the convergence rate of incremental aggregated gradient algorithms, SIAM Journal Of Optimization, 27(2) (2018), 640-660.
S. -P. Han and O. L. Mangasarian, Exact penalty functions in nonlinear programming, 17(1) (1979), 251-269.
K. Knopp, Theory and applications of infinite series, Blackie & Son Ltd., Glasgow, Great Britain, 1951.
M. Kočvara and J. V. Outrata, Optimization problems with equilibrium constraints and their numerical solution, Mathematical Programming, 101(1) (2004), 119-149.
D. D. Lewis, Y. Yang, T. G. Rose, and F. Li, RCV1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5 (2004), 361-397.
Z.-Q. Luo, J.-S. Pang and D. Ralph, Mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996).
J. Mairal, Optimization with first-order surrogate functions, in ICML, JMLR Proceedings 28, 2013, 783-791.
O. L. Mangasarian, Sufficiency Of exact penalty minimization, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 23(1) (1985), 30-37.
A. Nedić and D. Bertsekas, Incremental subgradient methods for nondifferentiable optimization, SIAM Journal of Optimization, 12(1) (2001), 109-138.
E. S. H. Neto and Á. A. R. De Pierro, On perturbed steepest descent methods with inexact line search for bilevel convex optimization, Optimization, 60 (2011), 991-1008.
B. T. Polyak, Introduction to optimization, Optimization Software, Inc., New York, 1987.
N. L. Roux, M. Schmidt, and F. R. Bach, A stochastic gradient method with an exponential convergence rate for finite training sets, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012, 2663-2671.
S. Sabach and S. Shtern, A first-order method for solving convex bilevel optimization Problems, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 27(2) (2017), 640-660.
M. Solodov, A bundle method for a class of bilevel nonsmooth convex minimization problems, SIAM Journal Of Optimization, 18(1) (2007), 242-259.
M. Solodov, An explicit descent method for bilevel convex optimization, Journal of Convex Analysis, 14(2) (2007).
A. N. Tikhonov and V. Y. Arsenin, Solutions of ill-posed problems, V. H. Winston and Sons, Washington, D. C., 1977. Translated from Russian.
P. Tseng and S. Yun, Incrementally updated gradient methods for constrained and regularized optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 160 (2014), 832-853.
H.-K. Xu, Viscosity approximation methods for nonexpansive mappings, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 298(1) (2004), 279-291.
I. Yamada, M. Yukawa, and M. Yamagishi, Minimizing the [[M]{}]{}oreau envelope of nonsmooth convex functions over the fixed point set of certain quasi-nonexpansive mappings, in Fixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, Springer, New York, 2011, 345-390.
F. Yousefian, A. Nedić, and U. V. Shanbhag., On Smoothing, regularization and averaging in stochastic approximation methods for stochastic variational inequality problems, Mathematical Programming, 165 (1) (2017), 391-431.
F. Yousefian, A. Nedić, and U. V. Shanbhag., On stochastic mirror-prox algorithms for stochastic [[C]{}]{}artesian variational inequalities: randomized block coordinate, and optimal averaging schemes, Set-Valued and Variational Analysis, (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11228-018-0472-9.
[^1]: $^{1}$Mostafa Amini and $^{2}$Farzad Yousefian are with the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, [[email protected], [email protected]]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a scheme to realize the Heisenberg model of any spin in an arbitrary array of coupled cavities. Our scheme is based on a fixed number of atoms confined in each cavity and collectively applied constant laser fields, and is in a regime where both atomic and cavity excitations are suppressed. It is shown that as well as optically controlling the effective spin Hamiltonian, it is also possible to engineer the magnitude of the spin. Our scheme would open up an unprecedented way to simulate otherwise intractable high-spin problems in many-body physics.'
author:
- Jaeyoon Cho
- 'Dimitris G. Angelakis'
- Sougato Bose
title: 'Simulation of high-spin Heisenberg models in coupled cavities'
---
The Heisenberg spin model has played a crucial role as a basic model accounting for the magnetic and thermodynamic natures of many-body systems. Despite extensive investigations, however, many aspects of the model are still largely unexplored both analytically and numerically, especially for the cases of higher spins. The main difficulty in the numerical treatment originates from the fact that the Hilbert-space dimension blows up exponentially as the number of spins increases. As Feynman first noted [@feynman82], this difficulty would be overcome in terms of quantum simulation based on precisely controlled quantum systems. Realization of quantum simulation, expected in a near future, will mark a milestone towards the realization of sophisticated quantum computation.
In the context of quantum information processing, a qubit is identical to an $s=\frac12$ spin, and in a few implementations, such as the arrays of Josephson junctions [@bruder93] or quantum dots [@loss98], the spin-chain Hamiltonian naturally emerges from the spin-like coupling between qubits, albeit with limited control of the coupling constants. On the other hand, in optical lattices, perturbative evolution with respect to the Mott-insulator state can be described by an effective spin-chain Hamiltonian [@duan03; @garcia-ripoll04]. This approach has its own merit in that the spin-coupling constants can be optically controlled to a great extent. An alternative approach, recently under active investigation, is to use the array of coupled cavities, which are ideally suited to addressing individual spins [@hartmann06; @greentree06; @angelakis07; @hartmann07; @rossini07; @paternostro07; @cho07a; @li08; @kay08]. In this approach, a spin is represented by either polaritons or hyperfine ground levels. The former, proposed in Refs. [@angelakis07] and [@kay08], allows a stronger spin-spin coupling than the latter, but lacks the optical control of the coupling. On the other hand, the latter, proposed in Ref. [@hartmann07], retains the optical controllability, but relies on rapid switching of optical pulses and the consequent Trotter expansion, which unavoidably involves additional errors and makes error-free implementation more difficult. More importantly, the question of simulating chains of higher spins, which may have a completely different phase diagram, remains open. In some sense, these are more important to simulate because unlike spin-$\frac12$ chains, they do not have exact analytical solutions for a wide range of parameters including the XXX case, except for special kinds of models [@affleck89]. Additionally, going to higher spins should make perturbative spin-wave theory more accurate, whose predictions can be tested.
In this paper, we propose a scheme to realize the anisotropic (XXZ) or isotropic (XXX) Heisenberg spin model of any spin in an arbitrary array of coupled cavities. Our scheme is experimentally feasible in that simply applying a small number of constant laser fields suffices for our purpose. If the number of lasers is increased, the individual constants of the spin Hamiltonian are controlled more flexibly. Most of all, a strong advantage of our scheme is that the magnitude of the spin itself can be engineered arbitrarily. This advantage contrasts with all the earlier schemes mentioned above including those for optical lattices, in which the spin is fixed in nature mostly as $s=\frac12$ ($s=1$ in Ref. [@garcia-ripoll04]). $s>\frac12$ spin chains exhibit fascinating physics that $s=\frac12$ spin chains can not have. A well-known example is Haldane’s conjecture that antiferromagnetic Heisenberg integral-spin chains have a unique disordered ground state with a finite excitation gap, whereas half-integral-spin chains are gapless [@haldane83a; @haldane83b]. Our scheme could be used to prepare a ground state, for example, through an adiabatic evolution, and measure its excitation gap and spin correlation functions [@garcia-ripoll04]. [The advantage of our scheme is, however, more apparent when we consider higher-spin problems intractable with any previous method. One of the intriguing examples is the quantum spin dynamics of the ferric wheels such as $\text{Fe}_6$ and $\text{Fe}_{10}$ composed of $s=\frac52$ spins [@meier01]. These systems would be simulable with a relatively small number (6 or 10) of cavities.]{} Spin chains also play an important role as a quantum channel for short-distance quantum communication [@bose07]. The property of an $s=1$ antiferromagnetic spin chain as a quantum channel strongly depends on its phase [@romero-isart07]. In some phases, it provides an efficient channel, outperforming that of a ferromagnetic chain. It has been also shown that a ground state with an excitation gap, as is the case for the spin-1 chain, can serve as a more efficient quantum channel [@hartmann06b]. [The ground state of the antiferromagnetic spin-1 chain also establishes the so-called localizable entanglement between two ends, which can be extracted by measuring every intermediate spins [@verstraete04] and then used for quantum communication. It is hard to demonstrate these schemes in optical lattices owing to the difficulty of addressing individual sites [@cho07b].]{} Although the idea of communicating using spin chains is ultimately meant for solid-state applications, our system can serve as a preliminary test for comparing and contrasting the performance of various spin-$s$ chains.
![Involved atomic levels and transitions. Both transitions ${\left|a\right>}\leftrightarrow{\left|e\right>}$ and ${\left|b\right>}\leftrightarrow{\left|e\right>}$ are coupled to the same cavity mode with coupling rates $g_1$ and $g_2$ and with detunings $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$, respectively. Two laser fields with Rabi frequency $\Omega_{1}$ and $\Omega_{2}$ are also applied with detunings $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$, respectively, and the transition between ground levels ${\left|a\right>}$ and ${\left|b\right>}$ is driven with Rabi frequency $\omega/2$ by Raman lasers. $\gamma$ denotes the atomic spontaneous decay rate.[]{data-label="fig:simple"}](fig1.eps){height=".16\textheight"}
We use two ground levels of a three-level atom to represent an $s=\frac12$ spin (in a rotated basis, as will be seen later). We start by recalling that in terms of two states ${\left|\downarrow\right>}$ and ${\left|\uparrow\right>}$ of one atom, the $s=\frac12$ spin is described in terms of operators $s^Z=\frac12({\left|\uparrow\right>}{\left<\uparrow\right|}-{\left|\downarrow\right>}{\left<\downarrow\right|})$, $s^+={\left|\uparrow\right>}{\left<\downarrow\right|}$, and $s^-={\left|\downarrow\right>}{\left<\uparrow\right|}$. Our starting point is an observation that if there are $M$ identical atoms, one can straightforwardly define total spin operator $S^Z=\sum_{j=1}^Ms_j^Z$ with $S^\pm=\sum_{j=1}^Ms_j^\pm$ ($j$ is the index for the atoms), by which the atoms represent $S=\frac M2$, $\frac M2-1$, and so on. Keeping this in mind, let us consider a coupled array of identical cavities [in an arbitrary geometry]{}, each of which contains $M$ identical single atoms. [We employ the Dicke-type model, in which every atom in a cavity interacts with the cavity mode with the same coupling strength [@dicke54].]{} Let us first consider a simple case, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:simple\]. Let us denote by ${\left|\psi\right>}_{jk}$ the state ${\left|\psi\right>}$ of the $k$th atom in the $j$th cavity. In the rotating frame, the Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{split}
H=&\sum_{j}\left[e^{i\Delta_1t}\Omega_1\Lambda_j^{eb}+e^{i\Delta_2t}\Omega_2\Lambda_j^{ea}+h.c.\right]\\
+&\sum_{j}\left[(e^{i\Delta_1t}g_1\Lambda_j^{ea}+e^{i\Delta_2t}g_2\Lambda_j^{eb})a_j+h.c.\right]\\
+&\sum_{j}\frac\omega2(\Lambda_j^{ab}+\Lambda_j^{ba})-\sum_{\left<j,k\right>}J(a_j^\dagger a_{k}+a_ja_{k}^\dagger),
\end{split}$$ where $\Lambda_j^{xy}=\sum_{k=1}^{M}({\left|x\right>}{\left<y\right|})_{jk}$ ($x,y=a,b,e$), $a_j$ is the annihilation operator for the $j$th cavity mode, $\Delta_j$ is the corresponding detuning, $\Omega_j$ and $\frac\omega2$ are the corresponding Rabi frequencies of the classical fields, $g_j$ is the corresponding atom-cavity coupling rate, and $J$ is the inter-cavity hopping rate of photons. Both the transitions are coupled to the same cavity mode. The transition between ${\left|a\right>}$ and ${\left|b\right>}$ is induced by two-photon Raman transition using far-detuned lasers. [Here, $\left<j,k\right>$ represent nearest neighbor pairs.]{} For now, we ignore the spontaneous decay rate $\gamma$ of the atom.
Before we proceed, it is instructive to write down our parameter regime: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{g_1^2}{\Delta_1}=\frac{g_2^2}{\Delta_2},\label{eq:cond1}\\
{\Delta_j},{\Delta_1-\Delta_2}\gg \sqrt{\frac{M}{2}}g_j\gg J\gtrsim{\left|\Omega_j\right|},\label{eq:cond2}\\
{M\frac{g_1^2}{\Delta_1}}\sim{\left|M\frac{g_1^2}{\Delta_1}\pm\omega\right|}\sim{\left|\omega\right|}\gg2J\label{eq:cond3}.\end{gathered}$$ The condition (\[eq:cond1\]) can be fulfilled with conventionally used alkali-metal atoms, such as rubidium and caesium. For example, one may choose ground hyperfine levels ${\left|F=1,m_F=-1\right>}$ and ${\left|F=2,m_F=-1\right>}$ of a ${}^{87}\text{Rb}$ atom to represent ${\left|a\right>}$ and ${\left|b\right>}$, respectively, and use $\sigma^+$-polarized light, for which $g_1>g_2$. The detuning $\Delta_j$ is then comparable to the hyperfine splitting between the two levels. Although there are multiple excited levels, their contributions can be summed up and denoted by single parameters in what follows. The other conditions (\[eq:cond2\]) and (\[eq:cond3\]) can be satisfied simultaneously when $\sqrt{\frac{M}{2}}g_j/{\Delta_j}\gg J/\sqrt{\frac{M}{2}}g_j$. For example, our scheme works well in case ${\Delta_j}/1000\sim\sqrt{\frac{M}{2}}g_j/100\sim J$, which is allowed by strong atom-cavity coupling.
Our regime is chosen so that the excitation of the atom or the cavity photon is suppressed (condition (\[eq:cond2\])), while the communication between atoms is mediated by virtual cavity photons. The first step is to adiabatically eliminate the excited state using the conventional method, by which the effective Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{split}
H=&-\sum_{j}\frac{g_1^2}{\Delta_1}\left(\Lambda_j^{aa}+\Lambda_j^{bb}\right)a_j^\dagger a_j\\
&-\sum_{j}\left[\left(\mu_1\Lambda_j^{ba}+\mu_2\Lambda_j^{ab}\right)a_j+h.c.\right]\\
&+\sum_{j}\frac\omega2(\Lambda_j^{ab}+\Lambda_j^{ba})-\sum_{\left<j,k\right>}J(a_j^\dagger a_{k}+a_ja_{k}^\dagger),
\end{split}$$ where $\mu_j=\frac{g_j\Omega_j^*}{\Delta_j}$. Now let us introduce spin operators in a rotated basis $$\left\{{\left|\uparrow\right>}=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}({\left|a\right>}+{\left|b\right>})\text,{\left|\downarrow\right>}=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}({\left|a\right>}-{\left|b\right>})\right\}$$ to represent an $s=\frac12$ spin. Note that these are the eigenstates of $\frac\omega2({\left|a\right>}{\left<b\right|}+{\left|b\right>}{\left<a\right|})$. The underlying idea is to apply the Raman lasers with Rabi frequency $\frac\omega2$ constantly, introducing a fixed amount of energy splitting ${\left|\omega\right|}$ between the two spin states. The total spin is then defined in terms of the operators $$\begin{aligned}
S_{j}^{Z}=\sum_{k=1}^{M}s_{jk}^{Z}\text{ and }S_{j}^{\pm}=\sum_{k=1}^{M}s_{jk}^{\pm},\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{jk}^{Z}=\frac12({\left|\uparrow\right>}{\left<\uparrow\right|}-{\left|\downarrow\right>}{\left<\downarrow\right|})_{jk}$, $S_{jk}^{+}=({\left|\uparrow\right>}{\left<\downarrow\right|})_{jk}$, and $s_{jk}^{-}=({\left|\downarrow\right>}{\left<\uparrow\right|})_{jk}$. The total spin is given by $S_{j}^{2}=(S_{j}^{Z})^{2}+\frac12(S_{j}^{+}S_{j}^{-}+S_{j}^{-}S_{J}^{+})$. If $M$ is even (odd), the atoms represent integral (half-integral) spins up to $\frac{M}{2}$. The atomic operators are now written as $\Lambda_j^{\downarrow\downarrow}=\sum_{k}s_{jk}^-s_{jk}^+=\frac{M}{2}-S_j^Z$, $\Lambda_j^{\uparrow\uparrow}=\sum_{k}s_{jk}^+s_{jk}^-=\frac{M}{2}+S_j^Z$, $\Lambda_j^{\uparrow\downarrow}=S_j^+$, and $\Lambda_j^{\downarrow\uparrow}=S_j^-$. Substituting these operators, the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame reads $$\begin{split}
H=&-\sum_{j}\left[\left\{e^{i\lambda t}\mu_{12}^+S_j^{Z}+e^{i(\lambda+\omega)t}\frac{\mu_{12}^-}{2}S_j^{+}\right.\right.\\
&~~~~~~~~~~\left.\left.-e^{i(\lambda-\omega)t}\frac{\mu_{12}^-}{2}S_j^-\right\}a_j+h.c.\right]\\
&-\sum_{\left<j,k\right>} J(a_j^\dagger a_{k}+a_j a_{k}^\dagger),
\end{split}
\label{eq:inter}$$ where $\lambda=M\frac{g_1^2}{\Delta_1}$ and $\mu_{12}^\pm=\mu_1\pm\mu_2$. Note that in view of conditions (\[eq:cond2\]) and (\[eq:cond3\]), the effective Rabi frequency ${\left|\sqrt{\frac{M}{2}}\mu_{12}^\pm\right|}$ is much smaller than $\lambda$, ${\left|\lambda\pm\omega\right|}$, and ${\left|\omega\right|}$. This allows us to make use of the adiabatic elimination once more. We extend the method in Ref. [@james07] to keep up to the third order terms and take only the subspace with no cavity photon. Simple algebra as in Ref. [@james07] yields the final Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian $$\begin{split}
H=&\sum_{j}\left[A(S_j)^2+B(S_j^Z)^2+CS_j^Z\right]\\
&-\sum_{\left<j,k\right>}\left[D(S_j^XS_{k}^X+S_j^YS_{k}^Y)+ES_j^ZS_{k}^Z\right],
\end{split}
\label{eq:hamil}$$ where $A=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda^2-\omega^2}\frac{{\left|\mu_{12}^-\right|}^2}{2}$, $B=\frac{{\left|\mu_{12}^+\right|}^2}{\lambda}-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda^2-\omega^2}\frac{{\left|\mu_{12}^-\right|}^2}{2}$, $C=-\frac{\omega}{\lambda^2-\omega^2}\frac{{\left|\mu_{12}^-\right|}^2}{2}$, $D=\frac{J}{2}(|{\frac{\mu_{12}^-}{\lambda+\omega}}|^2+|{\frac{\mu_{12}^-}{\lambda-\omega}}|^2)$, $E=2J|{\frac{\mu_{12}^+}{\lambda}}|^2$. This Hamiltonian already covers a wide range of parametric regimes for the Heisenberg spin model, although individual control of the parameters is limited owing to their mutual dependency. Interestingly, the Hamiltonian also contains the single-ion anisotropy $(S_j^Z)^2$, which is of essential importance in high-spin cases [@botet83], whereas it is merely a meaningless constant in the spin-$\frac12$ case.
![Additional lasers to get full control of the spin Hamiltonian. These lasers are applied in addition to the set up of Fig. \[fig:simple\].[]{data-label="fig:full"}](fig2.eps){height=".16\textheight"}
Full control of the individual parameters is allowed by bringing in more lasers, shown in FIG. \[fig:full\], in addition to the set up of FIG. \[fig:simple\]. The classical fields with Rabi frequency $\Omega_3$ and $\Omega_4$, which are applied with an additional detuning $\delta\sim\lambda$, make a similar contribution to the effective Hamiltonian as those with $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$. This can be reflected in Hamiltonian (\[eq:inter\]) by adding the same terms with $\lambda$ and $\mu_{12}^\pm$ replaced by $\lambda-\delta$ and $\mu_{34}^\pm$, respectively, where $\mu_{34}^\pm=\mu_3\pm\mu_4$, $\mu_3=\frac{g_1\Omega_3^*}{2}(\frac{1}{\Delta_1}+\frac{1}{\Delta_1+\delta})$, and $\mu_4=\frac{g_2\Omega_4^*}{2}(\frac{1}{\Delta_2}+\frac{1}{\Delta_2+\delta})$. The Stark shift $-\mu_z{\left|b\right>}{\left<b\right|}$ induced by another far-detuned laser field (using a different level and polarization) results in adding $\sum_{j}\frac{\mu_z}{2}(e^{i\omega t}S_j^++e^{-i\omega t}S_j^-)$ in Hamiltonian (\[eq:inter\]). Recall that in our previous derivation, we have adjusted $\{0,\lambda,\lambda\pm\omega\}$ so that they are distinct in frequency with the similar frequency spacing (condition (\[eq:cond3\])), thereby causing each summation in the Hamiltonian (\[eq:inter\]) to contribute independently to the constants in the final Hamiltonian (\[eq:hamil\]). We adjust $\omega$, $\lambda$, $\lambda\pm\omega$, $\lambda-\delta$, and $\lambda-\delta\pm\omega$ in the same spirit. For the ease of presentation, let us take a particular situation where $\omega>0$, $\lambda=3\omega$, and $\lambda-\delta=-6\omega$, although this is not a necessary condition. We then obtain the same Hamiltonian (\[eq:hamil\]) with parameters given by $A=\frac{1}{\lambda}(\frac{9}{16}{{\left|\mu_{12}^-\right|}^2}-\frac{9}{35}{{\left|\mu_{34}^-\right|}^2})$, $B=\frac{1}{\lambda}({{\left|\mu_{12}^+\right|}^2}-\frac{9}{16}{{\left|\mu_{12}^-\right|}^2}-\frac{1}{2}{{\left|\mu_{34}^+\right|}^2}+\frac{9}{35}{{\left|\mu_{34}^-\right|}^2})$, $C=\frac{1}{\lambda}(\frac32{{\left|\mu_z\right|}^2}-\frac{3}{16}{{\left|\mu_{12}^-\right|}^2}-\frac{3}{70}{{\left|\mu_{34}^-\right|}^2})$, $D=\frac{J}{\lambda^2}(\frac{45}{32}{\left|{\mu_{12}^-}\right|}^2+\frac{333}{1225}{\left|{\mu_{34}^-}\right|}^2)$, and $E=\frac{J}{\lambda^2}(2{\left|{\mu_{12}^+}\right|}^2+\frac{1}{2}{\left|{\mu_{34}^+}\right|}^2)$. Note that $C$ is determined independently thanks to the term ${{\left|\mu_z\right|}^{2}}/{\lambda}$, while other terms are also determined freely. Hence, this parameter set covers any anisotropic or isotropic Heisenberg spin models, with the single-ion anisotropy turned on or off.
The ground state of the spin Hamiltonian could be prepared by the adiabatic method, as described in Ref. [@garcia-ripoll04]. Although the Hamiltonian looks similar to a ferromagnetic one ($D,E>0$), one can also simulate the antiferromagnetic spin Hamiltonian, since other parameters $A$, $B$, and $C$ can be adjusted to have any sign. This can be easily seen by noting that if the parameters $A$, $B$, and $C$ are adjusted to be $-1$ times those of a desired antiferromagnetic Hamiltonian, the Hamiltonian is equivalent to the antiferromagnetic one up to global factor $-1$, hence with an inverted energy spectrum. Consequently, the adiabatic preparation, starting from an antiparallel spin configuration [@garcia-ripoll04], ends up with the highest energy state, which in fact is the ground state of the corresponding antiferromagnetic Hamiltonian.
Although atomic excitation is heavily suppressed, the main source of decoherence in our system is the spontaneous decay of atoms. In relation to the effective spin model, the atomic spontaneous decay results in depolarization of the spins. This effect can be accounted for by considering a conditional Hamiltonian $H_C=H-\frac{i}{2}\sum_{j}({\gamma_A'}\Lambda_j^{aa}+{\gamma_B'}\Lambda_j^{bb})$, where the effective decay rates are approximately given by $\gamma_A'=\gamma\left(\frac{{\left|\Omega_1\right|}^2}{\Delta_1^2}+\frac{{\left|\Omega_3\right|}^2}{(\Delta_1+\delta)^2}\right)$ and $\gamma_B'=\gamma\left(\frac{{\left|\Omega_2\right|}^2}{\Delta_2^2}+\frac{{\left|\Omega_4\right|}^2}{(\Delta_2+\delta)^2}\right)$, assuming other lasers are sufficiently detuned and thus make a negligible contribution to the decay. In particular, if $\Omega_j$s are chosen in such a way that the two contributions are balanced, i.e., $\gamma_A'=\gamma_B'=\gamma'$, the depolarization is nearly independent of the spin state. In this case, the conditional Hamiltonian is approximately given by $H_C=H-iNM\frac{\gamma'}{2}$, where $N$ is the number of cavities. Consequently, the state of the system at time $t$ may be written as $\rho(t)=e^{-NM\gamma't}\rho_Q(t)+(1-e^{-NM\gamma't})\rho_M$, where $\rho_Q(t)$ is the desired quantum state evolved by the spin Hamiltonian and $\rho_M$ is the fully mixed state. This property is useful for testing condensed-matter theories, since even under depolarization, the quantum nature retained in the coherent portion $\rho_Q(t)$ could be observed over a time scale $\sim1/NM\gamma'$. One requirement is that the spin-spin coupling rate multiplied by $(M/2)^2$ should be much larger than the global decoherence rate. Reminding that the coupling rate is given by $\sim2J{{\left|\mu_j\right|}^2}/{\lambda^2}\sim({J}/{M})({\Omega_j}/{\sqrt{M/2}g_j})^2$, we require $\gamma\ll\frac{J}{2N}\bigl(\frac{\Delta_j}{\sqrt{M/2}g_j}\bigr)^2$. Since $\Delta_j\gg\sqrt{M/2}g_j$ from condition (\[eq:cond2\]), this requirement can be met for a moderate $N$ if $J\gtrsim\gamma$ is satisfied along with our previous assumption of strong atom-cavity coupling. Note, however, that testing Haldane’s conjecture for higher-spin chains is more demanding, since the lowest excitation gap is expected, from its asymptotic behavior, to decrease rapidly with increasing $M$, while the spin correlation length increases rapidly [@haldane83a]. There are various micro-cavity technologies under active development which are expected to fall into our regime of strong atom-cavity coupling [@spillane05], such as superconducting microwave cavities [@majer07], photonic bandgap microcavities [@hennessy07], and microtoroidal cavities [@aoki06]. These models would be also suited to having a fixed number of atoms in a cavity, by virtue of the progress in the micro-fabrication techniques. For example, coupling two superconducting qubits with a single cavity mode in a well-controlled way has been demonstrated recently [@majer07], which suggests the viability of the proposed way of engineering spins [@note]. An important point is that contrary to the system-specific ideas, our scheme relies on a general model, which would be available in a wide range of current or future systems.
This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2007-357-C00016) funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD). SB thanks the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK for an Advanced Research Fellowship and for support through the Quantum Information Processing IRC (GR/S82176/01) and the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation.
R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. **21**, 467 (1982).
C. Bruder, R. Fazio, and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B **47**, 342 (1993).
D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A **57**, 120 (1998).
L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 090402 (2003).
J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 250405 (2004).
M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and M. B. Plenio, Nature Phys. **2**, 849 (2006).
A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Nature Phys. **2**, 856 (2006).
D. G. Angelakis, M. F. Santos, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 031805(R) (2007).
M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 160501 (2007).
D. Rossini and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 186401 (2007).
M. Paternostro, G. S. Agarwal, and M. S. Kim, arXiv:0707.0846.
J. Cho, D. G. Angelakis, and S. Bose, arXiv:0712.2413.
Y. Li, M. X. Huo, Z. Song, and C. P. Sun, arXiv:0802.0079.
A. Kay and D. G. Angelakis, arXiv:0802.0488.
I. Affleck, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter. **1**, 3047 (1989).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. **93A**, 464 (1983).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **50**, 1153 (1983).
F. Meier and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 5373 (2001).
S. Bose, Contemp. Phys. **48**, 13 (2007).
O. Romero-Isart, K. Eckert, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. A **75**, 050303(R) (2007).
M. J. Hartmann, M. E. Reuter, and M. B. Plenio, New J. Phys. **8**, 94 (2006).
F. Verstraete, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 087201 (2004).
J. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 020502 (2007).
R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. **93**, 99 (1954).
D. F. V. James and J. Jerke, Can. J. Phys. **85**, 625 (2007).
R. Botet, R. Jullien, and M. Kolb, Phys. Rev. B **28**, 3914 (1983).
S. M. Spillane *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 013817 (2005).
J. Majer *et al.*, Nature **449**, 443 (2007).
K. Hennessy *et al.*, Nature **445**, 896 (2007).
T. Aoki *et al.*, Nature **443**, 671 (2006).
Another possibility is using NV centers in diamond where single atom implantation is close to be possible through the isotropic control of nitrogen \[J. Meijer *et al.*, Appl. Phys. A **83**, 321 (2006)\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $p$ be a prime number. In this paper, we estimate the variation of the sizes of quotients of certain finitely generated $p$-torsion Iwasawa modules, which are closely related to class numbers. We also construct some $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions whose Iwasawa $\mu$-invariant is nonzero. At the end of this paper, we calculate the determinants of some matrices that are related to the groups $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$.'
author:
- Sohei Tateno
title: 'On Iwasawa’s class number formula for $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions'
---
Introduction
============
In [@Iwasawa], Iwasawa proved the following result, which is so called Iwasawa’s class number formula.
Let $K_\infty /K$ be a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-extension and $K_n$ be the subfields corresponding to the subgroups $p^n\mathbb{Z}_p$ of $\mathbb{Z}_p$. If we denote $e_n$ for the $p$-exponent of the class number $h(K_n)$ of $K_n$, then there exist some $\mu,\lambda\geq0$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $$e_n=\mu p^n+\lambda n+\nu$$ for sufficiently large $n$.
This result is known to be the first assymptotic formula which explains the regularity of the variation of the class numbers of certain towers of number fields. In [@CM], Cuoco and Monsky generalized this result to general $\mathbb{Z}_p^d$-extensions.
Let $K_\infty /K$ be a $\mathbb{Z}_p^d$-extension and $K_n$ be the subfields corresponding to the subgroups $p^n\mathbb{Z}_p^d$ of $\mathbb{Z}_p^d$. If we denote $e_n$ for the $p$-exponent of the class number $h(K_n)$ of $K_n$, then there exist some $\mu,\lambda\geq0$ such that $$e_n=\mu p^{dn}+\lambda np^{(d-1)n}+O(p^{(d-1)n}).$$
In [@Perbet], Perbet obtained some similar results on certain $p$-adic Lie groups by using a result of Harris([@Harris]).
Let $G$ be a finitely generated $p$-valued pro-$p$ group with dimension $d$. Let $K_\infty/K$ be a $G$-extension in which only finitely many primes ramify. Let $K_n$ be the subfields corresponding to $G_n:=\{x\in G|\omega(x)>(p-1)^{-1}+n-1\}$, where $\omega$ is the valuation of $G$. If we denote $Cl_n(p)$ for the $p$-Sylow subgroup of the ideal class group of $K_n$, then there exist some $\rho, \mu\geq0$ such that $$\#(Cl_n(p)/p^nCl_n(p))=p^{(\rho n+\mu)(G:G_n)+O(np^{n(d-1)})}.$$
By restricting the $p$-adic Lie groups dealt with, Lei succeeded to obtain several more precise results in [@Lei]. In particular, the following result is a generalization of the result of Cuoco and Monsky when $d=2$. Let $p$ be an odd prime number and $K$ be a number field which admits a unique prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ lying above $p$. Let $K_\infty/K$ be a Galois extension in which $\mathfrak{p}$ is totally ramified and only finitely many primes ramify. We assume that the Galois group $G:=G(K_\infty/K)$ can be written in the form $G=H\rtimes\Gamma$, where $H$ and $\Gamma$ are subgroups of $G$ isomorphic to the additive group $\mathbb{Z}_p$. Then there exists a $H$-subextension $K_\infty/K^c$ of $K_\infty/K$ such that $G(K^c/K)\simeq\Gamma$. Assume that every prime of $K$ which ramifies in $K_\infty/K$ splits into finitely many primes in $K^c$. Let $L_\infty$ be the maximal unramified abelian pro-$p$ extension of $K_\infty$ and put $X:=G(L_\infty/K_\infty)$. Then $X$ becomes a finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-module, where $\Lambda(G):=\mathbb{Z}_p[\![G]\!]$. We put $X(p):=\operatorname{tor}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}X$, $\Gamma_m:=\Gamma^{p^m}$, $H_n:=H^{p^n}$, and $\lambda_G:=\operatorname{rank}_{\Lambda(H)}(X/X(p))$. Let $K_n$ be the subfields of $K_\infty/K$ corresponding to the subgroups $H_n\rtimes\Gamma_n$ of $G$ and $e_n$ denote the $p$-exponent of the class number of $K_n$.
Assume that $X$ is finitely generated over $\Lambda(H)$. Then one has $$e_n=\lambda_G np^n+O(p^n).$$
The assumption $X$ being finitely generated over $\Lambda(H)$ implies that the so-called Iwasawa $\mu_G$-invariant is equal to zero. The purpose of this paper is to consider some estimates of the variation of the sizes of quotients of certain finitely generated $p$-torsion $\Lambda(G)$-modules, which are closely related to class numbers, when $\mu_G$ is not necessarily zero.
Let $X$ be a finitely generated $p$-torsion $\Lambda(G)$-module and $I_{\Gamma_n}, I_{H_m}$ the kernel of the natural surjective homomorphisms of rings $\mathbb{Z}_p[\![\Gamma_n]\!]\twoheadrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p, \mathbb{Z}_p[\![H_m]\!]\twoheadrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p$ respectively. Then, by Lemma \[newproof1\], $X_{H_m}:=X/I_{H_m}X$ becomes a finitely generated $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module for each $m\geq0$. By [@Venjakob2]\[p. 295, Theorem 3.40.\], one has an exact sequence of finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-modules $$\label{neweq}
0\rightarrow A\rightarrow X\buildrel{\varphi}\over\rightarrow\bigoplus_{i=1}^s\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G)\rightarrow B\rightarrow0$$ with $A$,$B$ pseudo-null. We also assume that $A$,$B$ are finitely generated over $\Lambda(H)$. Then we have
Let $X'_{H_m}$ be the maximal finite $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-submodule of $X_{H_m}$. Then there exist $\mu_A,\nu_A$ depending on $A$ and $\nu_B\in\mathbb{Z}$ depending on $B$ such that $$\# X'_{H_m}=p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A+\nu_B}.$$ for sufficiently large $m$.
We have $$p^{\mu_Gp^{2n}}\leq\#(X_{H_n})_{\Gamma_n}\leq p^{\mu_Gp^{2n}+\mu_Ap^n+\nu_A+\nu_B}$$ for all $n\geq0$.
Although there are some $\Lambda(G)$-modules satisfying the assumptions of these main results with $\mu_G\neq0$ in the ring theoretical settings, actual $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions whose Iwasawa module satisfies the assumptions with $\mu_G\neq0$ have not been found as far as the author knows. To begin with dealing with this problem, we will also construct some $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions with $\mu_G\neq0$. We have the following main result, which is a partial analogue of Iwasawa’s result ([@Iwasawa2]\[p. 6, Theorem 1.\]) for $\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions.
Let $p=3$ and $K:=\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_3)$. For any $N\geq1$, there exists a cyclic extension $K'/K$ with degree $3$ and $L'/K'$ with $\operatorname{Gal}(L'/K')\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$ such that $\mu_G(L'/K')\geq N$.
At the end of this paper, we would like to calculate the determinants of some matrices that are related to the groups $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$. Let $p$ be a prime number and $n,d\geq 1$ integers. Let $u$ be an integer such that $(p,u)=1$. Let $A(p,n,d,u)=(a_{ij})\in M_{p^n}(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ defined by $$a_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
1&j\equiv(i-1)(1+pu)^k+1\mod p^n(0\leq k\leq d-1)\\
0&\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
We have $$|A|=
\begin{cases}
1&n=1\\
d^{(p-1)(n-1)}&n\neq1, d<p\\
0&n\neq1, d\geq p.
\end{cases}$$
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Hiroshi Suzuki most warmly for his steady guidance and helpful comments as my advisor. I am immensely indebted to Takenori Kataoka for helping me considering Theorem \[0118\] together. I am also very grateful to Antonio Lei and Otmar Venjakob for not only answering my numerous questions throughout Iwasawa 2017 but also answering my additional questions even after Iwasawa 2017 via e-mail. Also, I cannot thank Takashi Hara too much for teaching me this field and giving me a lot of advice. Yasushi Mizusawa is also thanked for answering my questions carefully and clearly. Tomohiro Ikkai, Haibo Jin, Yuta Suzuki, Oliver Thomas, and Kota Yamamoto are thanked for very informatic discussions during the preparation of this paper. Finally, I greatly appreciate the continued support of my parents.
Some properties of $\Lambda(G)$-modules
=======================================
In this section, we shall study some properties of $\Lambda(G)$-modules which will be used in the proof of our main results.
Let $G$ be a profinite group such that $G=H\rtimes_\phi\Gamma$, where $H$ and $\Gamma$ are multiplicative groups which are isomorphic to the additive group $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and $\phi:\Gamma\rightarrow \operatorname{Aut}(H)$ is a fixed group homomorphism. We fix topological generators $h$ of $H$ and $\gamma$ of $\Gamma$. Define the ring automorphism $\sigma:\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]]\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]]$ by $\sigma(S):=\sum_{i=1}^\infty\binom{\phi(\gamma)}{i}S^i$ and the group homomorphism $\delta:\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]]\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]]$ by $\delta:=\sigma-\operatorname{id}$. Then, by [@Venjakob1]\[p. 157, Example 2.2.\], we obtain a ring isomorphism $$\Lambda=\Lambda(G):=\mathbb{Z}_p[\![G]\!]\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]][[T;\sigma,\delta]]=:\mathbb{Z}_p[[S,T;\sigma,\delta]]$$ where $h$ and $\gamma$ are corresponding to $1+S$ and $1+T$ respectively. Recall that the multiplication of $\mathbb{Z}_p[[S,T;\sigma,\delta]]$ is given by $$TF(S)=\sigma(F(S))T+\delta(F(S))$$ for $F(S)\in\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]]$. The topology of $\Lambda(G)$ is defined in section 7.1 of [@Dixon]. By [@Venjakob1]\[p. 158, Example 2.3.\], $G$ is a uniform pro-$p$ group. Therefore, by [@Dixon]\[p. 161, 7.25 Corollary\], $\Lambda(G)$ is a non-commutative noetherian integral domain. Let $I_{\Gamma_n}, I_{H_m}$ be the kernel of the natural surjective homomorphisms of rings $\mathbb{Z}_p[\![\Gamma_n]\!]\twoheadrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p, \mathbb{Z}_p[\![H_m]\!]\twoheadrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p$ respectively. Put $\omega_m:=(1+S)^{p^m}-1\in\mathbb{Z}_p[[S]]\simeq\Lambda(H)$. Then we find $I_{H_m}\Lambda(G)=\omega_m\Lambda(G)$. When we say $X$ is a $\Lambda(G)$-module, we always understand that $X$ carries the structure of a Hausdorff abelian topological group and the structure of a left $\Lambda(G)$-module such that the action $\Lambda(G)\times X\rightarrow X$ is continuous.
\[newproof1\]
1. One has $I_{H_m}\Lambda(G)=\Lambda(G)I_{H_m}$.
2. $\Lambda(G)/I_{H_m}\Lambda(G)$ is finitely generated over $\Lambda(\Gamma)$ as a left $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module.
<!-- -->
1. This is proved in [@Venjakob1]\[p. 181, Proposition 7.6.\].
2. By [@Venjakob1]\[p. 158, Example 2.3.\], $G$ is a uniform pro-$p$ group. Hence, for any $r\in\Lambda(G)$, [@Dixon]\[p. 155, 7.20 Theorem\] implies that $r$ can be uniquely written in the form $$r=\sum_{j=0}^\infty F_i(T)S^i$$ where $F_i(T)\in\mathbb{Z}_p[[T]]\simeq\Lambda(\Gamma)$. By ($i$), we have $I_{H_m}\Lambda(G)=\Lambda(G)I_{H_m}$. Since $\Lambda(G)I_{H_m}=\Lambda(G)\omega_m$, we have the congruence $$F_i(T)S^i\equiv F_i(T)(-\sum_{j=1}^{p^m-1}\binom{p^m}{j}S^j)S^{i-p^m}\pmod{\Lambda(G)I_{H_m}}$$ for each $i\geq p^m$. By using this congruence many times, we obtain some $F'_0(T), \cdots, F'_{p^m-1}(T)\in\mathbb{Z}_p[[T]]\simeq\Lambda(\Gamma)$ such that $r=\sum_{i=0}^{p^m-1}F'_i(T)S^i$. Note that each coefficient of $F'_i(T)$ converges in $\mathbb{Z}_p$ because $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is equipped with $p$-adic topology. This completes the proof.
If $X$ is a finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-module, then, by Lemma \[newproof1\], $X_{H_m}:=X/I_{H_m}X$ becomes a finitely generated $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module for each $m\geq0$. Hence there exists the maximal finite $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-submodule $X'_{H_m}$ of $X_{H_m}$ for each $m\geq0$.
\[newproof2\] For each $m\geq0$, we have $$\bigoplus_{i=1}^s(\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G))_{H_m}\simeq\bigoplus_{i=1}^s(\Lambda(\Gamma)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(\Gamma))^{p^m}$$ as $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
&(\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G))_{H_m}\\
\simeq&\Lambda(G)/(p^{m_i}\Lambda(G)+\omega_m\Lambda(G))\\
\simeq&(\Lambda(G)/\omega_m\Lambda(G))/p^{m_i}(\Lambda(G)/\omega_m\Lambda(G)).\end{aligned}$$ Since we have $$\Lambda(G)/\omega_m\Lambda(G)\simeq\Lambda(\Gamma)^{p^m}$$ as a $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G))_{H_m}&\simeq&\Lambda(\Gamma)^{p^m}/p^{m_i}\Lambda(\Gamma)^{p^m}\\
&\simeq&(\Lambda(\Gamma)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(\Gamma))^{p^m}.\end{aligned}$$ as a $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module. Therefore, one has $$\bigoplus_{i=1}^s(\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G))_{H_m}\simeq\bigoplus_{i=1}^s(\Lambda(\Gamma)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(\Gamma))^{p^m}$$
\[injection\] $$\Lambda(G)/p^k\Lambda(G)\buildrel{\omega_m(S)\times}\over\longrightarrow\Lambda(G)/p^k\Lambda(G)$$ is injective.
For any $f(S,T)\in\Lambda(G)$, if $\omega_m(S)f(S,T)\in p^k\Lambda(G)$, then $g(S,T)\in\Lambda(G)$ such that $\omega_m(S)f(S,T)=p^kg(S,T)$. If we put $\xi_m:=\frac{\omega_m}{\omega_{m-1}}(\xi_0=\omega_0)$, then one can write $\omega_m=\xi_m\xi_{m-1}\cdots\xi_{0}$. By [@Venjakob1]\[p. 182, Proposition 7.6.\], $\xi_m$ are prime elements of $\Lambda(G)$, i.e., one has $\xi_m\Lambda=\Lambda\xi_m$ and $\xi_m\Lambda$ are prime ideals. Since $\xi_m\Lambda\supset p^k\Lambda\cdot\Lambda g(S,T)\Lambda$, one has either $\xi_m\Lambda\supset p^k\Lambda$ or $\xi_m\Lambda\supset\Lambda g(S,T)\Lambda$. If $\xi_m\Lambda\supset p^k\Lambda$, then there exists $h(S,T)\in\Lambda(G)$ such that $\xi_mh(S,T)=p^k$. But this is impossible. Hence $\xi_m\Lambda\supset\Lambda g(S,T)\Lambda$, and so there exists $g_1(S,T)\in\Lambda(G)$ such that $\xi_m g_1(S,T)=g(S,T)$. Therefore, we have $$\xi_m\cdots\xi_0f(S,T)=\xi_mg_1(S,T)p^k$$ Since $\Lambda(G)$ is integral, one can erase $\xi_m$. By iterating this, one obtains $$f(S,T)=g_{m+1}(S,T)p^k$$ for some $g_{m+1}\in\Lambda(G)$. Hence $f(S,T)\in p^k\Lambda(G)$.
\[0110\] Let $K$ be a number field, $K_\infty/K$ a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-extension, and $L_\infty/K_\infty$ the maximal $p$-ramified abelian pro-$p$ extension. Let $L/K_\infty$ be a Galois subextension of $L_\infty/K_\infty$. Then $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is abelian if and only if $K_\infty/K$ acts trivially on $L/K_\infty$.
Assume that $K_\infty/K$ acts trivially on $L/K_\infty$. Consider the exact sequence of topological groups $$0\rightarrow\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty)\rightarrow \operatorname{Gal}(L/K)\buildrel{j}\over\rightarrow\operatorname{Gal}(K_\infty/K)\rightarrow0.$$ Let $\tilde{\gamma}\in\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ be a lifting of the fixed topological generator $\gamma\in\Gamma=\operatorname{Gal}(K_\infty/K)$. Then one can define the homomorphism $\varphi:\operatorname{Gal}(K_\infty/K)\ni\gamma\mapsto\tilde{\gamma}\in\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$. Since $j\circ\varphi=\operatorname{id}_\Gamma$, we obtain $$\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)=\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty)\rtimes\operatorname{Gal}(K_\infty/K).$$ For any $x_1, x_2\in\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty)$, there exist $y_1, y_2\in\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty)$ and $\gamma_1, \gamma_2\in\Gamma$ such that $x_i=(y_i,\gamma_i)$ for $i=1,2$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
x_1\cdot x_2&=&(y_1,\gamma_1)(y_2,\gamma_2)=(y_1\tilde{\gamma}_1y_2\tilde{\gamma}_1^{-1}, \gamma_1\gamma_2)\\&=&(y_1y_2,\gamma_1\gamma_2)=x_2\cdot x_1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is abelian. Conversely, if $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is abelian, then one has $\tilde{\gamma}'x\tilde{\gamma}'^{-1}=x$ for all $x\in\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty)$ and $\gamma'\in\Gamma$. This completes the proof.
Let $X$ be a finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-module. Then, by [@Venjakob2]\[p. 295, Theorem 3.40.\], we have a pseudo-isomorphism $$X(p)\sim\bigoplus_{i=1}^s\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G),$$ where $X(p):=\operatorname{tor}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}X$. $\mu_G:=\sum_{i=1}^s m_i$ is called the **Iwasawa $\mu_G$-invariant of $X$**.
The main result
===============
In this section, we prove one of our main results(Corollary \[corcor\]) by using propositions and lemmas which we have proved already in Section 2.
Throughout this section, let $X$ be a $p$-torsion finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-module. By [@Venjakob2]\[p. 295, Theorem 3.40.\], we have an exact sequence of finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-modules $$\label{neweq}
0\rightarrow A\rightarrow X\buildrel{\varphi}\over\rightarrow\bigoplus_{i=1}^s\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G)\rightarrow B\rightarrow0$$ with $A$,$B$ pseudo-null. We assume that $A$,$B$ are finitely generated over $\Lambda(H)$.
\[doctortheorem\] Let $X'_{H_m}$ be the maximal finite $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-submodule of $X_{H_m}$. Then there exist $\mu_A,\nu_A$ depending on $A$ and $\nu_B\in\mathbb{Z}$ depending on $B$ such that $$\# X'_{H_m}=p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A+\nu_B}.$$ for sufficiently large $m$.
By , we have two exact sequences of $\Lambda(G)$-modules $$0\rightarrow A\rightarrow X\rightarrow\operatorname{im}\varphi\rightarrow0$$ and $$X\rightarrow Y\rightarrow B\rightarrow 0,$$ where we put $Y:=\bigoplus_{i=1}^s\Lambda(G)/p^{m_i}\Lambda(G)$. For any $m\geq0$, consider the exact commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r]&A\ar[r]\ar[d]&X\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\omega_m(S)\times}&\operatorname{im}\varphi\ar[r]\ar[d]&0\\
0\ar[r]&A\ar[r]&X\ar[r]&\operatorname{im}\varphi\ar[r]&0.
}$$ Since Lemma \[injection\] ensures the injectivity of $\omega_m(S)\times:\operatorname{im}\varphi\rightarrow\operatorname{im}\varphi$, by the snake lemma, we obtain the exact sequence of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$\label{neweq2}
0\rightarrow A_{H_m}\rightarrow X_{H_m}\buildrel{\overline{\varphi}}\over\rightarrow(\operatorname{im}\varphi)_{H_m}\rightarrow0$$
Since taking $/I_{H_m}$ is right exact, we also have the exact sequence of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$\label{neweq3}
X_{H_m}\buildrel{\varphi_{H_m}}\over\rightarrow Y_{H_m}\rightarrow B_{H_m}\rightarrow0.$$ By assumption, $A$ and $B$ are finitely generated torsion $\mathbb{Z}_p$-modules. Therefore, we have $\# A_{H_m}=p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A}$ for large $m$ and $\# B_{H_m}=p^{O(p^m)}$. Consider the commutative diagram of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$\xymatrix{
X \ar[r]^{\varphi} \ar[d]_{\pi} & Y \ar[d]^{\pi} \\
X_{H_m} \ar[r]^{\varphi_{H_m}} & Y_{H_m}
}$$ We can define the well-defined surjective homomorphism of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$\begin{matrix}
\psi:&(\operatorname{im}\varphi)_{H_m}&\longrightarrow&\operatorname{im}(\varphi_{H_m})\\
&\rotatebox{90}{$\in$}&&\rotatebox{90}{$\in$}\\
&\varphi(x)+I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi&\longmapsto&\varphi_{H_m}(x+I_{H_m}X)=\varphi(x)+I_{H_m}Y.
\end{matrix}$$ with $\ker\psi=(I_{H_m}Y\cap\operatorname{im}\varphi)/I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi$. Hence we obtain the commutative diagram of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules
$$\xymatrix{
& & 0 \ar[d] & & \\
& & \ker\overline{\varphi} \ar@{^{(}->}[ld] \ar[d] & & \\
0 \ar[r] & \ker(\varphi_{H_m}) \ar[r] & X_{H_m} \ar[r]^{\varphi_{H_m}} \ar[d]^{\overline{\varphi}} & \operatorname{im}(\varphi_{H_m}) \ar[r] & 0 \\
& & (\operatorname{im}\varphi)_{H_m} \ar@{->>}[ru]_{\psi} \ar[d] & & \\
& & 0 & &
}$$ Therefore, we can consider the commutative diagram of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r]&\ker(\varphi_{H_m})/\ker\overline{\varphi} \ar[r]&X_{H_m}/\ker\overline{\varphi} \ar[r]\ar[d]&X_{H_m}/\ker(\varphi_{H_m})\ar[r]\ar[d]&0\\
0\ar[r]&(I_{H_m}Y\cap\operatorname{im}\varphi)/I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi \ar[r]&(\operatorname{im}\varphi)_{H_m} \ar[r]&\operatorname{im}(\varphi_{H_m})\ar[r]&0
}$$ This implies that we have $$\label{neweq4}
\ker(\varphi_{H_m})/\ker\overline{\varphi}\simeq (I_{H_m}Y\cap\operatorname{im}\varphi)/I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi.$$
For each $m\geq0$, define the homomorphism of $\Lambda(H)$-modules $\Omega_m$ by $$\begin{matrix}
\Omega_m:&Y&\longrightarrow&Y\\
&\rotatebox{90}{$\in$}&&\rotatebox{90}{$\in$}\\
&a&\longmapsto&\omega_m a.
\end{matrix}$$ Then we have $$\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)\subset\Omega_{m+1}^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)$$ for each $m\geq0$. Indeed, if $a\in\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)$, then one has $\omega_m a\in\operatorname{im}\varphi$. Since $\frac{\omega_{m+1}}{\omega_m}\in\Lambda(H)$ and $\operatorname{im}\varphi$ is a $\Lambda(H)$-module, we have $\omega_{m+1} a\in\operatorname{im}\varphi$. Thus we obtain $a\in \Omega_{m+1}^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)$. Therefore, $\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi$ are submodules of the finitely generated $\Lambda(H)$-module $Y/\operatorname{im}\varphi(=B)$ such that we have $$\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi\subset\Omega_{m+1}^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi$$ for each $m\geq0$. Hence we obtain a sequence of finitely generated $\Lambda(H)$-modules $$\Omega_0^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi\subset\Omega_1^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi\subset\cdots.$$ Since $\Lambda(H)$ is noetherian, there exists some $\alpha\geq0$ such that one has $$\label{neweq6}
\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi=\Omega_{\alpha}^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi$$ for all $m\geq\alpha$. Since $I_{H_m}Y=\omega_mY$, we can consider the homomorphism of $\Lambda(H)$-modules $$\begin{matrix}
\omega_m\times:&\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi&\longrightarrow& (I_{H_m}Y\cap\operatorname{im}\varphi)/I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi\\
&\rotatebox{90}{$\in$}&&\rotatebox{90}{$\in$}\\
&a+\operatorname{im}\varphi&\longmapsto&\omega_ma+I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi.
\end{matrix}$$ for each $m\geq0$. This is surjective. Indeed, if $x+I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi\in(I_{H_m}Y\cap\operatorname{im}\varphi)/I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi$, then there exist some $a\in Y$ and $b\in\operatorname{im}\varphi$ such that we have $x=\omega_ma=\varphi(b)$. Hence we have $a\in\Omega_m^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)$. By Lemma \[injection\], one can also check that this is injective, and so this is bijective. Since $Y/\operatorname{im}\varphi(=B)$ is finitely generated and torsion over $\Lambda(H)$, so is $\Omega_\alpha^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi$. Hence ($\Omega_\alpha^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi)_{H_m}$ is finite for all $m\geq\alpha$. Note that we have $$\Omega_\alpha^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi=({\Omega_\alpha^{-1}(\operatorname{im}\varphi)/\operatorname{im}\varphi})_{H_m}.$$ Therefore, there exists some $\nu_B\geq0$ such that $\#(I_{H_m}Y\cap\operatorname{im}\varphi)/I_{H_m}\operatorname{im}\varphi=p^{\nu_B}$ for all $m\geq\alpha$, that is, $\#(\ker(\varphi_{H_m})/\ker\overline{\varphi})=p^{\nu_B}$ for all $m\geq\alpha$. Since $\#\ker\overline{\varphi}\buildrel{\eqref{neweq2}}\over=\# A_{H_m}=p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A}$, this implies that $$\#\ker(\varphi_{H_m})= p^{\nu_B}p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A}=p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A+\nu_B}.$$ By , we obtain the exact sequence of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$0\rightarrow\ker(\varphi_{H_m})\rightarrow X_{H_m}\rightarrow Y_{H_m} \rightarrow B_{H_m}\rightarrow0$$ with $\ker(\varphi_{H_m}),B_{H_m}$ finite. Note that $Y_{H_m}$ are elementary Iwasawa modules. By classical Iwasawa theory, this implies that $\ker(\varphi_{H_m})$ is the maximal finite $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module of $X_{H_m}$, i.e., we have $X'_{H_m}=\ker(\varphi_{H_m})$. Consequently, we obtain $X'_{H_m}=p^{\mu_Ap^m+\nu_A+\nu_B}$.
\[corcor\] We have $$p^{\mu_Gp^{2n}}\leq\#(X_{H_n})_{\Gamma_n}\leq p^{\mu_Gp^{2n}+\mu_Ap^n+\nu_A+\nu_B}$$ for all $n\geq0$.
By Theorem \[doctortheorem\], we have the exact sequence of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$0\rightarrow \ker(\varphi_{H_n})\rightarrow X_{H_n}\rightarrow Y_{H_n} \rightarrow B_{H_n}\rightarrow0$$ for each $n\geq0$. Since $Y_{H_n}$ are elementary Iwasawa modules, by classical Iwasawa theory, we obtain the assertion.
Let $p$ be an odd prime number and $K$ a number field which admits a unique prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ lying above $p$. Consider a Galois extension $K_\infty/K$ satisfying $G(K_\infty/K)=G$, $\mathfrak{p}$ is totally ramified in $K_\infty/K$, and $K_\infty/K$ is unramified outside $\mathfrak{p}$. Then there exists a $H$-subextension $K_\infty/K^c$ of $K_\infty/K$ such that $G(K^c/K)\simeq\Gamma$. For each $n\geq0$, we denote $H_n:=H^{p^n}$, $\Gamma_n:=\Gamma^{p^n}$, $G_n:=H_n\rtimes\Gamma_n$, and $K_n:=K_\infty^{G_n}$. Let $L_\infty$ be the maximal unramified abelian pro-$p$ extension of $K_\infty$ and put $X:=G(L_\infty/K_\infty)$. Then, by [@Perbet]\[p. 835, Proposition 3.1.\], $X$ becomes a finitely generated $\Lambda(G)$-module. For $n\geq0$, let $e_n$ denote the $p$-exponent of the class number $h(K_n)$ of $K_n$. Since $K_\infty/K$ is unramified outside $\mathfrak{p}$, by [@Lei]\[p. 5, the short exact sequence (2.3) and Corollary 2.6.\], we find that $e_n$ is equal to the $p$-exponent of $\#(X_{\Gamma_n})_{H_n}$. Hence, if there exists a $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extension $K_{\infty}/K$ such that the corresponding Iwasawa module $X$ is a $p$-torsion module satisfying the condition for Theorem \[corcor\], then one has $$\mu_G p^{2n}\leq e_n\leq \mu_G p^{2n}+\mu_A p^n+\nu_A+\nu_B.$$ for large $n$.
Construction of $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions with $\mu_G\neq0$
==============================================================================
In this section, we shall construct some $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extensions with $\mu_G\neq0$.
Let $K:=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-d})$ be an imaginary quadratic field. By [@Washington]\[p. 266, Theorem 13.4\], there is a $\mathbb{Z}_p^2$-extension $K_\infty/K$. Put $\Gamma':=G(K_\infty/K)$ and $G:=G(K/\mathbb{Q})$. Then one finds that $G$ acts on $\Gamma'$. $\Gamma'$ can be written in the form $\Gamma'=\Gamma^+\oplus\Gamma^-$, where $\Gamma^+$ is the part $G$ acts trivially. The $\Gamma^-$-extension is called **the anticyclotomic $\mathbb{Z}_p$-extension of $K$**.
From now on, let $K$, $K_\infty^-$ be the above fields. Let $M_\infty/K_\infty^-$ be the maximal pro-$p$ abelian $p$-ramified extension. Since the Leopoldt’s conjecture holds for imaginary quadratic fields, by doing the same augument as the proof of Theorem 13.31([@Washington]\[p. 294\]), we find that $$X_\infty:=\operatorname{Gal}(M_\infty/K_\infty^-)\sim\Lambda(\Gamma)\oplus(\mbox{torsion parts}).$$
There is a surjection $$X_\infty\twoheadrightarrow\Lambda(\Gamma)/(T-p)\Lambda(\Gamma)(\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p)$$
We have the exact sequence of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-modules $$0\rightarrow A\rightarrow X_\infty\rightarrow\Lambda(\Gamma)\oplus(\mbox{torsion parts})\rightarrow B\rightarrow0$$ with $A$, $B$ finite. Hence we have the exact sequence $$X_\infty/\operatorname{tor}_{\Lambda(\Gamma)} X_\infty\rightarrow\Lambda(\Gamma)\rightarrow B'\rightarrow0$$ with $B'$ finite. By taking $/(T-p)$, we have $$(X_\infty/\operatorname{tor}_{\Lambda(\Gamma)} X_\infty)/(T-p)\rightarrow\Lambda(\Gamma)/(T-p)\buildrel{\varphi}\over\rightarrow B'/(T-p)\rightarrow0.$$ Since $B'/(T-p)$ is finite and $\Lambda(\Gamma)/(T-p)\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p$, we must have $\ker\varphi\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p$. Therefore, we obtain the map $$X_\infty\twoheadrightarrow X_\infty/(\operatorname{tor}_{\Lambda(\Gamma)} X_\infty+(T-p)X_\infty)\twoheadrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p.$$
Thus $M_\infty/K_\infty^-$ has a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-subextension $L/K_\infty^-$. Since any $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-submodule of $X_\infty$ is normal in $\operatorname{Gal}(M_\infty/K)$, one has $\operatorname{Gal}(M_\infty/L)\triangleleft\operatorname{Gal}(M_\infty/K)$. This means that $L/K$ is Galois, and so one finds that $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$.
$\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is not abelian.
By Lemma \[0110\], we have “$\Gamma^-$ acts trivially on $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty^-)\Leftrightarrow\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is abelian." However, for the fixed topological generater $\gamma$ of $\Gamma^-$ and for any nonzero $x\in X$, we have $\gamma\cdot x=(1+T)x=(1+p)x$ in $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty^-)$. If $x=(1+p)x$, then one has $px=0$, which contradicts $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K_\infty^-)\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p$. Thus we have $\gamma\cdot x\neq x$, and so $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is not abelian.
Therefore, we have constructed a non-abelian $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$-extension $L/K$. By using this extension, we obtain the following result, which is a partial analogue of Iwasawa’s result([@Iwasawa2]\[p. 6, Theorem 1.\]).
\[0118\] Let $p=3$ and $K:=\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_3)$. For any $N\geq1$, there exists a cyclic extension $K'/K$ with degree $3$ and $L'/K'$ with $\operatorname{Gal}(L'/K')\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$ such that $\mu_G(L'/K')\geq N$.
Since $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-3})$, we can use the same argument and the same notations in this section. By a paper of Iwasawa ([@Iwasawa2]\[p. 2-6\]), there exists $d\geq 2$ such that the $\mu$-invariant of $K_\infty^{-}K'/K'$ with $K':=\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_3, \sqrt[3]{d})$ is greater than or equal to $N$. Let $q$ be a prime factor of $d$ other than $3$. Then, by elementary number theory, we find that $q$ is totally ramified in $K'/K$. But $q$ is unramified in $L/K$. Hence we have $L\cap K'=K$, and so $\operatorname{Gal}(LK'/K')\simeq\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)\simeq\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$. Since the $\mu$-invariant of $K_\infty^{-}K'/K'$ is greater than or equal to $N$, by [@Lei]\[Proposition 5.1\], we obtain that the $\mu_G$-invariant of $LK'/K'$ is also greater than or equal to $N$.
Determinants related to $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$
=========================================================
In this section, we shall calculate the determinants of some matrices that are related to the groups $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_p$. Let $p$ be a prime number and $n,d\geq 1$ integers. Let $u$ be an integer such that $(p,u)=1$. Let $A(p,n,d,u)=(a_{ij})\in M_{p^n}(\mathbb{Z}_p)$ defined by $$a_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
1&j\equiv(i-1)(1+pu)^k+1\mod p^n(0\leq k\leq d-1)\\
0&\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Let $p=5$, $n=2$, $d=3$, and $u=1$. Then $A$ is $$\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)$$
Let $s,t\in\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}$. Define a relation $\approx$ in $\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}$ by $$s\approx t\iff\text{There exists } 1\leq r\leq p^n \text{ such that } a_{rs}=1\text{ and }a_{rt}=1.$$ Let $\sim$ be the equivalence relation in $\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}$ generated by $\approx$.
\[0311\] $\sim$ induces the direct sum $$\coprod_{\substack{1\leq i\leq p-1\\1\leq m\leq n}}\{ip^{m-1}+1+p^ml|l\in\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}\}=\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}.$$
Fix $1\leq i\leq p-1$ and $1\leq m\leq n$. Then we have $$(ip^{m-1}+1-1)(1+pu)+1=ip^{m-1}(1+pu).$$ Hence, by the definition of $A$, we have $ip^{m-1}+1\sim ip^{m-1}(1+pu)$. By iterating this, we have $ip^{m-1}+1\sim i p^{m-1}(1+pu)^k$ for all $k\geq0$. Since $1+pu$ generates $1+p(\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z})$, we have $ip^{m-1}(1+pl)=ip^{m-1}+p^mil$ for all $l\in\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}$. Since $(i,p)=1$, we have $ip^{m-1}+1\sim ip^{m-1}+p^ml$ for all $l\in\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}$. This shows that we have $ip^{m-1}+1+p^ml_1\sim ip^{m-1}+1+p^ml_2$ for all $l_1,l_2\in\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z}$. On the other hand, if $i_1 p^{m_1-1}+1+p^{m_1}l_1\sim i_2p^{m_2-1}+1+p^{m_2}l_2$ with $ m_1\leq m_2$, then we have $i_1-i_2p^{m_2-m_1}+p(l_1+p^{m_2-m_1-1}l_2)\in p^{n-m_1+1}\mathbb{Z}$. Since $p\nmid i_1$, we must have $m_1=m_2$. This implies $p\mid(i_1-i_2)$, and we must have $i_1-i_2=0$ since $1\leq i_1, i_2\leq p-1$.
\[0312\] Let $\zeta:=\zeta_{p^{n-1}}$ denote a primitive $p^{n-1}$-th root of unity. If $d<p$, then we have $$\prod_{k=0}^{p^{n-1}-1}(1+\zeta^k+\cdots+\zeta^{k(d-1)})=d$$
Define a relation $\sim$ in $\mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1}\mathbb{Z}$ by $$k_1\sim k_2\iff\text{There exists }m\geq0\text{ such that }k_1d^m\equiv k_2\mod p^{n-1}.$$ Then one can easily check that this is an equivalence relation. Put $l:=|<d>|$ in $\mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1}\mathbb{Z}$. For $1\leq k\leq p^{n-1}-1$, let $$C_k:=\prod_{i=0}^{l-1}(1+\zeta^{d^ik}+\zeta^{2d^ik}+\cdots+\zeta^{(d-1)d^ik}).$$ Then we have $$(\zeta^k-1)C_k=\zeta^{d^lk}-1=\zeta^k-1.$$ Since $\zeta^k\neq 1$, we have $C_k=1$. Since $\sim$ is an equivalence relation in $\mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1}\mathbb{Z}$, $\prod_{k=0}^{p^{n-1}-1}(1+\zeta^k+\cdots+\zeta^{(d-1)k})$ is a product of $C_k$. Thus we obtain the assertion.
\[03122\] We have $$|A|=
\begin{cases}
1&n=1\\
d^{(p-1)(n-1)}&n\neq1, d<p\\
0&n\neq1, d\geq p.
\end{cases}$$
Lemma \[0311\] allows us to consider that $|A|$ is a product of determinants of small matrices. By doing an appropriate base change, we obtain $$|A|=
\begin{vmatrix}
A_{n-1}&&&&&&&&\\
& A_{n-1}&&&&&&&\\
&& \ddots&&&&&&\\
&&& A_{n-1}&&&&&\\
&&&& \ddots&&&&\\
&&&&& A_0&&&\\
&&&&&& A_0&&\\
&&&&&&& \ddots&\\
&&&&&&&& A_0
\end{vmatrix}$$ with $$A_{n-m}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1&1&\cdots&1&&&\\
&1&1&\cdots&1&&\\
&&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\\
&&&1&1&\cdots&1\\
1&&&&1&1&\cdots\\
\vdots&\ddots&&&&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&\cdots&1&&&&1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ By a property of circulant matrices, we have $$|A_{n-m}|=\prod_{k=0}^{p^{n-m}-1}(1+\zeta^k+\cdots+\zeta^{k(d-1)}).$$ If $d<p$, then, by Lemma \[0312\], we have $$|A_{n-m}|=
\begin{cases}
1&n=m\\
d&n\neq m.
\end{cases}$$ If $d\geq p$, then we have $$|A_1|=
\begin{vmatrix}
1&\cdots&1\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&\cdots&1
\end{vmatrix}
=0.$$ Therefore, we obtain $$|A|=
\begin{cases}
1&n=1\\
d^{(p-1)(n-1)}&n\neq1, d<p\\
0&n\neq1, d\geq p.
\end{cases}$$
Let $p=3$ and equip the relation of $S$ and $T$ in $\Lambda(G)$ by $$(1+S)(1+T)=(1+T)(1+S)^4.$$ Consider the left ideal $I:=(\Lambda(G)/\Lambda(G)\omega_2)(T+3)$ of the ring $\Lambda(G)/\Lambda(G)\omega_2$. Then any element $x$ of $I$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
x&=&a_8(1+S)^8(1+T)+\cdots +a_1(1+S)(1+T)+a_0(1+T)\\
&&+a_8(1+S)^8\cdot 2+\cdots+a_1(1+S)\cdot 2+a_0\cdot 2,\end{aligned}$$ where $a_i\in\Lambda(\Gamma)$. One has $$\begin{aligned}
a_8(1+S)^8(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^{32}=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^5. \\ a_7(1+S)^7(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^{28}=a_8(1+T)(1+S).
\\ a_6(1+S)^6(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^{24}=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^6.
\\ a_5(1+S)^5(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^{20}=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^2.
\\ a_4(1+S)^4(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^{16}=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^7.
\\ a_3(1+S)^3(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^{12}=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^3.
\\ a_2(1+S)^2(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^8=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^8.
\\ a_1(1+S)(1+T)&=&a_8(1+T)(1+S)^4=a_8(1+T)(1+S)^4.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we have $$x=(a_2(1+T)+2a_8)(1+S)^8+(a_4(1+T)+2a_7)(1+S)^7+\cdots+a_0(1+T+2).$$ Put $$b_8:=a_2+a_8,~b_7:=a_4+a_7, \cdots, b_0:=a_0.$$ Then we have $$A(3,2,2,1)
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0\\ \vdots\\ a_8
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
b_0\\ \vdots\\ b_8
\end{pmatrix}$$ Since $|A(3,2,2,1)|=4$, $A$ is invertible in $M_{p^2}(\mathbb{Z}_p)$. Therefore, for any pair $(b_0,\cdots,b_8)\in\Lambda(\Gamma)^9$, one can choose $a_0,\cdots,a_8\in \Lambda(\Gamma)$ such that each sum of $a_i$ corresponding to $1,1+S,\cdots,(1+S)^8$ is equal to $b_0, \cdots, b_8$ respectively.
[10]{} Albert A. Cuoco and Paul Monsky, *Class numbers in $\mathbb{Z}_p^d$-extensions*, Math. Ann. 255 (1981), no. 2, 235-258. J. D. Dixon, M. P. F. du Sautoy, A. Mann, and D. Segal, *Analytic pro-$p$ groups*, 1st ed., London Mathematical Society Lecture Note, vol. 157, Cambridge University Press, 1991. Michael Harris, *Correction to “$p$-adic representations arising from dexcent on abelian varieties" \[Composition Math. 39 (1979), no. 2, 177-245\]*, Composition Math. 121 (2000), no. 1, 105-108. Kenkichi Iwasawa, *On $\Gamma$-extensions of algebraic number fields*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 65 (1959), 183-226. Kenkichi Iwasawa, *On the $\mu$-invariants of $\mathbb{Z}_l$-extensions*, in: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra, in Honor of Yasuo Akizuki, Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 1973, pp. 1-11. Antonio Lei, *Estimating class numbers over metabelian extensions*, Acta Arithmetica 180.4 (2017), 347-364. Guillaume Perbet, *Sur les invariants d’Iwasawa dans les extensions de Lie $p$-adiques*, Algebra and Number Theory 5 (2011), no. 6, 819-848. Otmar Venjakob, *A noncommutative Weierstrass preparation theorem and applications to Iwasawa theory*, J. Reine Angew. Math. 559 (2003), 153-191, With an appendix by Denis Vogel. Otmar Venjakob, *On the structure theory of the Iwasawa algebra of a $p$-adic Lie group*, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 4 (2002), no. 3, 271-311. Lawrence C. Washington, *Introduction to Cyclotomic Fields*, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 83, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
Sohei Tateno\
Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8602, Japan\
E-mail address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The designer approach has become a new paradigm in accessing novel quantum phases of matter. Moreover, the realization of exotic states such as topological insulators, superconductors and quantum spin liquids often poses challenging or even contradictory demands for any single material. For example, it is presently unclear if topological superconductivity, which has been suggested as a key ingredient for topological quantum computing, exists at all in any naturally occurring material. This problem can be circumvented by using designer heterostructures combining different materials, where the desired physics emerges from the engineered interactions between the different components. Here, we employ the designer approach to demonstrate two major breakthroughs – the fabrication of van der Waals (vdW) heterostructures combining 2D ferromagnetism with superconductivity and the observation of 2D topological superconductivity. We use molecular-beam epitaxy (MBE) to grow two-dimensional islands of ferromagnetic chromium tribromide (CrBr$_3$) on superconducting niobium diselenide (NbSe$_2$) and demonstrate the existence of the one-dimensional Majorana edge modes using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and spectroscopy (STS). The fabricated two-dimensional vdW heterostructure provides a high-quality controllable platform for electronic devices harnessing topological superconductivity.'
author:
- Shawulienu Kezilebieke
- Md Nurul Huda
- Viliam Vaňo
- Markus Aapro
- 'Somesh C. Ganguli'
- 'Orlando J. Silveira'
- Szczepan Głodzik
- 'Adam S. Foster'
- Teemu Ojanen
- Peter Liljeroth
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Topological superconductivity in a designer ferromagnet-superconductor van der Waals heterostructure'
---
There has been a surge of interest in designer materials that would realize electronic responses not found in naturally occurring materials [@Geim2013; @Novoselov2016_review; @Cao2018UnconventionalSuperlattices; @Gibertini2019; @Yan2019engineered; @Khajetoorians2019designer; @Lutchyn2018_review]. Topological superconductors are one of the main targets of these efforts and they are currently attracting intense attention due to their potential as building blocks for Majorana-based qubits for topological quantum computation[@Nayak2008; @Sato2017_review; @Lutchyn2018_review]. Majorana zero-energy modes (MZM) have been reported in several different experimental platforms, with the most prominent examples being semiconductor nanowires with strong spin-orbit coupling and ferromagnetic atomic chains proximitized with an s-wave superconductor [@Mourik2012science; @Nadj-Perge2014; @Sato2017_review; @Kim2018; @Lutchyn2018_review; @Liu2019_review; @Jaeck2019]. It is also possible to realize MZMs in vortex cores on a proximitized topological insulator surface[@Fu2008; @Sun2016; @Zhu2020_science] or on FeTe$_{0.55}$Se$_{0.45}$ superconductor surface [@Zhang2018_Science; @Wang2018_Science]. In these cases the MZM were spectroscopically identified as zero energy conductance signals that are localized at the ends of the one dimensional (1D) chain or in the vortex core. In two-dimensional systems, 1D dispersive chiral Majorana fermions are expected to localize near the edge of the system (Fig. \[fig1\]A). For example, it was proposed that the dispersing Majorana states can be created at the edges of an island of magnetic adatoms on the surface of an s-wave superconductor[@Roentynen2015; @Li2016; @Rachel2017]. Experimentally, promising signatures of such 1D chiral Majorana modes have recently been reported around nanoscale magnetic islands either buried below a single atomic layer of Pb[@Menard2017_NatComm], or adsorbed on a Re substrate[@palacio], and in domain walls in FeTe$_{0.55}$Se$_{0.45}$ [@Wang2020_Science]. However, these types of systems can be sensitive to disorder and may require interface engineering through, *e.g.*, the use of an atomically thin separation layer. In addition, it is difficult to incorporate these materials into device structures. These problems can be circumvented in van der Waals (vdW) heterostructures, where the different layers interact only through vdW forces[@Geim2013]. VdW heterostructures naturally allow for very high quality interfaces and a multitude of practical devices have been demonstrated. While vdW materials with a wide range of properties have been discovered, ferromagnetism has been notably absent until recent discoveries of atomically thin Cr$_2$Ge$_2$Te$_6$[@Gong2017_Cr2Ge2Te6], CrI$_3$[@Huang2017_CrI3] and CrBr$_3$[@Ghazaryan2018; @Zhang2019]. The first reports relied on mechanical exfoliation for the sample preparation, but CrBr$_3$[@chen2019direct] and Fe$_3$GeTe$_2$[@Liu2017_Fe3Gete2] have also been grown using molecular-beam epitaxy (MBE) in ultra-high vacuum (UHV). This is essential for realizing clean edges and interfaces.
![**Realization of topological superconductivity in CrBr$_3$-NbSe$_2$ heterostructures.** (**A**) Schematic of the experimental setup. (**B,C**) Schematic of the bandstructure engineering to realize topological superconductivity. Effect of adding spin-orbit interactions and weaker and stronger Zeeman-type magnetization on the low-energy band structure in the normal (B) and superconducting states (C). (**D**) STM image of a monolayer thick CrBr$_3$ island grown on NbSe$_2$ using MBE (STM feedback parameters: $V_\mathrm{bias} = +1$ V, $I$ = 10 pA, scale bar: 10 nm). (**E**) Atomically resolved image on the CrBr$_3$ layer (STM feedback parameters: $V_\mathrm{bias} = +1.7$ V, $I = 0.5$ nA, image size: $19 \times 19$ nm$^2$). (**F**) Calculated structure and the induced spin-polarization from density-functional theory calculations. (**G**) Experimental d$I$/d$V$ spectroscopy on the NbSe$_2$ substrate (blue), the middle of the CrBr$_3$ island (red) and at the edge of the CrBr$_3$ island (green) measured at $T=350$ mK. []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1-ver4.png){width="78.00000%"}
Among the various known vdW materials, the recently discovered monolayer ferromagnet transition metal trihalides combined with transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) superconductors form an ideal platform for realizing 2D topological superconductivity (Fig. \[fig1\]A). Here, we use MBE to grow high-quality monolayer ferromagnet CrBr$_3$ on a NbSe$_2$ superconducting substrate. The mirror symmetry is broken at the interface between the different materials and this lifts the spin degeneracy due to the Rashba effect. Therefore, we have all the necessary ingredients – magnetism, superconductivity and Rashba spin-orbit coupling – required to realize a designer topological superconductor [@Sato2009_PRB; @Sau2010_PRL]. We demonstrate the existence of the one-dimensional Majorana edge modes using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and spectroscopy (STS). Realizing topological superconductivity in a van der Waals heterostructure has significant advantages compared to the other possible platforms: vdW heterostructures can potentially be manufactured by simple mechanical exfoliation, the interfaces are naturally very uniform and of high quality, and the structures can be straightforwardly integrated in device structures. Finally, layered heterostructures can be readily accessed by a large variety of external stimuli making external control of 2D topological superconductivity potentially possible by electrical[@Jiang2018], mechanical[@Wu2019], chemical[@Jiang2018a], and optical approaches[@Zhang2019].
Pioneering theoretical works [@Sato2009_PRB; @Sau2010_PRL] demonstrated that topological superconductivity may arise from a combination of out-of-plane ferromagnetism, superconductivity and Rashba-type spin-orbit coupling, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\]B,C. In this scheme, the Rashba coupling lifts the spin-degeneracy of the conduction band while Zeeman splitting due to proximity magnetization lifts the remaining Kramers degeneracy. Adding superconductivity creates a particle-hole symmetric band structure and the superconducting pairing opens gaps at the Fermi energy. In our theoretical model for magnetically covered NbSe$_2$, a similar picture arises for the real band structure around any of the high symmetry points of the hexagonal Brillouin zone ($\Gamma$, $\mathrm{K}$, or $\mathrm{M}$) where Rashba coupling vanishes. Depending on the magnitude of the magnetization induced gap $M$ and the position of the Fermi energy $\mu$, the system enters a topological phase when $|\epsilon(\Vec{k_0})-\mu|\leq M$, where $\epsilon(\Vec{k_0})$ is the energy of the band crossing at the high symmetry point in the absence of magnetization. This is due to the created effective $p$-wave pairing symmetry. The power of the designer approach with vdW heterostructures comes from the fact that the different components retain their intrinsic properties allowing for rational design of emergent quantum phases of matter and realizing schemes such as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]B,C.
In Fig. \[fig1\]D, we show a constant-current STM image of the CrBr$_3$ island grown on a freshly cleaved bulk NbSe$_2$ substrate by MBE (details of sample growth and STM experiments are given in the Supplementary Material (SM)). The CrBr$_3$ islands show a well-ordered moiré superstructure with 6.3 nm periodicity arising from the lattice mismatch between the CrBr$_3$ and the NbSe$_2$ layers. Fig. \[fig1\]E shows an atomically resolved STM image of the CrBr$_3$ monolayer, revealing periodically spaced triangular protrusions. These features are formed by the three neighboring Br atoms as highlighted in the Fig. \[fig1\]F (red triangle) showing the fully relaxed geometry of CrBr$_3$/NbSe$_2$ heterostructure obtained through density functional theory (DFT) calculations (see SM for details). The measured in-plane lattice constant is 6.5 Å, consistent with the recent experimental value (6.3 Å) of monolayer CrBr$_3$ grown on graphite [@chen2019direct] and our DFT calculations. As expected for a weakly-interacting vdW heterostructure, DFT calculations further confirm that the CrBr$_3$ monolayer retains its ferromagnetic ordering with a magnetocrystalline anisotropy favouring an out-of-plane spin orientation as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]F. The magnetization density (Fig. \[fig1\]F) shows that the magnetism arises from the partially filled $d$ orbitals of the Cr$^{3+}$ ion. While the largest magnetization density is found close to the Cr atoms, as expected, there is also significant proximity induced magnetization on the Nb atoms in the underlying NbSe$_2$ layer.
This establishes that our system our system has the required key ingredients for topological superconductivity and now we probe the resulting emergent quantum matter with STS measurements at a temperature of $T=350$ mK. Fig. \[fig1\]G shows experimental d$I$/d$V$ spectra (raw data) taken at different locations indicated in Fig. \[fig1\]D (marked by filled circles). The d$I$/d$V$ spectrum of bare NbSe$_2$ has a hard gap with an extended region of zero differential conductance around zero bias, which can be fitted by a double gap s-wave BCS-type spectrum (see SM for details). In contrast, the spectra taken in the middle of the CrBr$_3$ island have small but distinctly non-zero differential conductance inside the gap of the NbSe$_2$ substrate. Moreover, we observe pairs of conductance onsets at $\pm 0.3$ mV around zero bias (red arrows). The magnetization causes the formation of energy bands (dubbed Shiba bands) that exist inside the superconducting gap of the substrate [@Sato2009_PRB; @Sato2017_review]. By introducing spin-orbit interactions (as discussed above), the system can be driven into a topological phase with associated closing and reopening of the gap between the Shiba bands.
We observe edge modes consistent with the expected Majorana modes along the edge of the magnetic island that are the hallmark of 2D topological superconductivity [@Sato2017_review; @Menard2017_NatComm; @palacio]. Moreover, the spectroscopic feature of the Majorana edge mode appears inside the gap defined by the Shiba bands (the topological gap) and is centred around the Fermi level ($E_\mathrm{F}$). A typical spectrum taken at the edge of the CrBr$_3$ island is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]G, where a peak localized at $E_\mathrm{F}$ is clearly seen. Furthermore, there are two side peaks located at $\pm 0.41$ mV (see SM for a more detailed analysis) that are very close in energy to the Shiba bands on the CrBr$_3$ layer.
![**Electronic structure of CrBr$_3$-NbSe$_2$ heterostructures.** (**A**) The band structure of the spin-split Nb $d$-band used in the effective model for topological superconductivity with magnetization $M=100$ meV. The inset shows the 1$^\mathrm{st}$ Brillouin zone, where the six M-points and the Rashba texture around them has been highlighted. (**B**) Calculated phase diagram of the magnetized NbSe$_2$ based on the effective low-energy model. The color scale indicates the energy gap $E_\mathrm{gap}$ (in the units of $\Delta$). (**C**) The calculated topological gap $\Delta_t$ as a function of the Rashba and magnetization energies (in units of the superconducting gap $\Delta$). (**D**) Calculated band structure of the topological phase based on a phenomenological tight-binding model (see SM for details).[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2-latest.png){width="90.00000%"}
To account for the experimental observations and to corroborate the topological nature of the edge modes, we model the system through DFT calculations and develop an effective low-energy model for the system (see SM for details). The band structure of the Nb $d$-states derived band used in the effective model is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]A (direct comparison with DFT is shown in the SM). Topological superconductivity can be generated when magnetization is sufficiently strong to push one of the spin-degenerate bands at a high-symmetry point above the Fermi energy. We identify the observed topological phase as a state arising from the gap-closing transition at M point with a Chern number $C=3$. The calculated topological phase diagram in Fig. \[fig2\]B indicates that for a reasonable magnetization of $M\lesssim100$ meV, the $C=3$ state lies approximately 100-200 meV below the Fermi energy of pristine NbSe$_2$. Thus, a small renormalization of the chemical potential resulting from the contact with the magnetic material will drive the system to the topological phase. The two other nontrivial phases that originate from gap closings at the $\Gamma$ point and $K$ points give rise to topological phases with $C=-1$ and $C=-2$. Realization of either of these phases would require notably larger shifts in chemical potential ($\sim 0.6$ eV), making them improbable for the experimental observations. The absolute values of the nontrivial Chern numbers can be understood by a three-fold rotational symmetry (see SM).
The key quantity characterizing robustness of the nontrivial phase is the topological energy gap $\Delta_t$. This scale should be much larger than temperature for the state to be observable in experiment. In the simple parabolic band model this quantity can be estimated by $\Delta_t=\alpha k_F/[(\alpha k_F)^2+M^2]^{1/2}$, where $\alpha$ is the Rashba coupling and $k_F$ the Fermi wavelength [@Alicea2010_PRB]. The calculated gap based on our more realistic tight-binding (TB) model is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]C. Based on the experimental results shown in Fig. \[fig1\]G, the topological gap is $\Delta_t\approx0.3\Delta$. The calculated band structure in a strip geometry corresponding to the experimental gap is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]D, where we see the Majorana edge modes crossing the topological gap. The edge modes are seen to coexist with the bulk states in a finite subgap energy window in agreement with experimental observations.
![**Spatially resolved spectroscopy of the Majorana zero modes.** (**A**) d$I$/d$V$ spectroscopy over the edge of the CrBr$_3$ island (STM topography shown on the top). (**B-G**) STM topography and spatially resolved LDOS maps extracted from grid spectroscopy experiments. STM feedback parameters: (A) $V_\mathrm{bias} = +1$ V, $I = 10$ pA; (B) $V_\mathrm{bias} = +0.8$ V, $I = 10$ pA. Scale bars: (A) 4 nm; (B) 12 nm. (**H-N**) Corresponding calculated linespectra (H) and LDOS maps (J-N) with the island shape shown in (I) (see SM for details). []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig32.png){width="95.00000%"}
To further elucidate the properties of the Majorana edge modes, we have carried out spatially resolved d$I$/d$V$ spectroscopy over the edge of the CrBr$_3$ island (Fig. \[fig3\]A). It can be seen that the edge mode is more localized at the edge at zero bias (deeper within the topological gap), but becomes more delocalized at energies closer to the topological gap edge. Moreover, the energy dependence of the main feature of the edge mode LDOS is such that it splits off from the top edge of the topological gap inside the CrBr$_3$ island, smoothly crosses the topological gap and merges with its lower edge outside the CrBr$_3$ island. In order to visualize the evolution of the spatial extension of the Majorana edge modes, we have recorded grid d$I$/d$V$ spectroscopy maps (Fig. \[fig3\]B-G). At $E_\mathrm{F}$, the Majorana edge modes are confined within $\sim2.4$ nm of the edge of the island (see SM). In addition to the edge mode signature close to the Fermi level, there is also enhanced LDOS at the energies similar to size of the topological gap (Fig. \[fig3\]E,F) where we also see significant excitations inside the magnetic island. The theoretically computed LDOS (Fig. \[fig3\]H-N, see SM for details) reproduces the essential features of the experimental results and shows exponential localization of Majorana edge modes at the edge of the island at subgap energies. In particular, we confirm the experimental finding that the distribution of the spectral weight of the edge mode along the edge (excluding the regular moiré pattern) should be non-uniform. This stems from the geometric irregularities of the island boundary with characteristic length scale that is comparable to the edge mode penetration depth. However, this does not imply the edge modes are discontinuous along the edge. It simply means that the interference effects near edge irregularities suppress the visibility of the edge mode due to finite experimental resolution. The simulations also reproduce the slightly dispersing peaked LDOS across the island edge, and the enhanced LDOS at the islands edges at and above the topological gap edge.
It is conceivable that the experimentally observed edge modes could possess a topologically trivial origin, unrelated to the existence of a topological superconducting state. However, in addition to the near quantitative match with the theoretical results incorporating the main ingredients of the experimental system, the edge mode signature is experimentally very robust. We consistently observe it in our hybrid vdW heterostructures on all CrBr$_3$ islands, irrespective of their specific size and shape (see SM for more examples). To prove the observed edge modes of the hybrid heterostructures are strongly linked to the superconductivity of the NbSe$_2$ substrate, we have carried out experiments in magnetic fields up to 4 T, suppressing superconductivity in the NbSe$_2$ substrate. All features associated with the gap at the center of the island and the edge modes disappear in the absence of superconductivity in NbSe$_2$ (see SM for details). This rules out trivial edge modes as the cause of the observed results. Another non-topological reason for resonances close to the Fermi energy, the Kondo effect, should also be present in the normal state and can hence be ruled out as well.
In conclusion, our work constitutes two breakthroughs in designer quantum materials. By fabricating vdW heterostructures with 2D ferromagnet epitaxially coupled to superconducting NbSe$_2$, we obtained a near ideal designer structure exhibiting two competing electronic orders. The induced magnetization and spin-orbit coupling renders the superconductor topologically nontrivial, supporting Majorana edge channels which we characterized by STM and STS measurements. The demonstrated heterostructure provides a high-quality platform for electrical devices employing topological superconductivity. This is an essential step towards practical devices employing topological superconductivity and the demonstrated system would in principle allow electrical control of the topological phase through electrostatic tuning of the chemical potential.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research made use of the Aalto Nanomicroscopy Center (Aalto NMC) facilities and was supported by the European Research Council (ERC-2017-AdG no. 788185 “Artificial Designer Materials”), Academy of Finland (Academy professor funding no. 318995 and 320555, and Academy postdoctoral researcher no. 309975), and the Aalto University Centre for Quantum Engineering (Aalto CQE). SG acknowledges the support of National Science Centre (NCN, Poland) under grant 2017/27/N/ST3/01762. Computing resources from the Aalto Science-IT project and CSC, Helsinki are gratefully acknowledged. ASF has been supported by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT, Japan.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Starting with the S-wave radial equation for an attractive central potential $ V(r)$, we give results for the n(principal quantum number) and the $\mu$ (reduced mass) dependence of $R_{n0}(0)$, the S-wave radial waveunction at the origin, for potentials with definite curvature.'
author:
- |
Virendra Gupta[^1]\
Departamento de Física Aplicada, CINVESTAV-Unidad Mérida,\
A.P. 73 Cordemex 97310 Mérida, Yucatán, México
title: 'Some results for the wave function at the origin for S-wave levels.'
---
Introduction
============
Discovery of quark-antiquark atoms like charmonium in 1974 led to general investigations[@quigg] of the Schrödinger equation with a central potential $V(r)$ representing the $q\bar{q}$-potential. The motivation was to obtain results based on general properties of $V(r)$ like its shape, since its precise form was then (and still is) unknown.
Some results were obtained for the S-wave ($\ell=0$) bound state radial wave function $ R_{n0}(r)$ [@martin]. Specifically, it was shown that $ R_{20}(0)$ is larger (smaller) than $ R_{10}(0)$ provided $V(r)$ was everywhere convex, $V''(r)>0$ (concave, $V''(r)<0)$. Prime denotes derivative with respect to r. The variation of $ R_{10}(0)$ with the reduced mass $\mu$ was also related to the curvature of the potential. This was directly proved from the radial equation for $n=1$ [@rosner]. Both types of results mentioned above were proved for large n using the WKB approximation [@VG1].
In this note we show that both types of results follow directly from the S-wave radial Schrödinger equation for all n. For notational simplicity, define $$S_n(0) =[ R_{n0}(0)]^2.$$ We will prove that for $n=1,2,\ldots$ ,
\(a) if $V'(r)>0$ and $ V''(r)=0$ for all $ r$ then $$S_n(0) - S_{n+1}(0) =0 \quad\text{and}\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}\left[\frac{1}{\mu}S_n(0)\right]=0;$$ (b) if $V'(r)>0$ and $V''(r)<0$ for all $r$ and $V'(\infty)$ is finite then $$S_n(0) - S_{n+1}(0)>0 \quad\text{and}\quad \frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}\left[\frac{1}{\mu}
S_n(0)\right]> 0;$$ (c) if $V'(r)>0$ and $ V''(r)>0$ for all $r$ and $V'(0)$ is finite then $$S_n(0) - S_{n+1}(0)<0 \quad\text{and}\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}\left[\frac{1}{\mu}S_n(0)\right]<0.$$ Case (a) corresponds to an attractive linear potential. This case is exactly solvable. Indeed, there are well known exactly solvable examples for the concave (Coulomb potential) and convex (harmonic oscillator) cases which satisfy the above inequalities. Explicit solutions of convex power law potentials $r^k$ with $k>1$ and the concave $\log(r)$ potential satisfy the above inequalities [@HJW]. With all this evidence at hand we believe that the above inequalities are really theorems. In the next section we present a result for non-zero $\ell$ followed by our arguments for the S-wave results. The concluding section contains some discussion.
Proof of the results
====================
The radial equation, for a two-body system with reduced mass $\mu$ in an attractive central potetial $V(r)$ for $u_{n\ell}(r) =r R_{n\ell}(r)$ is
$$-H u''_{n\ell}(r)+[W_\ell(r)-E_n]u_{n\ell}(r)=0,$$
where $$H= \frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}$$ and $$W_\ell(r)=V(r) + H \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2} .$$ The radial wavefunction $R_{n\ell}(r)$ for energy $E_n$ is real so its modulus square is the same as its square. Consequently, the inequalities in the introduction are usually stated for the modulus square. The energy of the bound state increases with principal quantum number, $n$, thus $E_1<E_2 <E_3 \ldots$ . The potential obeys the standard restrictions, namely, $\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} r^2 V(r)=0$. Also, recall that $R_{n\ell}(r)$ behaves as $ r^{\ell}$ as $r$ tends to zero. For an attractive force, the asymptotic behaviour ($r\rightarrow\infty$) of the radial wavefunction $ u(r)$ will be like $\exp(-ar)$, $a>0$.
Multiply the radial equation by $u'_{n\ell}$ and integrate from zero to infinity. The term with $E_n$ gives zero. One integration by parts gives $$H [u'{_{n\ell}(0)}]^2\delta_{\ell0} ={ \int_0^\infty}
W'_{\ell}(r)u^2_{n\ell}(r)dr.$$ The term $W_\ell(r)u^2_{n\ell}(r)$ from the partial integration does not contribute. This is obvious for the upper limit $ r=\infty$. One has to be careful at the lower limit $r=0$. However, since $V(r)$ is less singular than $r^{-2}$ and $u^2_{n\ell}(r)\sim r^{2(\ell+1)}$ as $r\rightarrow 0$, the lower limit also does not contribute. All this is well known. Before specialising to S-wave it is interesting to consider the above equation for non-zero $\ell$.
Result for non-zero $\ell$
--------------------------
In this case, since the l.h.s. of Eq(8) is zero, the equation simply says that the expectation value of the effective force $W'_{\ell}(r)$ is zero. Alternatively, it implies that the expectation value of $ V'(r)$ for a general potential is related to that of $r^{-3}$. Explicitly, $$\langle V'(r)\rangle_{n\ell} =
2H \ell(\ell+1)\left \langle\frac{1}{r^3}\right\rangle_{n\ell}.$$ This general result (probably known personally to many [@VG2]) deserves to be better known. It is is very useful. For example, for a Coulomb potential it immediately gives the correct relation between the expectation values of $r^{-2}$ and $r^{-3}$.
$S$-wave relations
------------------
For $\ell=0$, Eq(8) reduces to $$H S_n(0) = {\int_0^\infty} V'(r) u^2_{n0}(r)dr
= \langle V'(r)\rangle_{n0}.$$ This is a well-known result and provides the basis for the arguments leading to the proof of the results given in the introduction.
Case (a): $V''(r) =0 $ for all r.
This is the case of the attractive linear potential $Vr) = \lambda r$. So, $V'(r)=\lambda$ is positive for all $r$. In this case, Eq.(10) reduces to simply $$H S_n(0)=\lambda,$$ since $u_{n0}(r)$ is normalized, that is $$\int_0^\infty u^2_{n0}(r)dr= 1.$$ Thus, in this case $HS_n(0)$ is a constant(the potential strength) independent of $\mu$ or $n$ as required. It is well known that the linear potential is exactly solvable in terms of Airy functions. The above relation for $HS_n(0)$ has been noted earlier using the explicit solutions [@Bose].
Case(b). $V''(r)<0$ and $V'(r)>0$ for all r, with $V'(\infty)$ finite.
A well-known exactly solvable example of this case is the Coulomb potential. Perform an integration by parts in Eq(10) to obtain $$HS_n(0)=V'(\infty) -{\int_0^\infty}V''(r)f_{n0}(r)dr,$$ where $$f_{n0}(r)={\int_0^r}u_{n0}^2(r)dr.$$ Note that $ f_{n0}(\infty)=1$ because the radial wavefunction is normalized . The term $ V'(r)f_{n0}(r)$, from the integration by parts at $r=\infty$, gives $V'(\infty)$ while that at $ r=0$ vanishes. This is because V(r) is less singular than $r^{-2}$ as r tends to 0 while one expects $f_{n0}(r)\sim r^3$ as $ r$ tends to 0 because $u_{n0}^2(r)\sim r^2$. Physically, $f_{n0}(r)$ represents the probability of finding the particle (two-body system) between 0 and $r$. As $n$ increases the energy $E_n$ of the state increases. For a *single* well potential, the classical turning point $E_n =V(r)$ will be at a larger value of $r$ as $n$ or energy increases (keep in mind the Coulomb potential). So, one expects $f_{n0}(r)$ to be larger than $f_{m0}(r)$ for $n<m$ for small $r$. Asymptotically, the states with larger energy may have a longer tail (true for the Coulomb case) with the result $ f_{n0}(r)-f_{m0}(r)$ is negative for large $r$ for $n<m$. However, the large $r$ contribution will be damped out since for concave potential $V''(r)$ decreases asymptotically. In fact, for power law potentials $r^k$ with $1>k> -2$ with $V'(r)>0$, $V''(r)$ goes to zero as $r$ tends to infinity and goes to infinity as $r$ tends to zero. Given the above physical reasoning, we expect that $$H[ S_n(0)-S_m(0)]= -{\int_0^\infty}V''(r)[ f_{n0}(r)-f_{m0}(r)]dr >0$$ for $n<m$ if $V''(r)<0$ for all $r$. This gives the first inequality in Eq(3).
For the variation with respect to the reduced mass, we note that with incresing $\mu$, the system will shrink in size. So, physically one expects that $f_{n0}(r)$ will increase, that is, $[\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}[f_{n0}(r)] >0$ [@F1]. Thus, taking the derivative w.r.t. $\mu$ of Eq(13 ), since $V'(\infty)$ is a constant, gives the second inequality in Eq(3).
Case(c). $V''(r)>0$ and $V'(r)>0 $ for all $ r$, with $ V'(0)$ finite.
An exactly solvable example for this case is harmonic oscillator potential $r^2$. In this case we perform a slightly different integration by parts in Eq(10) to obtain $$H S_n(0)= V'(0) + {\int_0^\infty}V''(r) g_{n0}(r)dr.$$ where $$g_{n0}(r)={\int_r^\infty}u_{n0}^2(r)dr=1-f_{n0}(r).$$ The term $ V'(r) g_{n0}(r)$, from the integration by parts, gives $ V'(0)$ for $ r=0$. For the upper limit $r\rightarrow\infty$ it vanishes because $u_{n0}(r)$ represents a bound state. From the above two equations we obtain $$H [S_n(0)-S_m(0)]={\int_0^\infty}V''(r)[g_{n0}(r)-g_{m0}(r)]dr$$ Now, as $n$ or $ E_n$ increases, $g_{n0}(r)$ will increase so for a convex potential $V''(r)>0 $ for all $r$, $[S_n(0)-S_m(0)]>0$ for $n>m$. For the variation with respect to the reduced mass $\mu$, we obtain $$\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}\left(\frac{1}{\mu}S_n(0)\right)<0,$$ since the variation with $\mu$ of $g_{n0}(r)$ is opposite in sign to that of $f_{n0}(r)$. This concludes the proof of the S-wave results given in the introduction.
A justification for the behaviour of $f_{n0}(r)$ or $g_{n0}(r)$ w.r.t. $n$ required above, in Eq(15) and Eq(18), for our proof is provided by the Virial theorem. For S-wave levels,it states $$E_{n0} = \langle U(r)\rangle_{n0}, U(r)=V(r)+\frac{1}{2}rV'(r).$$ So, if $ U(\infty)$ is finite,then an integration by parts gives [@F1] $$-[ E_{n0} -E_{m0}]={\int_0^\infty}U'(r)[ f_{n0}(r)-f_{m0}(r)]dr >0.$$ For $n<m$, the l.h.s. is always positive, it implies that the integral is always positive. If $U'(r) >0$ for all $r$ , one can physically understand the positivity of the integral because of the expected behavior of $f_{n0}(r)$ discussed prior to Eq(15).
For example, general power law potentials $V(r)=-|\lambda|r^{\alpha}$ with $-2<\alpha<0$ (which includes the Coulomb potential) satisfy all the conditons required for Case(b) and Eq(21).For these potentials the energy $E_{n0}$ is always negative.Furthermore,the behaviour of $U'(r)\sim r^{\alpha -1}$ is milder than that of $(-V''(r)\sim r^{\alpha -2}$ because of the extra derivative in the latter.In fact,$[(-rV'')-U']=\frac{3}{2}|\lambda\alpha| r^{\alpha-1}$ which is positive for all $r$.Thus,the positivity of the integral in Eq(21) implies the posivity of the integal in Eq(15) for $(-V''(r)>0$ for all $r$.
Guided by the above discussion,for Case(b) the already stated conditions on the potential,perhaps need to be supplemented with the conditions $U(\infty)$ finite and $U'(r)>0$ for all $r$.
For potentials with $U(0)$ finite, an integration by parts of Eq(20) will give $$-[ E_{n0} -E_{m0}]= -{\int_0^\infty}U'(r)[ g_{n0}(r)-g_{m0}(r)]dr >0,$$ for $n<m$.Thus,if $U'(r)>0$ for all $r$, the integral will be negative since $ g_{n0}(r)$ increases with $n$ as noted earlier.
For example, power law potentials $V(r)=|\lambda|r^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1$, with all $E_{n0} >0$, satisfy all the conditions needed for Eq(18) and Eq(22). Perhaps,for Case(c) we should require the potential to satsfy additional condtions , namely $U(0)$ finite with $U'(r)>0$ for all $r$.
Even if the general condtions on the potential have to be supplemented(as per the above discussion) for the cases (b) and (c),the fact remains that the proof of the inequalities is for all $n$ for a general class of potentials.
Concluding remarks
==================
The proofs of the S-wave results presented above are not highly mathematical but rely on the physical meaning of the quantities involved and how they are expected to change physically with energy of the bound state (or $n$) and the reduced mass $\mu$. All known soluble examples of ttractive potentials with curvature of the same sign for all $r$ support the results given in the introduction. Such potentials imply that the bound states lie in a single potential well. This is important for the physical arguments presented here. A potential with more than a single well cannot possbly have cuvature of the same sign everywhere. There are lot of solvable potentials for S-waves [@GP] without definite curvature for which the results given in the introduction may or may not hold. It would be an interesting challenge to find a counter example to the inequalities presented in the introduction.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank Antonio Bouzas and Andrés G. Saravia for discussions and help.
[9]{} C.Quigg and J.L.Rosner, ”Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Quarkonium”, Physics Reports, **56**,167(1979). This is a compendium of many interesting and instructive results. A. Martin, Phys. Lett. **70 B**, 192,(1977). For related work see A. Martin, Phys. Lett. **67 B**,330(1977) and H.Grosse, **68 B**, 343 (1977) and references therein. J.L.Rosner, C.Quigg and H.B.Thacker,Phys.Lett**74 B**,350(1978) V.Gupta and R.Rajaraman,Phys.Rev.**D19**,697(1978). H.J.W.Müller-Kirsten and S.K.Bose J.Math.Phys. **20**, 2471(1979) and references therein. V.Gupta and A.Khare,unpublished(1977). It is mentioned for $\ell=1$ in A.Khare, Nucl. Phys.**B 152**,533(1979). S.K.Bose, A.Jabs and H.J.W.Müller-Kirsten Phys.Rev.**D 13**,1489(1976) and references therein. For an explicit proof for power law and lograthmic potentials see section 3 of reference [@quigg]. A. Galindo and P.Pascual,Quantum Mechanics,Vol.1,p.254 (1990), English edition, Springer-Verlag
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study a rotating two-component Bose-Einstein condensate in which an optically induced Josephson coupling allows for population transfer between the two species. In a regime where separation of species is favored, the ground state of the rotating system displays domain walls with velocity fields normal to them. Such a configuration looks like a vortex split into two halves, with atoms circulating around the vortex and changing their internal state as they cross the domain wall.'
author:
- 'Juan J.'
- Fernando Sols
- 'Víctor M.'
title: 'Split vortices in optically coupled Bose-Einstein condensates'
---
Vortex formation is generally viewed as an unequivocal signature of superfluid motion in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates. Both in one- and two-component systems, a number of vortex-like structures have been created and observed [@JILA; @vortex-exp] that confirm theoretical predictions [@vortex-theo; @freqs; @asym]. The Josephson effect between two weakly coupled condensates is another paradigm of superfluid transport that so far has received less attention [@JILA2; @Yale; @sols99]. In this article, we present a combined study of these two fundamental properties of superfluid systems: vortex and Josephson dynamics. We study the ground state properties of a rotating double condensate system in which the combined role of vortex formation and optical coupling between two different hyperfine states gives rise to a rich physical behavior.
A crucial consequence of the internal Josephson coupling is the generation of an [*effective attraction*]{} between both atomic species due to the energy that atoms gain by choosing a symmetric mixture of the coupled internal states. Therefore, the most interesting physics is reached by combining this coupling with setups that otherwise favor species separation, such as a particular combination of atomic scattering lengths [@phase-separation; @walls] or a separation of the respective confining potentials [@JILA1]. In this type of setups we find that the effective attraction due to the optical coupling causes an increase in the thickness of the domain wall where the two components physically overlap. More important is the fact that, if we add rotation to a Josephson coupled condensate with separate domains, atoms can use the domain wall to mutate their internal state and shift between components in a continous way. Combining this persistent current in the inner space with a persistent current in real space, the double condensate may now easily create a vortex core for each component in the region where that component has a low density. Even for otherwise small values of the Josephson coupling, these [*split vortices*]{} support a net mass flow comparable to that of conventional vortices. The formation of these novel structures is less costly in terms of angular speed because the vortex of a given component is formed not within its own domain but in the opposite one, where its superfluid density is low and the cost in kinetic energy is therefore small.
To study this type of vortex structure, we analyze first a rotating two-component condensate without optical coupling (i.e. with impenetrable domain walls) and show that its behavior is essentially that of a one-component system with a displaced axis of rotation. Then we show that vortex formation is strongly inhibited because of the ability of the system to gain angular momentum by merely distancing itself from the rotation axis. The picture changes qualitatively when a Raman coupling is introduced to permit coherent hopping between the two internal states. Because the flow of particles in a given state is no longer a conserved quantity, the circulation lines of a component can cross the domain wall with a concomitant decrease in their supporting superfluid density. This results in a global structure of two asymmetrical vortices where matter is efficiently transported both in real space and within the hyperfine doublet.
*The model.-* In this paper we focus on double condensate systems such as those made of Rb in JILA [@JILA], but this time in rotating traps and with a permanent optical coupling between the species. In the rotating frame of reference [@asym] the Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the condensate wavefunctions read
$$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar\partial_{\tau}\Psi_1 &=&
\left[H_1+{\textstyle \sum_j}U_{1j}|\Psi_j|^2\right]\Psi_1 -
{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
\hbar \Omega_R \Psi_2,\\
i\hbar\partial_{\tau}\Psi_2 &=&
\left[H_2+{\textstyle \sum_j}U_{2j}|\Psi_j|^2\right]\Psi_2 -
{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}} \hbar \Omega_R \Psi_1.\end{aligned}$$
Here $H_j$ correspond to the non-interacting Hamiltonians $H_{1,2}
= -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta + V({\bf r}-{\bf r}_{1,2}) - \hbar
\Omega L_z + \hbar\bar\delta_{1,2}$, where $V({\bf r}) =
\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2r^2$ is the trapping potential, ${\bf r}_j$ is the center of the trap for component $j$, and $\Omega$ is the angular speed. The mutual interactions $U_{ij}=4\pi\hbar^2a_{ij}/m$, are proportional to the $s$-wave scattering lengths $a_{ij}$. The last term in each equation models an optical coupling between species. This is a Josephson-type coupling that allows atoms to change their internal state. Since we focus on stationary configurations, the normalization of each wavefunction is fixed, $N_i = \int |\Psi_i(\mathbf{r})|^2
d\mathbf{r}$. Finally, $\hbar\bar\delta_i$ is a tunable energy splitting in the hyperfine space, which controls the population of each component.
In this paper we restrict our attention to axially symmetric two-dimensional configurations which may describe pancake type traps [@2D]. In such traps the nonlinear parameter is affected by a corrective factor [@asym; @molina] and $N_1$ and $N_2$ are interpreted as effective number of particles. To ease the analysis we introduce dimensionless variables $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{r}/a_0$ and $t = \tau/T$. With this change and $\psi_j(\mathbf{x},t) =
N_j^{-1/2}\Psi_j(\mathbf{r},\tau)$, we write the equations for stationary states
\[gpe\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1\psi_1 &=&
\left[\mathcal{H}_1+\hbox{$\sum_j$}g_{1j}|\psi_j|^2\right]\psi_1 - \lambda \psi_2,\\
\mu_2\psi_2 &=&
\left[\mathcal{H}_2+\hbox{$\sum_j$}g_{2j}|\psi_j|^2\right]\psi_2 -
\lambda \psi_1,\end{aligned}$$
with rescaled Hamiltonians $$\label{ham2}
\mathcal{H}_{1,2} = {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\left[-\Delta
+(x - x_{1,2})^2 + y^2\right] + i\Omega
\left(x\partial_y - y\partial_x\right).$$ In Eq. (\[gpe\]) the splittings $\bar\delta_i$ are included in the chemical potentials. The parameter $\lambda=2\Omega_R/\omega$ measures the intensity of the optical coupling. Although it is widely tunable, in our work it will be spatially uniform and at most of order unity. We have solved numerically Eq. (\[gpe\]), looking for the solutions that have lower energy, the so called ground states. Each of such solutions represent a stable, experimentally realizable configuration.
We will consider two different scenarios in which the double condensate exhibits domain walls, and which give qualitatively similar results. The first case, which we call “setup B”, corresponds to a situation in which $g_{11}=g_{22}=N, g_{12}=2N,$ with a choice of $N=38$. In this case the inequality $g_{12}^2>g_{11}g_{22}$ is satisfied and the domains form spontaneously [@walls] with no need for trap separation nor splitting, i. e. $x_{1,2} = 0$, $\mu_1=\mu_2$.
The second and most important scenario, which we call “setup A" corresponds to the case of $^{87}$Rb [@JILA] with parameter values $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} g_{11} & g_{12} \\
g_{21} & g_{22} \end{smallmatrix}\right) = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 &
0.94 \\ 0.94 & 0.97
\end{smallmatrix}\right) \times \alpha N$ (i.e. $N_1=N_2=N$), and a typical effective value of $N=100$. This type of condensates has been studied in many previous experimental and theoretical works. For $^{87}$Rb, the inequality mentioned above is close to saturation [@walls] and a separation $x_1=-x_2=1$ ensures the formation of two different domains. The external splitting takes small values, $\mu_1-\mu_2\leq 0.01$, and it does not influence the results.
*Rotation without Josephson coupling.-* Here we consider the case $\lambda=0$. The existence of domain walls implies that the motion of species is spatially constrained. Therefore, if we impose some angular speed to the traps containing the condensates, each cloud tends to slip tangentially to the domain wall. The density distribution is similar to the case without rotation, but now, due to the centrifugal force, the species separate a little and gain linear speed. Together with the deformation of the clouds, this mechanism permits the acquisition of a large amount of angular momentum without generating vortices \[Fig. \[fig-domains\](d)\], which only form at very high $\Omega$.
In Fig. \[fig-domains\](a) we show the ground state of the rotating double condensate system for $\lambda=0$, showing a structure of domain walls that persists in the presence of rotation and prevents the formation of vortices, as revealed by the phase and circulation patterns of Fig. \[fig-domains\](b). From Fig. \[fig-domains\](c) it is evident that the both the mutual repulsion and the rotation of the trap increase the separation among species. The flow pattern presents a curvature which is too small \[Fig. \[fig-domains\](b)\], and the gain of angular momentum \[Fig. \[fig-domains\](d)\] is due instead to the displacement of the condensate away from the origin.
To get a deeper understanding of this configuration it is useful to study the off-axis rotation of a single component condensate. It experiences a potential $V({\bf x},t) = \frac{1}{2}({\bf x}-{\bf r}_0(t))A(t)({\bf x}-{\bf r}_0(t))$ with $A(t)$ and $\mathbf{r}_0(t)$ rotating at speed $\Omega$ around a displaced axis, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:rot-trap\]. Thanks to a particular symmetry of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with harmonic potential [@us-pre], any solution can be written as $$\label{solution}
\psi({\bf x},t) = \phi({\bf x}-{\bf u},t) e^{im\dot{\bf u}\cdot {\bf x}/\hbar + f(t)}$$ where $\phi({\bf x}-{\bf u})$ is centered on the center of mass $\mathbf{u}$ and satisfies the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (\[gpe\]) for ${\bf r}_0=0$. In the case of radially symmetric traps, $A=\omega^2$, we find $(1-\Omega^2/\omega^2){\bf u}={\bf
r}_0$. This tells us that the behavior of a condensate in an off-axis rotating trap is qualitatively similar to that of a condensate in a centered trap: Vortices nucleate at similar angular speeds and they all appear inside the condensed cloud. The difference is that now the condensate has an additional source of angular momentum due to its displacement with respect to the origin, $L_z \propto \Omega |u|^2$.
These arguments, which are rigorous for the single condensate system, may be extended to the two-component condensate case where the overlap between clouds is small, meaning that vortices should appear in the center of the corresponding clouds even when the trap centers are displaced with respect to the axis of rotation.
*Role of Josephson coupling.-* In order to explain the role of Josephson coupling let us first consider situation A. It is easy to show that the Josephson terms favor energetically the mixing of both species. In the limit of strong coupling, they coexist in space even when their traps are separated. This is most intuitively appreciated by inspecting the energy functional associated to Eq. (\[gpe\])
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{energy}
E[\psi_1,\psi_2] & = & \int \left[ \bar\psi_1 \mathcal{H}_1 \psi_1 + \bar\psi_2 \mathcal{H}_2
\psi_2\nonumber \right] \\
&+& \int \left[ \sum_{i,j =1,2} g_{ij} |\psi_j |^2 |\psi_i |^2
- \lambda \mathrm{Re}\left(\bar\psi_1 \psi_2\right) \right].\end{aligned}$$
The coupling term by itself is minimized with a solution such that $\arg\psi_1=\arg\psi_2$. The analogy with the off-axis rotation of a single condensate \[see Eq. (\[solution\])\] suggests the variational wavefunction
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1(x,y) &\propto& e^{-(x-u)^2/2-y^2/2} e^{iv y},\\
\psi_2(x,y) &\propto& e^{-(x+u)^2/2-y^2/2} e^{-iv y}.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting this ansatz into Eq. (\[energy\]) one gets an effective energy $$\label{energy-variational}
E \sim {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(u-d)^2 + {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}v^2
+ \Omega u v - \lambda e^{-u^2} + g_{12}Ce^{-2u^2},$$ where $C$ is of order unity. Minimization with respect to the velocity $v$ leads to $v=-\Omega u$, and thus $\Omega$ favors separation. More importantly, it is clear from (\[energy-variational\]) that $\lambda$ effectively decreases the repulsion between condensates. Thus, the separation $u$ decreases with the strength of the optical coupling and becomes zero for a strong enough value of the Josephson coupling, $\lambda_c$. Both the repulsive interaction among bosons and the rotation of the trap, tend to inhibit mixture of species, thus increasing the value of $\lambda_c$.
*Vortex formation.-* The structure of matter flow in the condensate suffers a drastic trasformation when the Josepson coupling is introduced. From numerical solutions of Eqs. (\[gpe\]) for setups A and B, we see that any nonzero coupling allows the formation of vortices \[Figs. \[fig-cyclotron\](a) and \[fig-lz-3d\]\]. These vortices involve a matter flow which is orthogonal to the wall separating both condensates \[Fig. \[fig-cyclotron\](b)\]. We note that the exact location of both vortex cores depends on the intensity of the coupling \[Fig. \[fig-cyclotron\](d)\].
The mathematical reason for this striking change is that, with a finite value of $\lambda$, the matter flow of each species is no longer conserved. Assuming a divergence free flow, the equation of continuity along the trajectory of a boson becomes $$\frac{\partial|\psi_1|^2}{\partial l}v_1 = -\lambda \mathrm{Re}(\bar\psi_1 \psi_2) =
-\frac{\partial|\psi_2|^2}{\partial l}v_2.$$ Thus, as the current line is closed around the origin, there is an exchange of bosons among components. A typical boson flowing around the origin suffers a transformation from state $|1\rangle$ to $|2\rangle$ and viceversa as it completes a circle.
Physically, there is a fundamental reason why bosons are transferred from one component to the other. For $\lambda = 0$, vortices must lay inside each condensed cloud, due to current conservation. However, for any nonzero coupling, vortices may appear [*outside*]{} the bulk of the clouds, at a variable distance from the origin. Placed at low density regions, the twist of the phase requires less kinetic energy $\int|\psi_i|^2(\nabla\arg\psi_i)^2$ and provides more angular momentum than the mere separation of clouds.
In Figure \[fig-lz-3d\](a-b) we plot the angular momentum per particle as a function of the Josephson coupling and the angular speed. The cliffs on the surface are due to the nucleation of successive vortices. The separation of these vortices from the $x=0$ domain wall decreases very fast with increasing $\lambda$: Fig. \[fig-cyclotron\](d) shows that, already for $\lambda
=0.05$, the vortices become visible. As $\lambda\rightarrow 0^+$ for fixed $\Omega$, vortices disappear continuously moving their core to infinity. To create vortices at $\lambda=0$, one needs to reach a much higher angular speed, $\Omega_c$, comparable to that of single component condensates [@freqs]. The upshot is that the optical coupling permits the formation of split vortices with important mass flow at lower angular velocities.
*Internal Josephson dynamics.-* The Hamiltonian (5) may be written as that of a nonrigid pendulum [@sols99] with an effective interaction energy $E_c=\sum_{ij} g_{ij} \sigma_{ij}
(-1)^{i+j}$, where $\sigma_{ij}\equiv \int |\psi_i|^2 |\psi_j|^2$, and an effective Rabi frequency $\omega_R=\Omega_R s_{12}$, with $s_{12} \equiv \int \bar{\psi_1}\psi_2$. The conclusion is that, for the setups considered here ($\lambda \alt 0.5$), the internal two-state dynamics lies in the collective Josephson regime ($2\omega_R/N \ll E_c \ll N\omega_R/2$), while in the JILA experiment [@JILA2], where no walls are formed, the same dynamics lies in the noninteracting Rabi limit ($E_c \ll
2\omega_R/N$).
This work has been partially supported by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under grants BFM2000-0521 and PB96-0080-C02.
[99]{}
See e.g. A. Svidzinsky, A. L. Fetter, Jour. Phys. B [ **13**]{}, R135 (2001), and references therein.
D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1539 (1998).
.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
There are numerous biological scenarios in which populations of cells migrate in crowded environments. Typical examples include wound healing, cancer growth and embryo development. In these crowded environments cells are able to interact with each other in a variety of ways. These include excluded volume interactions, adhesion, repulsion, cell signalling, pushing and pulling.
One popular way to understand the behaviour of a group of interacting cells is through an agent-based mathematical model. A typical aim of modellers using such representations is to elucidate how the microscopic interactions at the cell-level impact on the macroscopic behaviour of the population. At the very least, such models typically incorporate volume exclusion. The more complex cell-cell interactions listed above have also been incorporated into such models; all apart from cell-cell pulling.
In this paper we consider this under-represented cell-cell interaction, in which an active cell is able to “pull” a nearby neighbour as it moves. We incorporate a variety of potential cell-cell pulling mechanisms into on- and off-lattice agent-based volume exclusion models of cell movement. For each of these agent-based models we derive a continuum partial differential equation which describes the evolution of the cells at a population-level. We study the agreement between the agent-based models and the continuum, population-based models, and compare and contrast a range of agent-based models (accounting for the different pulling mechanisms) with each other. We find generally good agreement between the agent-based models and the corresponding continuum models that worsens as the agent-based models become more complex. Interestingly, we observe that the partial differential equations that we derive differ significantly, depending on whether they were derived from on- or off-lattice agent-based models of pulling. This hints that it is important to employ the appropriate agent-based model when representing pulling cell-cell interactions.
author:
- George Chappelle
- 'Christian A. Yates'
title: Pulling in models of cell migration
---
Introduction
============
Cell migration is an important process in the development and maintenance of multi-cellular organisms. The physical mechanisms by which individual cells propel themselves have been well studied, [@lauffenburger1996cmp; @ridley2003cmi]. The most common such mechanism amongst eukaryotic cells, known as amoeboid movement, is characterised by frequent changes in cell shape resulting in a crawling motion [@van2011acu; @condeelis1977cba].
Recently, interest has turned to understanding the migration of large populations of cells in crowded environments. Such crowded migration is observed in a variety of biological processes, including in embryo development [@kulesa1998ncc; @keller2005cmd], wound healing [@poujade2007cme; @deng2006rma] and cancer growth [@friedl2009ccm]. In such crowded environments cell-cell interactions are inevitable. These interactions come in many forms, from physical exclusion forces [@simpson2010mbc], to chemical signalling [@weijer2004dm], to pushing [@chen2013mcc; @schmidt2010icm], to adhesion [@anguige2009odm; @glazier1993sda; @armstrong2009aac], and even indirect influence through deformations of the extra-cellular matrix [@stetler1993tci]. It is also possible for cells that are not in direct contact to interact over large distances by extending long protrusions called filopodia [@kulesa1998ncc; @kasemeier2005inc].
There is an extensive literature on the subject of modelling cell migration in a wide variety of biological contexts. Most of the models proposed fall into two categories. The first type are continuous, deterministic, partial differential equation (PDE) models which describe the average density of cells at a given location and time [@painter2002vfq; @hillen2008ugp; @keller1971tbc; @keller1971mfc]. The second type of models are discrete, stochastic, agent-based models (ABMs) which explicitly represent each cell as an autonomous agent. The PDE models are usually faster to simulate and are often amenable to mathematical analysis, however they cannot account for the stochastic and agent-based phenomena inherent to some systems. ABMs, on the other hand, are capable of capturing stochastic effects but are more computationally expensive and must be run multiple times to obtain statistics that characterise the process they are modelling. ABMs are also typically harder to analyse mathematically making simulation a necessity.
One of the main challenges in characterising these processes is to understand how the microscopic, agent-based interactions manifest themselves in the macroscopic behaviour of the population of cells. It is often possible to derive a PDE model describing the mean-field behaviour of an ABM by taking the appropriate limits in time and space. Specifically, for the majority of the cell-cell interactions mentioned above, multi-scale mathematical modelling and analysis has been performed in order to link ABMs to population-level models and consequently to provide a better understanding of the attendant biological processes [@deroulers2009mtc; @fernando2010nde; @anguige2009odm; @thompson2012mcm; @yates2015ipe; @penington2011bmm; @simpson2010cip; @simpson2009mss; @treloar2011vjm]. @deroulers2009mtc present ABMs describing a cell adhesion/repulsion mechanism motivated by observations of the behaviour of tumour cells. @fernando2010nde generalises this model to encompass many forms of contact forming, maintaining and breaking mechanisms. @penington2011bmm generalise the interactions even further and to arbitrary dimensions. @yates2015ipe consider an ABM in which cells are able to push other cells out the way. In each of these papers non-linear diffusion equations are derived as the corresponding continuum models. By analysing the resulting PDEs it is possible to better understand population-level characteristics of the original ABMs. However, it should be noted that the mean-field continuum models are generally an approximation to the population dynamics of the underlying ABM and, as such, should be treated with caution.
The studies cited above all begin with on-lattice ABMs. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the lattice structure may produce unintended artefacts in the population-level behaviour [@flache2001dig; @wolfram1986caf], including, most noticeably, anisotropy. Some recent studies have therefore considered off-lattice ABMs in which cells are able to move on a continuous domain [@dyson2012mli; @dyson2014ive; @yates2015ipe]. These off-lattice models are typically more computationally intensive to simulate and the range of scenarios for which corresponding mean-field continuum models can be derived is also generally more limited.
An important cell-cell interaction which has been overlooked in the modelling literature is one which we refer to as cell-cell pulling. This phenomena is characterised by an active cell pulling, dragging (or otherwise causing to follow) another cell behind it as it moves. It has often been observed in populations undergoing collective cell migration, for example during *Drosophila* oogenesis [@bianco2007tdm], mouse mammary gland development [@ewald2008cem], zebrafish lateral line development [@ghysen2007llm], wound healing [@poujade2007cme; @gov2007ccm] and cancer growth [@khalil2010dlc].
In order to address this relatively neglected area of mathematical modelling we devise and study both on- and off-lattice ABMs of cell-cell pulling. For a range of proposed pulling mechanisms, by taking the diffusive limit of the average occupancy equation, we derive corresponding macroscopic partial differential equations for the population-level behaviour of the cells. We compare the behaviour of these population-level models to that of the ABMs from which they originate and suggest reasons for their agreement or discrepancy. We find that the population-level models derived from either on- and off-lattice ABMs display significantly different characteristics to each other, consistent with findings from previous studies on alternative cell-cell interactions [@yates2015ipe].
In this paper we begin, in Section \[chapter: On lattice Pulling\], by outlining a simple on-lattice ABM of cell-cell pulling and deriving the corresponding mean-field PDE. We compare this basic pulling model with a simple random walk model in order to distinguish the effects of cell-cell pulling. In Section \[section:extensions\_to\_the\_pulling\_paradigm\] we present some extensions to the original pulling model. In particular, we allow multiple agents to be pulled simultaneously, combine models for pushing and pulling and allow cell-cell pulling at a distance. In each case, we derive the corresponding mean-field PDE and compare the average behaviour of the ABMs that of the PDE. In Section \[chapter:Off lattice models\] we formulate some off-lattice models of cell migration which incorporate cell-cell pulling. We derive continuum PDEs from these models and compare their behaviour to the averaged behaviour of the corresponding ABMs. Finally, in Section \[chapter:discussion\] we finish with a discussion of the merits of each of the models we have formulated and by placing the work in context, suggest areas to which this work could be extended.
Simple cell-cell pulling {#chapter: On lattice Pulling}
========================
In this section we begin by presenting the most basic, on-lattice, stochastic, volume excluding ABM for cell migration in subsection \[subsection:individua\_based\_model\]. We then increase the model’s complexity by incorporating a pulling mechanism. We also derive the corresponding deterministic, population-level descriptions in subsection \[sec:Cont\_model\] and compare the two models in subsection \[subsec:Comparison\_with\_pushing\].
On lattice agent-based model {#subsection:individua_based_model}
----------------------------
We initially model cell migration using an on-lattice two-dimensional exclusion process. We refer to the cells as ‘agents’, each of which occupy a single lattice site. A site can be occupied by at most one agent. The lattice sites are square, with length $\Delta$. There are $L_x$ sites along the horizontal and $L_y$ sites in the vertical direction. The occupancy of site $(i,j)$ is unity if the site is occupied and zero otherwise. We initialise $N$ agents on the lattice, the process then evolves in continuous time as follows. We define a parameter $p$ so that the probability that an agent, chosen uniformly at random, attempts to move sites in the time interval $[t,t+dt]$ is given by $pdt$. Once an agent is selected to move it attempts to jump to any of its four neighbouring sites (see Figure \[fig:basic\_ex\_schematic\]) with equal probability. If the chosen site is occupied then the move is aborted. This model is commonly referred to as the simple exclusion process. We use periodic boundary conditions along the horizontal boundaries and reflecting boundary conditions along the vertical boundaries. In this paper we initialise agents in the centre of the domain and set $L_x$ large enough so that the boundary effects at $x=0$ and $x=L_x$ can be ignored. We are therefore effectively modelling cell migration on the surface of a long thin cylinder.
The simplest case of cell-cell pulling (see Figure \[fig:pulling\_schematic\]) works by adapting the simple exclusion process model as follows. Suppose an agent moves rightwards from site $(i,j)$ to site $(i+1,j)$. If there is an agent in site $(i-1,j)$ then this agent is pulled into site $(i,j)$ with probability $w$. Otherwise, if there is no agent in site $(i-1,j)$ then movement proceeds as in the simple exclusion process. An analogous mechanism applies to agents moving leftwards, upwards and downwards.
In Figure \[fig:comparison\_pulling\_vs\_non\_pulling\] we present some snapshots of lattice occupancy with and without pulling. The initial high density region of agents disperses more quickly in the pulling case. Pulling allows two agents to move at once, so one effect of pulling is to increase the total rate of movement across all the agents. In high density clusters of agents, most of the possible moves are away from the cluster. Therefore pulling has the observed effect of causing high density regions of agents to disperse more quickly However, we see that the difference between the two cases is less clear as the agents spread out. This is expected because in low density regions it is less likely that two agents will be adjacent, so fewer pulling moves are possible and its influence is diminished.
In the next section we derive partial differential equations which describe the evolution of the average lattice occupancy. By analysing these equations we can gain some insight into the behaviour observed in Figure \[fig:comparison\_pulling\_vs\_non\_pulling\].
Continuum model for average occupancy {#sec:Cont_model}
-------------------------------------
To derive the corresponding population-level model, which describes the mean occupancy of the lattice over many repeats, we first introduce some notation. Let $C_r(i,j,t)$ be the occupancy of site $(i,j)$ at time $t$ on the $r^{\text{th}}$ run of the simulation. If we run the simulation $R$ times then the average occupancy of site $(i,j)$ at time $t$ across all simulations is given by $$C(i,j,t)=\frac{1}{R}\sum_{r=1}^{R}C_r(i,j,t).$$ Now by considering possible changes of occupancy of site $(i,j)$ in a small period of time, $dt$, we can write down the following mean-occupancy equation for the mean occupancy of site $(i,j)$.
$$\begin{aligned}
&C(i,j,t+dt)-C(i,j,t)=\nonumber \\
&-\frac{p}{4}C(i,j,t)\Big[2(1-C(i+1,j,t))(1-C(i-1,j,t))+2(1-C(i,j+1,t))(1-C(i,j-1,t))\nonumber \\
&+(1-w)\big\{ C(i+1,j,t)(1-C(i-1,j,t))+C(i-1,j,t)(1-C(i+1,j,t))\nonumber \\
&+C(i,j+1,t)(1-C(i,j-1,t))+C(i,j-1,t)(1-C(i,j+1,t))\big\} \nonumber \\
&+w\big\{ C(i+1,j,t)(1-C(i+2,j,t))+C(i-1,j,t)(1-C(i-2,j,t))\nonumber \\
&+C(i,j+1,t)(1-C(i,j+2,t))+C(i,j-1,t)(1-C(i,j-2,t))\big\}\Big]dt\nonumber \\
&+\frac{p}{4}(1-C(i,j,t))\Big[ C(i+1,j,t)+C(i-1,j,t)+C(i,j+1,t)+C(i,j-1,t)\Big]dt.
\label{eq:PMEpull}\end{aligned}$$
There are two mechanisms by which a site can lose occupancy. The first way is that an agent actively moves to a neighbouring site and does not pull an agent along with it. This could be because there is no agent in the pulling position or because there is one in the pulling position but the pull is chosen, with probability $1-w$, to not occur. This is described by the first three lines after the equals sign of equation . The second way a site may lose occupancy is that the agent is pulled out of the site by one of its neighbours, this corresponds to the fourth and fifth line after the equals sign of equation . There is only one mechanism by which a site can gain occupancy and this is represented by the final line in equation . We note here that we have assumed the occupancy of two adjacent sites is independent. The extent to which this assumption is valid has a strong role in determining the agreement between the ABM and the PDE we are about to derive.
To obtain a continuum equation we Taylor expand the appropriate terms in equation to second-order around site $(i,j)$ and take the limit as the site size, $\Delta$, and the time-step, $dt$, tend to zero, while the ratio $\Delta^2/dt$ remains constant. We obtain the following partial differential equation. $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \big[D(1+3wC^2)\nabla C\big]
\label{eq:PDEpull}$$ where $$D=\lim_{\Delta ,dt \rightarrow 0}
\frac{p\Delta^2}{4dt}.$$ With zero-flux boundary conditions at $x=0$ and $x=L_x$ and periodic boundary conditions at $y=0$ and $y=L_y$. We see that the effect of pulling is to enhance the diffusion coefficient with the addition of the term $3wC^2$ resulting in faster dispersion in high density regions. In Figure \[fig:pde\_ex\_pull\] we compare the averaged column density of the ABMs, given by $\bar{C}(i,t)=1/L_y\sum_{j=1}^{L_y}C(i,j,t)$, with the solution of the one-dimensional version of equation obtained by averaging over the $y$-direction both with and without pulling. We see that the agreement between the averaged ABM and the PDE solution is very good and that pulling causes a faster dispersal from the initial high density region.
Comparison with cell pushing {#subsec:Comparison_with_pushing}
----------------------------
In this section we compare the population-level effects of the pulling mechanism presented in this paper to the pushing mechanisms presented by @yates2015ipe. Cell-cell pushing allows active cells to push neighbouring cells out of the way in order to make space for their own moves. In the most basic of the pushing models an agent at position $(i,j)$ which has chosen to move rightward into an occupied site at $(i+1,j)$ can push the agent at $(i+1,j)$ to the right into site $(i+2,j)$, with probability $q$, providing that site is unoccupied. If the site $(i+2,j)$ is occupied then the pushing event is aborted. The mean-occupancy equation for this model is equation in the supplementary material. In Figure \[fig:comparison\_pushing\_vs\_pulling\], we present snapshots of the lattice occupancy at various times.
It is not immediately obvious that these two models will exhibit different behaviours. However we observe in Figure \[fig:comparison\_pushing\_vs\_pulling\] that the pushing mechanism, in which the pushing probability $q$ is maximal, causes agents to spread out marginally more quickly than the pulling mechanism, when the pulling parameter is maximal. We can explain this phenomenon by considering a high density situation (as in the initial conditions). In the pulling model, only the agents on the outside are able to initiate moves, pulling their neighbours with them. While in the pushing model there is an additional layer of agents behind the outer agents who are also able to initiate moves, pushing their outer neighbours with them. This means the average rate of net movement is higher in the pushing case and consequently high density regions of agents disperse more quickly.
@yates2015ipe used the same method to derive a partial differential equation from the mean-occupancy equation for simple pushing. We reproduce the PDE here for comparison. $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \big[D(1+4qC)\nabla C\big]
\label{eq:PDEpush}$$ where $q$ is the pushing probability.
Comparing equations and we observe that that, if the pulling probability, $w$, is equal to the pushing probability, $q$, then the effective diffusion constant of the pulling model, $D(1+3wC^2)$, is always smaller than that of the pushing model, $D(1+4qC)$. Also, the density-dependence of the diffusion coefficient for the pulling model is quadratic, so its effect decreases more rapidly with decreasing density than the density-dependent diffusion coefficient associated with pushing, which is only linear. This is consistent with the behaviour of the ABMs we observed in Figure \[fig:comparison\_pushing\_vs\_pulling\].
The differences in the density-dependencies of the diffusion coefficients between the two models can be understood by considering the two mean-occupancy equations. In the case of pulling the quadratic terms cancel, whereas in the pushing mean-occupancy equation the cubic terms cancel. The cancellation of the cubic terms in the pushing PME can be interpreted as follows. Averaged over many repeats, the probability of an agent being pushed into a previously vacant site is equal to the probability of an agent pushing its way out the site it occupies. We do not have the same symmetry in the pulling case since it is not possible for an agent to be pulled into a previously vacant site. We do however have a different symmetry. In one way the presence of pulling decreases the probability of a site losing occupancy because it increases the probability of an adjacent agent being dragged into the site when the agent initially occupying the site leaves. In another way it increases the probability of a site losing occupancy because an agent may be pulled out of the site. The balance between these mechanisms causes the quadratic terms to cancel.
Extensions to the pulling mechanism {#section:extensions_to_the_pulling_paradigm}
===================================
In this section we present some extensions to the simple pulling model that incorporate more complexity. In subsection \[subsec:multiple\_agents\] we consider two types of pulling in which multiple agents can be moved by a single active agent. We combine simple cell-cell pulling with cell-cell pushing in section \[subsec:pushing\_and\_pulling\] and give cells the ability to pull at a distance in subsection \[subsec:pulling\_distance\]. We draw together all of the on-lattice pulling mechanisms in subsection \[subsection:summary\_of\_pulling\_models\], comparing the macroscopic models they give rise to as well as making direct comparisons between the averaged density of the ABM and the PDE for several of the mechanisms. In subsection \[section:error\_comparison\] we give a more quantitative and dynamic comparison between the averaged ABMs and the solutions to the PDEs we have derived using the histogram distance error (HDE) metric.
Pulling multiple agents {#subsec:multiple_agents}
-----------------------
A natural extension to the simple pulling model is to allow the active agent to pull multiple agents along with it. There are two slightly different ways of implementing a multiple pulling model, we refer to them as type 1 and type 2 multiple pulling. We describe them below.
### Type 1 multiple pulling {#subsec:multiple_agents_type1}
Given that an agent selected to move is in contact with a neighbour in a position which would allow it to be pulled, the type 1 multiple pulling model specifies a constant probability, $w$, that the first agents pulls one or more agents, independent of how many agents could potentially be pulled. For example, consider the case in which we restrict the active agent to pulling at most two agents. We refer to this as the second-order case. Suppose an agent in site $(i,j)$ has been selected to move rightwards to $(i+1,j)$. If there is an agent in site $(i-1,j)$ then a pull occurs with probability $w$. If a pull is to occur, we next decide how many agents will be pulled. If there is no agent in site $(i-2,j)$ then a single agent must be pulled. However, if there is an agent occupying site $(i-2,j)$ (see Figure \[fig:2nd\_order\_pulling\_2\_schematic\]) then a double pull occurs with probability $w_1$ and a single pull occurs with probability $(1-w_1)$. In the second-order case we stop here, but for a third-order pulling model we would continue the process by checking if there is agent in site $(i-3,j)$. If there is, given a double pull has already been chosen then either a triple pull occurs with probability $w_2$ or the agent in site $(i-3,j)$ is ignored with probability $1-w_2$. If a double pull has not been chosen, then a triple pull is not possible, even if a third agent is in the correct position. The parameter $w_1$ can be interpreted as the probability of a double pull occurring given that a pull is happening and that there are agents in the appropriate positions. A natural choice might be to set $w_1=w$, so that the probability of a double move is $w^2$.
The mean-occupancy equation for this model is included as equation (\[SUPP-eq:pulling\_2nd\_1\_PME\]) in the supplementary material. Using the same method as we used to derive equation we obtain the following PDE for second-order type 1 multiple pulling: $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \Big(D\big(1+3w(1-w_1)C^2+8ww_1C^3\big)\nabla C\Big).
\label{eq:PDEpull_2nd_1}$$ We note that the coefficient of the term associated with pairwise movement ($C^2$) is reduced in comparison to the simple pulling PDE. This is because there are now fewer single pulls occurring. We also have a new cubic term, $C^3$, which originates from moving triplets of agents caused by double pull moves.
For general $n^{\text{th}}$-order pulling we need parameters $w,w_1,....,w_{n-1}$. The mean-occupancy equations become very lengthy. The corresponding PDE for $n^{\text{th}}$-order pulling is included in Table \[Table:PDE\_coefficients\].
### Type 2 multiple pulling
There is an alternative way of incorporating multiple agent pulling. To distinguish it from type 1 pulling we again explain a second-order pulling-event. Suppose an agent in site $(i,j)$ is chosen to move rightwards to site $(i+1,j)$. We first check whether there is an agent in site $(i-1,j)$. If there is then we allow a single pull to occur with probability $r_1$. If the single pull is chosen not to occur then we check whether there is an agent in site $(i-2,j)$, if there is then we allow a double pull to occur with probability $r_2$ (see Figure \[fig:2nd\_order\_pulling\_2\_schematic\]). In this scenario, a second-order pulling event can occur only if a first-order pulling event is chosen not to happen.
Again, we include the mean-occupancy equation in the supplementary material. We obtain the following PDE for type 2 second-order pulling. $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \Big(D\big(1+3r_1C^2+8r_2(1-r_1)C^3\big)\nabla C\Big).
\label{eq:PDEpull_2nd_2}$$ This is similar to the type 1 pulling PDE. Indeed, the type 1 and type 2 PDEs are simple re-parameterisations of each other. Interestingly, however, the agent-based models not a simple re-parametrisations of each other since the distribution of first and second-order jumps are different between the two models.
. ![Second-order pulling schematic, illustrates type 1 and type 2 multiple pulling. Agents are shown in blue, vacant sites are black. Sites for which the occupancy is not important are grey. The agent in site $(i,j)$ has been selected to move to the right, and sites $(i-1,j)$ and $(i-2,j)$ are both occupied. There are three possible outcomes indicated by the light green arrows. The probabilities of each outcome under the type 1 and type 2 models are shown on the right. An active move is indicated by a yellow arrow.[]{data-label="fig:2nd_order_pulling_2_schematic"}](./figures/Chapter3/2nd_order_pulling_schematic.eps "fig:"){height="0.4\textheight"}
Combined pushing and pulling {#subsec:pushing_and_pulling}
----------------------------
Another extension we make to the simple pulling model (i.e. first-order pulling only) is to combine it with the simple pushing model presented in @yates2015ipe and described in section \[subsec:Comparison\_with\_pushing\] of this manuscript.
Suppose an agent in site $(i,j)$ is chosen to move right to site $(i+1,j)$. If there is no agent in site $(i+1,j)$ then the move is completed. If there is an agent in site $(i-1,j)$ then the active agent pulls this second agent with it with probability $w$. If there is an agent in site $(i+1,j)$ but not in site $(i+2,j)$ the the active agent pushes the agent at $(i+2,j)$ with probability $q$. If the push occurs and there is an agent in site $(i-1,j)$ then a pull also happens with probability $w$.
Using the mean-occupancy equation of the supplementary material and following the same procedure as for equations , and , we obtain the following PDE $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \Big(D\big(1+4qC+3w(1-q)C^2+8qwC^3\big)\nabla C\Big).
\label{eq:PDEpull+push}$$ This is very similar to the type 1, second-order pulling PDE (equation ) with $q$, the pushing probability playing the role of $w_1$, the probability of a double pull occurring given that a first cell has already been pulled. This similarity is unsurprising since both the double pull and the push-and-pull movements corresponding to terms $3w(1-w_1)C^2$ and $3w(1-q)C^2$ respectively in equations and , respectively, represent the movement of three consecutively aligned agents. The additional term ($4qC$) in equation corresponds to pure pushing events, in which no pulling occurs, and is the same as the term by which diffusion in enhanced in the pure pushing PDE given by equation .
Pulling at a distance {#subsec:pulling_distance}
---------------------
Cells are able to interact without the majority of their cell membranes being in contact with each other by extending filopodia [@kulesa1998ncc; @kasemeier2005inc]. It therefore seems reasonable to consider a case in which the active agent is able to pull other agents which are nearby, but not necessarily directly neighbouring. For illustrative purposes we consider the simplest such model. Suppose an agent in position $(i,j)$ is chosen to move rightwards to position $(i+1,j)$. If there is agent in position $(i-1,j)$ then, as before, this agent is pulled into position $(i,j)$ with probability $w$. If there is not an agent in position $(i-1,j)$ then we next check whether there is agent in position $(i-2,j)$. If there is an agent in position $(i-2,j)$ then, with probability $v$, this agent is pulled into site $(i-1,j)$ maintaining its distance from the pulling agent. This event is depicted schematically in Figure \[fig:pulling\_distance schematic\]. We derive the following PDE for the mean occupancy of position $x$ at time $t$ in the usual manner: $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \Big(D\big(1+3wC^2-v(2C-10C^2+8C^3)\big)\nabla C\Big).
\label{eq:PDEpull_d}$$ We note that there is then a critical value of density $C^*=1/4$, for which, if $C<C^*$, the pulling-at-a-distance mechanism has the effect of reducing the diffusion coefficient so agents disperse more slowly that they would with simple nearest-neighbour pulling. For $C>C^*$ the mechanism enhances the diffusion coefficient.
Summary of pulling models {#subsection:summary_of_pulling_models}
-------------------------
For all the models we have considered thus far, we have derived a non-linear diffusion equation from the mean-occupancy equation in the limit as the site size, $\Delta$, and time-step, $dt$, tend to zero while the ratio $\Delta^2/dt$ remains constant. These PDEs all have the following form $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=\nabla \cdot \Big(D(C)\nabla C\Big).$$ Where $D(C)$ is the density-dependent diffusion coefficient. Table \[Table:PDE\_coefficients\] summarises these coefficients for each of the variants of the pulling model.
![Shows the density-dependency of the diffusion coefficient for the various pulling models. All pulling and pushing parameters are at unity and $p$ is chosen so that $D=1$.[]{data-label="fig:diff_coeffs"}](./figures/Chapter3/diff_coeffs.eps){width=".7\textwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:sim\_vs\_PDE\] we compare the agreement between the averaged column density ABM and the numerical solution of the corresponding PDE for several of the pulling models presented in this section. We can see that the fit remains very good in most cases. However, in the case of $5^{\text{th}}$-order pulling (see Figure \[fig:sim\_vs\_PDE\] ) the agreement appears weaker. In the next section we quantify the error between the PDE and ABM for the various models, and explain the discrepancies.
Error comparison {#section:error_comparison}
----------------
In order to quantify the error between the averaged ABMs and the solutions to the corresponding PDEs we use the histogram distance error (HDE) $$H(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{L_x}\frac{\mid a_i(t)-b_i(t) \mid}{2}.$$ Here $a_i$ is the normalised, averaged density of column $i$, obtained by repeat simulations of the ABM, and $b_i$ is the solution to the corresponding normalised PDE at the mesh point corresponding to the centre of column $i$. The HDE is normalised so that it takes a maximum value of unity when the two histograms have disjoint supports.
Figure \[fig:hde\_comparison\] compares the evolution of the HDE for some of the different models. We see that the error is fairly small for all models but, as expected, the fit between the simple exclusion process and its corresponding PDE is the best, and the fit between the $5^{\text{th}}$-order pulling model and its corresponding PDE is the worst. The assumption of independence in lattice occupancy used for deriving the PDEs becomes progressively less valid the more sites are involved in the agent-agent interactions.
![A comparison of the HDE between the mean-field PDE solution and the averaged ABM density for some of the different models. We use the same lattice with the same initial and boundary conditions as for Figures \[fig:pde\_ex\_pull\] and \[fig:sim\_vs\_PDE\]. All pulling probabilities are unity as they are in Figure \[fig:pde\_ex\_pull\] and Figure \[fig:sim\_vs\_PDE\]. We see that the error is smallest for the simple exclusion model and largest for the $5^{\text{th}}$-order pulling model.[]{data-label="fig:hde_comparison"}](./figures/Chapter3/hde_comparison2.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Off-lattice models {#chapter:Off lattice models}
==================
In this section we investigate the extent to which the lattice structure we previously imposed on our ABMs alters the models’ behaviours. To do this we consider off-lattice models in which agents are free to move on a continuous domain. For simplicity we only study the one-dimensional case. For each ABM that we specify, we derive a corresponding population-level model in the continuum limit. In subsection \[sec:Model\_1\] we consider a model in which agent moves that would result in an overlap are aborted. Contrastingly in subsection \[sec:Model\_2\] we consider a more realistic model in which cells are allowed to make contact with each other. In subsection \[subsec:offlat\_pulling\_distance\] we consider a model in which cells can pull each other at a distance. Finally, in subsection \[subsection:off\_lattice\_error\_comparison\], we compare the behaviour of the ABMs to the their corresponding population-level descriptions both qualitatively and quantitatively.
In each of the following models $N$ agents, with radius $R$, are initialized on the interval $[0,L]$. An agent whose centre is at position $x$ therefore occupies the interval $[x-R,x+R]\subset [0,L]$. Since the entirety of each agent must be within $[0,L]$ agents must have their centres in the domain $[R,L-R]$. Agents are selected to move at random, with movement rate $p$, so that $pdt$ is the probability that an agent, chosen uniformly at random, attempts a move in the time interval $[t,t+dt]$. Once an agent, at position $x$, has been selected to move, the movement direction (left or right) is chosen at random each with probability $1/2$. The agent then jumps a distance $d$ so that it now occupies $[x-R+d,x+R+d]$ (if a rightwards move was selected). If a proposed move would result in two agents overlapping then we have two options: the first option is that the move is simply aborted. The second option is the the moving agent moves as far as possible in the proposed direction, so that it ends up in contact with the blocking agent.
Aborting overlapping moves {#sec:Model_1}
--------------------------
We first study the case in which we abort moves which would result in an overlap. Let $C_i(x,t)$ be the probability distribution for the centre of agent $i$. We have the following mean-occupancy equation. $$\begin{aligned}
C_i(x,t+dt)&=C_i(x,t)+\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x-d,t)\Big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{2R}^{2R+d}C_j(x-d+s,t)ds\Big) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x+d,t)\Big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{-2R-d}^{-2R}C_j(x+d+s,t)ds\Big) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\Big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{2R}^{2R+d}C_j(x+s,t)ds\Big) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\Big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{-2R-d}^{-2R}C_j(x+s,t)ds\Big).
\label{eq:Model_1_PME}\end{aligned}$$ This equation represents the four ways in which the occupancy at position $x$ of agent $i$ can change in the time interval $[t,t+dt]$. The first term on the right hand side describes gaining occupancy in the following way. Agent $i$ was centred at position $x-d$ at time $t$ and was chosen to move rightwards (with probability $p dt/2$). This move can happen as long as there is no part of any other agent occupying the region $[x-d+R,x+R]$ (i.e. no other agents are centred in the region $[x-d+2R,x+2R]$). The second term represents the equivalent leftwards move, i.e. agent $i$ was initially centred at $x+d$.
The third term describes losing occupancy at position $x$ in the following way. Suppose agent $i$ was centred at position $x$ at time $t$ and was chosen to move rightwards (with probability $p dt/2$). This move is not aborted as long as there is no part of any other agent occupying the region $[x+R,x+d+R]$ (i.e. no other agents are centred in the region $[x+2R,x+d+2R]$). Finally, the fourth represents the loss occupancy caused by the equivalent leftwards move.
Just as in the on-lattice case, by Taylor expanding and taking appropriate limits we can derive a corresponding partial differential equation. We follow the same argument as @dyson2012mli to derive the PDE, but first introduce some useful notation.
Let $P_r^i(x,t)$ be the probability that an agent is blocking a potential rightwards move by agent $i$ with centre at position $x$. In other words, the probability that an agent is present in the region $[x+2R,x+2R+d]$, so $$P_r^i(x,t)=\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{2R}^{2R+d}C_j(x+s,t)\ ds.
\label{eq:p_r}$$ Similarly, we can define the probability that an agent is present in the region $[x-2R-d,x-2R]$ as $$P_l^i(x,t)=\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{-2R}^{-2R-d}C_j(x+s,t)\ ds.
\label{eq:p_l}$$ We can now re-write the mean-occupancy equation more compactly as $$\begin{aligned}
C_i(x,t+dt)&=C_i(x,t)+\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x-d,t)\big(1-P_r^i(x-d,t)\big) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x+d,t)\big(1-P_l^i(x+d,t)\big) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\big(1-P_r^i(x,t)\big) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\big(1-P_l^i(x,t)\big).
\label{eq:PME_offlat}\end{aligned}$$ Re-arranging and taking the limit as $dt\rightarrow 0$ in equation , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}&=\frac{p}{2}C_i(x-d,t)\big(1-P_r^i(x-d,t)\big)+\frac{p}{2}C_i(x+d,t)\big(1-P_l^i(x+d,t)\big)\\
&-\frac{p}{2}C_i(x,t)\big(1-P_r^i(x,t)\big)-\frac{p}{2}C_i(x,t)\big(1-P_l^i(x,t)\big).\end{aligned}$$ Taylor expanding $C_i(x+d,t)$ and $C_i(x-d,t)$ about $x$ to second-order and re-arranging gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}&+\frac{p}{2}\Big[C_i+d{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}+\frac{d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}\Big]\big(1-P_l^i(x+d,t)\big)-\frac{p}{2}C_i\big(2-P_r^i(x,t)-P_l^i(x,t)\big).\end{aligned}$$ More re-arrangement gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}&=\frac{p C_i}{2}\Big(P_r^i(x,t)+P_l^i(x,t)-P_r^i(x-d,t)-P_l^i(x+d,t)\Big) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{p d}{2}{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\Big(P_r^i(x-d,t)-P_l^i(x+d,t)\Big)+\frac{p d^2}{4}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}\Big(2-P_r^i(x-d,t)-P_l^i(x+d,t)\Big)+\mathcal{O}(d^2).
\label{eq:PME_offlat_2}\end{aligned}$$ Now we can also obtain approximations for the probabilities $P_r^i(x,t)$ and $P_l^i(x,t)$ by Taylor expanding $P_i(x-d,t)$ and $P_i(x+d,t)$ about $x$ to second-order and integrating the resulting polynomial. $$\begin{aligned}
&P_r^i(x,t)\approx\sum_{j\neq i}\Big[dC_j+\frac{d}{2}(4R+d){\frac{\partial C_j}{\partial x}}+\frac{d}{6}(12R^2+6Rd+d^2){\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}\Big] \label{eq:p_r_x}, \\
&P_r^i(x-d,t)\approx\sum_{j\neq i}\Big[dC_j+\frac{d}{2}(4R-d){\frac{\partial C_j}{\partial x}}+\frac{d}{6}(12R^2-6Rd+d^2){\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}\Big] \label{eq:p_r_x-d}, \\
&P_l^i(x,t)\approx\sum_{j\neq i}\Big[dC_j-\frac{d}{2}(4R+d){\frac{\partial C_j}{\partial x}}+\frac{d}{6}(12R^2+6Rd+d^2){\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}\Big] \label{eq:p_l_x}, \\
&P_l^i(x+d,t)\approx\sum_{j\neq i}\Big[dC_j-\frac{d}{2}(4R-d){\frac{\partial C_j}{\partial x}}+\frac{d}{6}(12R^2-6Rd+d^2){\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}\Big] \label{eq:p_l_x+d} .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting in the approximations - into equation we obtain the following PDE $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}&\approx\frac{p d^2}{2}4RC_i\sum_{j\neq i}{\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}+\frac{p d^2}{2}\big(4R-d\big){\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\sum_{j\neq i}{\frac{\partial C_j}{\partial x}}+\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}\\
&-\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}\sum_{j\neq i}\Big[dC_j+\frac{d}{6}(12R^2-6Rd+d^2){\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Neglecting terms which have combined order in $R$ and $d$ greater than 3 gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}&=\frac{p d^2}{2}4RC_i\sum_{j\neq i}{\frac{\partial^2 C_j}{\partial x^2}}+\frac{p d^2}{2}\big(4R-d\big){\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\sum_{j\neq i}{\frac{\partial C_j}{\partial x}}+\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}-\frac{p d^3}{2}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}\sum_{j\neq i}C_j.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that all the agents were initialised with position chosen from the same probability distribution. Since all agents move according to identical rules, this means we can replace $C_i(x,t)$ with $C_j(x,t)$ for any $i$ and $j$. $${\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}=\frac{p d^2}{2}\left({\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}+(N-1)(4R-d){\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\Big(C_i{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\Big)\right).
\label{eq:PDE_off_lattice_single}$$ This PDE describes the evolution of the density function of a single agent. We can use equation to derive a PDE for the total density of cells $C(x,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}C_i(x,t)=NC_i(x,t)$. $${\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}}=\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\Big[\Big(1+(4R-d)\frac{N-1}{N}C\Big){\frac{\partial C}{\partial x}}\Big].
\label{eq:PDE_off_lattice}$$ Taking the limit as $d\rightarrow 0$ and $p\rightarrow \infty$ while keeping $p d^2$ constant gives $${\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}}=\hat{p}{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\Big[\Big(1+4RC\frac{N-1}{N}\Big){\frac{\partial C}{\partial x}}\Big],
\label{eq:PDE_off_lattice_d0}$$ where $$\hat{p}=\lim_{\substack{d\to 0 \\ p\to\infty}} p d^2.$$ In contrast to the on-lattice equivalent of this model (i.e. equation with $w=0$), the volume exclusion effects now enhance the diffusion coefficient via the density-dependent term $4RC(N-1)/N$. When comparing the discrete ABM and the continuous PDE, rather than representing each agent as a hat function, we represent each agent by a Gaussian probability density function, with standard deviation equal to the radius of the agent (as in @yates2015ipe). This has the effect of smoothing the data so that we need run fewer repeats. Figure \[fig:offlat\_comparison\] demonstrates the fit between the averaged ABM and the PDE is very good.
![Comparing the behaviour of the off-lattice ABM, averaged over 10,000 repeats with the numerical solution of the corresponding PDE . We use parameters $N=20$, $R=0.17$, $p=25$ and $d=0.1$. For the initial conditions, in each repeat we place the leftmost agents at a position sampled from $N(35,1)$. We then place the remaining agents so that the distance between the centres of two adjacent agents is distributed uniformly on $[2R,12R]$. The PDE is solved using an explicit finite difference scheme, where the initial conditions are obtained by inputting the averaged ABM data at $t=0$. Density profiles are compared at $t=0$, $t=200$ and $t=500$.[]{data-label="fig:offlat_comparison"}](./figures/Chapter4/offlat_comp_plot.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Contact forming model {#sec:Model_2}
---------------------
We now adapt the model so that, if a proposed move would result in an overlap, the agent moves so that it is in contact with the blocking agent. The mean-occupancy equation for this model then reads as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
C_i(x,t+dt)-C_i(x,t)&=-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}C_j(x-2R,t)\big) \nonumber \\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}C_j(x+2R,t)\big) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x-d,t)\Big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{2R}^{2R+d}C_j(x-d+s,t)ds\Big) \nonumber\\
&+\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x+d,t)\Big(1-\sum_{j\neq i}\int_{-2R-d}^{-2R}C_j(x+d+s,t)ds\Big)\nonumber \\
&+\frac{p dt}{2}\sum_{j\neq i}C_j(x+2R,t)\int_{0}^{d}C_i(x-s,t)ds\nonumber \\
&+\frac{p dt}{2}\sum_{j\neq i}C_j(x-2R,t)\int_{0}^{d}C_i(x+s,t)ds \nonumber\\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\sum_{j\neq i}C_j(x-2R,t)\nonumber \\
&-\frac{p dt}{2}C_i(x,t)\sum_{j\neq i}C_j(x+2R,t).
\label{eq:PME_offlat_cont} \end{aligned}$$ The first term represents losing occupancy at position $x$ if agent $i$, initially centred at position $x$ attempts to move rightwards and there is no agent in contact with agent $i$ on its right side. Agent $i$ is then free to move rightwards, even if only by a small amount, and does so with probability $p dt/2$. This move is depicted in Figure \[fig:offlat\_cell\_schematics\] . The second term represents the equivalent for a leftwards move, i.e. agent $i$ is able to move leftwards out of position $x$.
The third term represents the gain in occupancy at position $x$ if agent $i$, initially centred at $x-d$, attempts to move rightwards and there is no part of another agent in the region $[x-d+R,x+R]$. Therefore agent $i$ is free to jump a distance $d$ to the right into position $x$, with probability $p dt/2$. This situation is visualised in Figure \[fig:offlat\_cell\_schematics\] . The fourth term is the mirror image of the third term: agent $i$ moves leftwards from position $x+d$ to $x$. The fifth term captures the fact that we can also gain occupancy at position $x$ if agent $i$ has its centre in the region $[x-d,x]$ and there is another agent whose centre is at exactly $x+2R$ blocking agent $i$’s rightwards move. This means agent $i$ moves a restricted distance (less than $d$) and ends up in contact with the agent whose centre is at $x+2R$. The sixth term is then the mirror image of this for leftwards moves. The final two terms are to prevent double counting. If we are in a situation where agent $i$ is at position $x$ and there is another agent in contact with it at position $x+2R$ the fifth term would cause us to erroneously gain occupancy at position $x$ despite the fact that no change in occupancy could occur as the agent cannot move to the right. In order to avoid this we subtract the density evaluated at the lower limit of the integrals.
Following the procedure outlined above (see Section \[SUPP-sec:Model\_2\_PDE\] supplementary material), the PDE for the average agent density, $C=\sum_{i=1}^NC_i=NC_i$, is given by $${\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}}=\hat{p}{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\Big[\Big(1+2RC\frac{N-1}{N}\Big){\frac{\partial C}{\partial x}}\Big],
\label{eq:PDE_offlat_cont_d0}$$ where $\hat{p}=\lim_{d\to 0,p\to\infty} p d^2$ is the diffusive limit, as in equation (see section \[SUPP-sec:Model\_2\_PDE\] of the supplementary material for the derivation). Comparing equation with equation suggests that, according to the PDEs, the effect of allowing agents to form contacts rather than aborting overlapping moves is to slightly reduce the effective diffusion coefficient. Intuitively, allowing agents to form contacts has the effect of bringing agents together which were not previously touching, effectively reducing the diffusive spread of agents.
Pulling at a distance {#subsec:offlat_pulling_distance}
---------------------
In order to incorporate pulling we assume that agents are able to pull neighbours at a distance. This is the off-lattice analogue of the on-lattice model described is section \[subsec:pulling\_distance\]. We adapt the aborting moves model in section \[sec:Model\_1\] as follows. We introduce a pulling distance, $l$, such that if agent $i$ is chosen to move right and there is another agent $j$ whose right edge is within $l$ of agent $i$’s left edge then, with probability $Q$, both agents move a distance $d$ to the right. The mean-occupancy equation is included as equation in the supplementary material.
Taylor expanding appropriate terms, integrating, re-arranging and discarding higher-order terms in the mean-occupancy equation gives the, somewhat complex, PDE for the probability distribution of agent $i$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}&=-\frac{p}{2}\left[Q(4R+l)(N-1)\left(C_i{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}+\left({\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}\right)^2\right)\right]dl \\
&+\frac{p}{2}\left[{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}+(4R+2lQ)(N-1)\left(C_i{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}+\left({\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\right)^2\right)\right]d^2 \\
&-\frac{p}{2}\left[(N-1)\left(C_i{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}+\left({\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\right)^2\right)\right]d^3 \\
&=\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial^2 C_i}{\partial x^2}}+d(N-1){\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\left(C_i{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\right)\left(-(4R+l)Ql+(4R+2lQ)d-d^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ In order to take the diffusive limit, we assume that the pulling distance is proportional to the movement distance, so $l=dk$ for some $k>0$. The PDE for the average occupancy of agent $i$ then simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial t}}=\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\left[1+\left(N-1\right)\left(4R\left(1-Qk\right)-d\left(1+Qk^2-2Qk\right)C_i\right){\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial x}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ For the total agent density $C=\sum_{i=1}^NC_i$, we obtain $${\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}}=\frac{p d^2}{2}{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\left[\Big(1+\frac{N-1}{N}\left(4R\left(1-Qk\right)-d\left(1+Qk^2-2Qk\right)\right)C\Big){\frac{\partial C}{\partial x}}\right].
\label{eq:PDE_offlat_pull_d}$$ Taking the diffusive limit as in equation gives $${\frac{\partial C}{\partial t}}=\hat{p}{\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\left[\Big(1+\frac{N-1}{N}4RC\left(1-Qk\right)\Big){\frac{\partial C}{\partial x}}\right],
\label{eq:PDE_offlat_pull_d0}$$ where $\hat{p}$ is defined as before.
We note that this PDE predicts that the effect of pulling is to decrease the effective diffusion coefficient, causing agents to disperse more slowly. This prediction differs from the corresponding on-lattice model described by equation . In the on-lattice case, pulling at a distance enhances the diffusion coefficient, except at very low densities.
Error comparison {#subsection:off_lattice_error_comparison}
----------------
In this section we compare the averaged behaviour of the off-lattice ABMs with the solution of their corresponding PDEs. The comparisons are shown in Figure \[fig:offlat\_sim\_vs\_pde\]. The first model, in which overlapping moves are aborted, is represented very well by its mean-field PDE . For the second model, in which agents move to be in contact with one another, and the third model in which agents can pull each other at a distance) there is a slightly larger discrepancy between the averaged ABMs and their corresponding PDEs given by equations and , respectively.
The agreement between the ABMs and the PDEs is further quantified in Figure \[fig:offlat\_HDE\] in which we consider the evolution of the HDE between the computed PDE solution and the smoothed averaged density profiles of the ABM evaluated at the grid points of the PDE solution.
As in the on-lattice case, one explanation for the discrepancies is the assumption that the occupancy of nearby positions in the domain are independent. This assumption becomes less valid the more that agents interact with each other so it is reasonable that the discrepancy between the PDE and the ABM is larger for the models where more interaction takes place. There are other possible sources discrepancy which could also be contributing. For example, we used a second-order Taylor expansion making use of the assumption that higher-order terms disappear in the limit as $d\rightarrow0$. The validity of this assumption relies on all spatial derivatives being small, which might not be the case.
![Comparison of the evolution of the HDE comparing each model to its respective PDE. We use the same domain and parameters as for Figure \[fig:offlat\_sim\_vs\_pde\]. We observe that the more complex the model, the larger the discrepancy between the ABM and the PDE.[]{data-label="fig:offlat_HDE"}](./figures/Chapter4/offlat_HDE.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Discussion {#chapter:discussion}
==========
In this work we have addressed the lack of either ABM or continuum models which successfully incorporate cell-cell pulling. We began by considering simple on-lattice models and steadily increased the complexity of the cell-cell interactions in order to represent several different possible pulling mechanisms. For each of these variants we derived a corresponding mean-field PDE. In all cases, the corresponding PDE was a non-linear diffusion equation with a density-dependent diffusion coefficient. In almost all cases, the effect of pulling was to augment the diffusion coefficient so that cells disperse more quickly, with different pulling mechanisms augmenting the diffusion coefficient to differing degrees. These comparisons demonstrated that incorporation of cell-cell pulling can have a significant impact on the behaviour of cells in both agent-based and population-level models of the same phenomenon. Different pulling mechanisms can lead to significantly different macroscopic behaviours, therefore, it is important to carefully classify the type of pulling we wish to represent.
By considering off-lattice models of cell migration we investigated how the type of ABM chosen impacts upon the population-level behaviour. We found two important differences between the on-lattice and off-lattice cases. Firstly, for the pulling mechanisms we considered, the population-level effects of pulling in the ABM are almost non-existent in the off-lattice case. This is in contrast to the on-lattice case for which cell-cell pulling causes agent to disperse more quickly. We also found that the agreement between the off-lattice ABM and the corresponding PDE breaks down quite quickly for models with non-trivial agent to agent interaction.
This initial exploratory work provides a platform from which further investigations into the effects of cell-cell pulling can be launched. For example, we studied the simplest possible case of cells which are able to pull at a distance. There may be more complex behaviour in models involving pulling over larger distances and of multiple agents. Another possibility is to consider multiple species of cells, some of which are capable of pulling whilst others are not.
We found that the correspondence between the ABMs and the mean-field PDEs becomes poorer with increased cell-cell interaction complexity. The assumption that the occupancy of neighbouring sites is uncorrelated becomes increasingly invalid as the complexity of the interactions increases. Another possible area to which this work might be extended is the use of spatial correlation functions in order to derive more accurate PDEs for on-lattice models [@baker2010cmf; @markham2013smi].
The method we have used to derive a continuum PDE from an off-lattice ABM is by no means the only possible method. Other methods exist and have been used successfully to derive continuum analogues which provide accurate representations of the mean-field behaviour of volume-excluding AMBs @bruna2012eve [@taylor2014mmt; @franz2016hsi; @plank2013lfm; @plank2012mcc]. It is possible that some of these methods might provide more accurate continuum models than our simple mean-field representations of cell-cell pulling.
[46]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi: \#1]{}
D.A. Lauffenburger and A.F. Horwitz. Cell migration: A physically integrated molecular process. *Cell*, 84:0 359–369, 1996.
A.J. Ridley, M.A. Schwartz, K. Burridge, R.A. Firtel, M.H. Ginsberg, G. Borisy, J.T. Parsons, and A.R. Horwitz. Cell migration: integrating signals from front to back. *Science*, 3020 (5651):0 1704–1709, 2003.
P.J.M. Van Haastert. Amoeboid cells use protrusions for walking, gliding and swimming. *PLoS One*, 60 (11):0 e27532, 2011.
J.S. Condeelis and D.L. Taylor. The contractile basis of amoeboid movement: V. the control of gelation, solation, and contraction in extracts from dictyostelium discoideum. *The Journal of cell biology*, 740 (3):0 901, 1977.
P.M. Kulesa and S.E. Fraser. Neural crest cell dynamics revealed by time-lapse video microscopy of whole embryo chick explant cultures. *Dev. Biol.*, 2040 (2):0 327–344, 1998.
R. Keller. . *Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.*, 170 (5):0 533–541, 2005.
M. Poujade, E. Grasland-Mongrain, J. Hertzog, A .and Jouanneau, P. Chavrier, B. Ladoux, A. Buguin, and P. Silberzan. Collective migration of an epithelial monolayer in response to a model wound. *[Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA]{}*, 1040 (41):0 15988–15993, 2007.
M. Deng, W.L. Chen, A. Takatori, Z. Peng, L. Zhang, M. Mongan, R. Parthasarathy, M. Sartor, M. Miller, J. Yang, B. Su, W.W.-Y. Kao, and Y. Xia. A role for the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase 1 in epithelial wound healing. *Mol. Biol. Cell*, 170 (8):0 3446–3455, 2006.
P. Friedl and D. Gilmour. . *Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Bio.*, 100 (7):0 445–457, 2009.
M.J. Simpson, C. Towne, D.L.S. McElwain, and Z. Upton. Migration of breast cancer cells: understanding the roles of volume exclusion and cell-to-cell adhesion. *Phys. Rev. E*, 820 (4):0 041901, 2010.
C.J. Weijer. Dictyostelium morphogenesis. *Current opinion in genetics & development*, 140 (4):0 392–398, 2004.
Y. Chen, S.J. Dodd, M.A. Tangrea, M.R. Emmert-Buck, and A.P. Koretsky. Measuring collective cell movement and extracellular matrix interactions using magnetic resonance imaging. *Sci. Rep.*, 3, 2013.
S. Schmidt and P. Friedl. Interstitial cell migration: integrin-dependent and alternative adhesion mechanisms. *Cell Tissue. Res.*, 3390 (1):0 83–92, 2010.
K. Anguige and C. Schmeiser. A one-dimensional model of cell diffusion and aggregation, incorporating volume filling and cell-to-cell adhesion. *J. Math. Biol.*, 580 (3):0 395–427, 2009.
J.A. Glazier and F. Graner. Simulation of the differential adhesion driven rearrangement of biological cells. *Phys. Rev. E*, 470 (3):0 2128–2167, 1993.
N.J. Armstrong, K.J. Painter, and J.A. Sherratt. Adding adhesion to a chemical signaling model for somite formation. *Bulletin of mathematical biology*, 710 (1):0 1–24, 2009.
W.G. Stetler-Stevenson, S. Aznavoorian, and L.A. Liotta. Tumor cell interactions with the extracellular matrix during invasion and metastasis. *Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.*, 90 (1):0 541–573, 1993.
J.C. Kasemeier-Kulesa, P.M. Kulesa, and F. Lefcort. Imaging neural crest cell dynamics during formation of dorsal root ganglia and sympathetic ganglia. *Development*, 1320 (2):0 235–245, 2005.
K.J. Painter and T. Hillen. . *Can. Appl. Math. Quart.*, 100 (4):0 501–543, 2002.
T. Hillen and K.J. Painter. . *J. Math. Biol.*, 580 (1):0 183–217, 2009.
E.F. Keller and L.A. Segel. Traveling bands of chemotactic bacteria: a theoretical analysis. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 300 (2):0 235–248, 1971.
E.F. Keller and L.A. Segel. *J. Theor. Biol.*, 300 (2):0 225–234, 1971.
C. Deroulers, M. Aubert, M. Badoual, and B. Grammaticos. Modeling tumor cell migration: From microscopic to macroscopic models. *Phys. Rev. E*, 790 (3):0 031917, 2009.
A.E. Fernando, K.A. Landman, and M.J. Simpson. Nonlinear diffusion and exclusion processes with contact interactions. *Phys. Rev. E*, 810 (1):0 011903, 2010.
R. Thompson, C.A. Yates, and R.E. Baker. Modelling cell migration and adhesion during development. *Bull. Math. Biol.*, 740 (12):0 2793–2809, 2012.
C.A. Yates, A. Parker, and R.E. Baker. Incorporating pushing in exclusion-process models of cell migration. *Phys. Rev. E*, 910 (5):0 052711, 2015.
C.J. Penington, B.D. Hughes, and K.A. Landman. Building macroscale models from microscale probabilistic models: a general probabilistic approach for nonlinear diffusion and multispecies phenomena. *Phys. Rev. E*, 840 (4):0 041120, 2011.
M.J. Simpson, K.A. Landman, and B.D. Hughes. . *Physica A*, 3890 (18):0 3779–3790, 2010.
M.J. Simpson, K.A. Landman, and B.D. Hughes. . *Physica A*, 3880 (4):0 399–406, 2009.
K.K. Treloar, M.J. Simpson, and S.W. McCue. Velocity-jump models with crowding effects. *Phys. Rev. E*, 840 (6):0 061920, 2011.
A. Flache and R. Hegselmann. Do irregular grids make a difference? relaxing the spatial regularity assumption in cellular models of social dynamics. *J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simulat.*, 40 (4), 2001.
S. Wolfram. Cellular automaton fluids 1: Basic theory. *J. Stat. Phys.*, 450 (3):0 471–526, 1986.
L. Dyson, P.K. Maini, and R.E. Baker. Macroscopic limits of individual-based models for motile cell populations with volume exclusion. *Phys. Rev. E*, 860 (3):0 031903, 2012.
L. Dyson and R.E. Baker. The importance of volume exclusion in modelling cellular migration. *J. Math. Biol.*, 2014.
A. Bianco, M. Poukkula, A. Cliffe, J. Mathieu, C.M. Luque, T.A. Fulga, and P. R[ø]{}rth. Two distinct modes of guidance signalling during collective migration of border cells. *Nature*, 4480 (7151):0 362–365, 2007.
A.J. Ewald, A. Brenot, M. Duong, B.S. Chan, and Z. Werb. Collective epithelial migration and cell rearrangements drive mammary branching morphogenesis. *Dev. Cell*, 140 (4):0 570–581, 2008.
A. Ghysen and C. Dambly-Chaudi[è]{}re. . *Gene. Dev.*, 210 (17):0 2118, 2007.
N.S. Gov. Collective cell migration patterns: follow the leader. *[Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA]{}*, 1040 (41):0 15970–15971, 2007.
A.A. Khalil and P. Friedl. Determinants of leader cells in collective cell migration. *Intrgr. Biol.*, 20 (11-12):0 568–574, 2010.
R.E. Baker and M.J. Simpson. Correcting mean-field approximations for birth-death-movement processes. *Phys. Rev. E*, 820 (4):0 041905, 2010.
D.C. Markham, M.J. Simpson, and R.E. Baker. Simplified method for including spatial correlations in mean-field approximations. *Phys. Rev. E*, 870 (6):0 062702, 2013.
M. Bruna and S.J. Chapman. Excluded-volume effects in the diffusion of hard spheres. *Phys. Rev. E*, 850 (1):0 011103, 2012.
J.P. Taylor-King, B. Franz, C.A. Yates, and R. Erban. Mathematical modelling of turning delays in swarm robotics. *IMA J. Appl. Math.*, (to appear), 2015.
B. Franz, J.P. Taylor-King, C. Yates, and R. Erban. Hard-sphere interactions in velocity-jump models. *Phys. Rev. E*, 940 (1):0 012129, 2016.
M.J. Plank and M.J. Simpson. Lattice-free models of cell invasion: Discrete simulations and travelling waves. *Bull. Math. Biol.*, 750 (11):0 2150–2166, 2013.
M.J. Plank and M.J. Simpson. Models of collective cell behaviour with crowding effects: comparing lattice-based and lattice-free approaches. *J. Roy. Soc. Interface*, 90 (76):0 2983–2996, 2012.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we investigate the structure of condensation fronts from warm diffuse gas to cold neutral medium (CNM) under the plane parallel geometry. The solutions have two parameters, the pressure of the CNM and the mass flux across the transition front, and their ranges are much wider than previously thought. First, we consider the pressure range where the three phases, the CNM, the unstable phase, and the warm neutral medium, can coexist in the pressure equilibrium. In a wide range of the mass flux, we find solutions connecting the CNM and the unstable phase. Moreover, we find solutions in larger pressure range where there is only one thermal equilibrium state or the CNM. These solutions can be realized in shock-compressed regions that are promising sites of molecular cloud formation. We also find remarkable properties in our solutions. Heat conduction becomes less important with increasing mass flux, and the thickness of the transition layer is characterized by the cooling length instead of the Field length.'
author:
- |
Kazunari Iwasaki$^{1}$[^1] and Shu-ichiro Inutsuka$^{1}$\
$^{1}$Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8602, Japan
date: 'Accepted 2012 April 22. Received 2012 April 22; in original form 2012 March 16'
title: Structure of dynamical condensation fronts in the interstellar medium
---
\[firstpage\]
hydrodynamics - ISM: clouds - ISM: kinematics and dynamics
Introduction
============
It is well known that in the interstellar medium (ISM), a clumpy low-temperature phase \[cold neutral medium (CNM)\] and a diffuse high-temperature phase \[warm neutral medium (WNM)\] can coexist in pressure equilibrium as a result of the balance of radiative cooling and heating owing to external radiation fields and cosmic rays [@Fetal69; @Wetal95; @Wetal03]. The CNM of atomic gas is observed as HI cloud ($n\sim10-100$ cm$^{-3}$, $T\sim10^2$ K). These two phases are thermally stable. On the other hand, the thermal instability (TI) arises in the temperature range between these two phases. Thus, the ISM in atomic phase can be interpreted as bistable fluid.
Pioneering work on the TI has been done by @F65 who performed a linear analysis of the thermal equilibrium gas and derived a simple criterion for the TI. Focusing on a fluid element, @B86 derived a criterion for the TI of thermal non-equilibrium gas. In the nonlinear evolution, @IT08 found a family of self-similar solutions describing the condensation of radiative gas layer assuming a simple power-law cooling rate. @IT09 investigated the linear stability of the self-similar solutions, and they suggested that the condensing layer will fragment in various scales as long as the transverse scale is larger than the Field length. Physics of the bistable fluid has been investigated by many authors. @ZP69 [hereafter ZP69] and @PB70 investigated the structure of the transition front connecting the CNM and WNM under the plane-parallel geometry. The thickness of the transition front is characterized by the Field length below which the TI is stabilized by heat conduction [@F65]. They found that a static solution is obtained at a so-called saturation pressure. The transition front becomes a condensation (evaporation) front if surrounding pressure is larger (less) than the saturation pressure. These properties of the transition front depend on its geometry. In the spherical symmetric geometry, @GL73 investigated isobaric flows. They found that spherical clouds have a minimum size below which they inevitably evaporate [more general description is found in @Netal05]. Linear stability of the transition layers has been investigated by @IIK06 in the plane-parallel geometry, and they found that the evaporation front is unstable against corrugation type fluctuation, while the condensation front is stable. @SZ09 have considered the effect of magnetic field on the instability. The physical mechanism of the corrugation instability is analogous to the Darriues-Landau instability [@LL87]. Taking into account magnetic field perpendicular to the normal of the front, @SZ10 investigated linear stability of transition layers.
In the above-mentioned theoretical works with respect to the bistable fluid, the phase transition proceeds in a quasi-static manner through the heat conduction. However, recent multidimensional numerical simulations show more a dynamical turbulent structure. @KN02 have investigated the non-linear development of the TI in the three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations with periodic boundary condition without any external forcing. As the initial condition, they set the hot ionized medium ($T=2\times 10^6$ K) where cooling dominates heating. The gas is quickly decomposed into two stable phases (CNM and WNM) and the intermediate unstable phase. In the multiphase medium, the supersonic turbulence is developed by conversion from the thermal energy to the kinetic energy. They found that turbulence decays on a dynamical timescale. This decaying timescale is larger than that in supersonic isothermal turbulence of one-phase medium where it is smaller or comparable to the flow crossing time [@Setal98]. @KI06 have done similar calculations on a much longer timescale. As the initial condition, they set an unstable gas in thermal equilibrium state with density fluctuations. They found a self-sustained turbulence with velocity dispersion of $\sim0.2-0.4$ km s$^{-1}$ for a period of at least their simulation time (several 10 Myr) in the bistable fluid after temporal decaying found in @KN02. External forcing such as shock compression can drive stronger long-lived turbulence. @KI02 investigated development of the TI in a shock compressed region by using a two-dimensional hydrodynamical simulation. They found that the velocity dispersion is as large as several km s$^{-1}$, which is larger than the sound speed of the CNM. The supersonic turbulent motion is maintained as long as the shock wave continutes to propagate and provide postshock gas. They suggested that this supersonic translational motion of the CNM is observed as the supersonic turbulence in the ISM. The cloudlets are precursor of molecular clouds because they are as dense as molecular clouds. After their work, many authors have investigated the formation of the CNM in shocked gases in two-dimensional calculations [@AH05; @HA07; @Hetal05; @Hetal06], and in three-dimensional calculations [@Getal05; @Vetal06; @AH10]. The influence of the magnetic field on the development of the TI has been investigated by @II08 [@II09], @Hene08, @Hetal09.
Although physics of the bistable fluid is developing, the physical mechanism of driving turbulence is not fully understood. As mentioned above, recent numerical simulations have found that the turbulence involving the TI is dynamical compared with the ZP69 picture that predicts very slow transition between CNM and WNM through the heat conduction. Moreover, in the shock compressed region, because of its high pressure, the bistable fluid cannot exist. The ZP69 picture cannot be applied directly to the TI in the shock compressed region.
In this paper, as a first step to understand the dynamical turbulent structure, we develop the works of ZP69 into a more dynamical transition front. In the steady solutions, there are two parameters, the pressure of the CNM and the mass flux across the front. ZP69 considered solutions only on a line in the parameter space. @Eetal92 found steady solutions with various mass flux. However, they used a simple cubic function of the cooling rate that enables them to investigate analytically, and they assumed spatially constant pressure. We systematically search steady solutions in larger parameter space even in the high pressure range where the bistable fluid does not exist by using a realistic cooling rate.
This paper is organized as follows: Basic equations and numerical methods are described in section \[sec:numerical\]. In section \[sec:ZP\], we briefly review the solutions connecting the CNM and WNM derived by ZP69. In section \[sec:dynamical\], we present solutions describing dynamical transition layer that has larger mass flux than ZP69. The results are discussed in section \[sec:discuss\] and are summarized in section \[sec:summary\].
Basic Equations and Numerical Methods {#sec:numerical}
=====================================
Basic equations for radiative gas under the plane-parallel geometry are the continuity equation, $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x}(\rho v)=0,
\label{eoc}$$ the momentum conservation, $$\frac{\partial \rho v}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( P + \rho v^2 \right)=0,
\label{eom}$$ the energy equation, $$\frac{\partial E}{\partial t} +
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ \left( E+P \right)v - \kappa \frac{\partial T}{\partial x} \right]
= - \rho{\cal L}(\rho,T),
\label{eoe}$$ and the equation of state, $$P={\cal R} \rho T
\label{eos}$$ where $E=\rho v^2/2 + P/(\gamma-1)$ is the total energy, and $\gamma=5/3$ is the ratio of specific heats, $\kappa$ is the coefficient of heat conductivity, and ${\cal L}(\rho,T)$ is the net cooling rate per unit mass, ${\cal R}=k_\mathrm{B}/m_\mathrm{H}$ is the gas constant, and $m_\mathrm{H}$ is the hydrogen mass. Throughout in this paper we assume a gas consists of atomic hydrogen. For the range of temperatures considered, since the gas is almost neutral, we adopt $\kappa=2.5\times10^3\sqrt{T}$ cm$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ [@P53]. In this paper, we adopt the following fitting formula of the net cooling rate [@KI02], $$\rho{\cal L}(\rho,T) = \frac{\rho}{m_\mathrm{H}}\left( -\Gamma + \frac{\rho}{m_\mathrm{H}} \Lambda(T) \right)\;\;\mathrm{erg\;cm^{-3}\;s^{-1}},
\label{cooling rate}$$ $$\Gamma = 2\times10^{-26}\;\;\mathrm{erg\;s^{-1}}, \nonumber$$ $$\frac{\Lambda(T)}{\Gamma} = 10^7\exp\left( -\frac{118400}{T+10^3} \right)
+ 1.4\times10^{-2}\sqrt{T}\exp\left( -\frac{92}{T} \right) \nonumber.$$ Figure \[fig:eq\] shows the thermal equilibrium state of this net cooling rate in the $(n,P)$ plane. The gas is subject to the cooling (heating) above (below) the thermal equilibrium curve. The bistable fluid consisting of the WNM and CNM can exist in the pressure range of $P_\mathrm{min}<P<P_\mathrm{max}$, where $P_\mathrm{min}/k_\mathrm{B}=1596$ K cm$^{-3}$ and $P_\mathrm{max}/k_\mathrm{B}=5012$ K cm$^{-3}$. The saturate pressure where the static front is realized is as large as $P_\mathrm{sat}/k_\mathrm{B}=2823$ K cm$^{-3}$ in the plane-parallel geometry.
![ Thermal equilibrium state of the net cooling rate ${\cal L}(\rho,T)$ in $(P,n)$ plane. []{data-label="fig:eq"}](fig1.eps){width="8.0cm"}
In steady state $(\partial/\partial t=0)$, equations (\[eoc\]) and (\[eom\]) can be integrated with respect to $x$ to give $$\rho v = j
\label{const}$$ and $$\rho v^2 + P = M,
\label{const mom}$$ respectively. The energy equation (\[eoe\]) becomes $$c_pj \frac{dT}{dx}
-v \frac{dP}{dx} - \frac{d}{dx}\left( \kappa\frac{dT}{dx } \right)+\rho{\cal L}(\rho,T)=0,
\label{integ eq0}$$ where $j$ and $M$ denotes the mass and momentum fluxes, respectively, that are spatially constant, and $c_p=\gamma {\cal R}/(\gamma-1)$ is the specific heat at constant pressure. From equations (\[eos\]), (\[const\]), and (\[const mom\]), density, pressure, and velocity can be expressed by using temperature, the mass flux, and momentum flux as follows: $$\rho = \frac{1}{2{\cal R}T}\left( M + \sqrt{M^2 - 4 {\cal R}j^2 T } \right),
\label{rho}$$ $$v = \frac{1}{2j}\left( M - \sqrt{M^2 - 4{\cal R} j^2 T} \right),
\label{v}$$ $$P = \frac{1}{2}\left( M + \sqrt{M^2 - 4 {\cal R}j^2 T } \right).
\label{P}$$ For convenience, instead of $T$, we introduce new variable $\theta$ defined by $d\theta=\kappa dT$. Using $\theta$ and equations (\[rho\])-(\[P\]), equation (\[integ eq0\]) can be rewritten as $$\frac{d^2\theta}{dx^2} = \frac{ {\cal R}j}{2\kappa(\theta)}\left[ \frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma-1}
+ \frac{M}{\sqrt{M^2-4{\cal R}j^2T(\theta)}}\right] \frac{d\theta}{dx}
+\rho{\cal L}.
\label{integ eq}$$
@SI01 and @IIK06 described a detailed numerical method to solve equation (\[integ eq\]). Since equation (\[integ eq\]) is the second order differential equation, we need two boundary conditions. At $x=-\infty$, we consider a uniform CNM with thermal equilibrium, ${\cal L}(\rho_\mathrm{c},P_\mathrm{c})=0$, where physical variables in the CNM are denoted by the subscript of ‘c’. The boundary conditions are given by $$\theta(x=-\infty)=\theta_\mathrm{c},\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\;\frac{d\theta}{dx}\Bigr|_{x=-\infty}=0.
\label{bou}$$ We have two free parameters: $P_\mathrm{c}$ and $j$. Given $P_\mathrm{c}$, the density and temperature can be obtained from equation (\[eos\]) and the equilibrium condition ${\cal L}(\rho_\mathrm{c},T_\mathrm{c})=0$. The momentum flux is determined by $P_\mathrm{c}$ and $j$ from equations (\[const\]) and (\[const mom\]).
The properties of differential equation (\[integ eq\]) can be well understood as trajectories in the phase diagram $(\theta,d\theta/dx)$. From equation (\[integ eq\]), one can see that the spatially uniform state with thermally equilibrium (${\cal L}=0$) corresponds to a stationary point because $d\theta/dx=d^2\theta/dx^2=0$. The topological property of the CNM at $x=-\infty$ corresponds to saddle point [@Eetal92; @FS93]. Given $P_\mathrm{c}$ and $j$, we numerically integrate equation (\[integ eq\]) from $x=-\infty$ along one of the eigenvectors obtained from the Jacobi matrix of equation (\[integ eq\]) around the stationary point of the CNM.
Zel’dovich & Pikel’ner Solutions {#sec:ZP}
================================
First, we review the solutions connecting two thermal equilibrium states (CNM and WNM). We call the solutions derived by ZP69 the ZP solutions. The ZP solutions exist only in the pressure range of $P_\mathrm{min}<P_\mathrm{c}<P_\mathrm{max}$ (see figure \[fig:eq\]). Given $P_\mathrm{c}$, @SI01 determine $j=j_\mathrm{ZP}(P_\mathrm{c})$ as the eigenvalue problem so that the boundary condition $d\theta/dx=0$ is satisfied in the WNM at $x=\infty$.
For the case of a static solution, that is $j=v=0$, equation (\[integ eq\]) can be rewritten as $$\int_{\theta_\mathrm{c}}^{\theta_\mathrm{w}} \rho {\cal L}d\theta
= \int_{T_\mathrm{c}}^{T_\mathrm{w}}\kappa\rho{\cal L}dT = 0
\label{saturate}$$ (ZP69) where the subscript ‘w’ denotes the physical quantities in the WNM. Equation (\[saturate\]) shows the balance between cooling and heating inside the transition layer. The pressure satisfying equation (\[saturate\]) is called saturation pressure.
In steady solutions with non-zero mass flux $j\ne0$, integrating equation (\[integ eq0\]) from $x=-\infty$ to $x=\infty$, one obtains $$j = - \frac{q}{c_p \left( T_\mathrm{w} - T_\mathrm{c}\right)},\;\;\mathrm{where}\;\;
q = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho{\cal L}(\rho,T)dx,
\label{j}$$ and we neglect the second term of equation (\[integ eq0\]) since the flow is subsonic and hence almost isobaric. In the saturation pressure, $q=0$ since $j=0$. For $P>P_\mathrm{sat}$, $q$ is positive because cooling dominates heating inside the front. Thus, $j<0$ from equation (\[j\]), i.e. the front corresponds to the condensation. In contrast, for $P<P_\mathrm{sat}$, the front describes the evaporation. In the ZP solutions, the mass flux $j$ is very small. Thus, the energy is mainly transferred by heat conduction. From equation (\[integ eq0\]), one can see that the thickness of the front is characterized by the Field length [@BM90] defined by $$l_\mathrm{F}\equiv \sqrt{\frac{\kappa T}{|\rho {\cal L}|}}.$$ The typical values of $l_\mathrm{F}$ is as large as $10^{-3}$ pc in the CNM, and $10^{-1}$ pc in the WNM. From equation (\[j\]), the flow speed across the transition layer can be evaluated by $|v|\simeq l_\mathrm{F}/t_\mathrm{c}$, where $t_\mathrm{c}$ is the cooling timescale [@FS93]. Since this value is very small in the actual ISM, ZP69 suggested that the transition front is almost static.
Figure \[fig:j0\](a) represents properties of the ZP solution for $P_\mathrm{c}/k_\mathrm{B}=3000$ K cm$^{-3}$. The corresponding mass flux is as large as $j_\mathrm{ZP}=-3.2\times10^{-3}m_\mathrm{H}$ km s$^{-1}
(v_\mathrm{w}=4.7\times10^{-3}$ km s$^{-1}$). The first row of figure \[fig:j0\] shows trajectories of solutions with various boundary conditions in the phase diagram $(\theta,d\theta/dx)$. There are three stationary points, which are indicated by the filled circles. The CNM and WNM are denoted by ‘C’ and ‘W’, respectively. As mentioned in section \[sec:numerical\], the CNM and WNM correspond to saddle points. On the other hand, the stationary point at the intermediate $\theta$ corresponds to the unstable phase denoted by ‘U’ in figure \[fig:j0\](a), and it is spiral point [@Eetal92; @FS93]. The solutions starting from the CNM are denoted by the thick solid line. The ZP solution connects two saddle points ‘C’ and ‘W’. The second row of figure \[fig:j0\](a) represents the temperature profile. The trajectory of the ZP solution in the $(n,P)$ plane is shown in the third row of figure \[fig:j0\](a).
Dynamical Transition Layers {#sec:dynamical}
===========================
Transition Layers for $P_\mathrm{min}<P_\mathrm{c}<P_\mathrm{max}$ {#sec:zp large}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the ZP solutions, the mass flux is determined so that the CNM is connected with the WNM. Here, we consider the condensation front $(j<0)$. What happen if the mass flux is larger than $|j_\mathrm{ZP}|$?
### Classification of Solutions
{width="13.0cm"}
It is found that solutions for larger mass flux can be divided by four type solutions: C-U-o, C-U, C-c, and C-C. We describe the property of each solution below.
[*C-U-o Solutions.*]{} For the case with $j=3j_\mathrm{ZP}$, the solution does not reaches the saddle point of the WNM but approaches the spiral point of the unstable phase (see the first row of figure \[fig:j0\]b). From the second row of figure \[fig:j0\](b), one can see the oscillation of the temperature profile that corresponds to the spiral motion in the phase diagram. The third row shows the trajectory of the solution in the $(n,P)$ plane. The solution truncates at the heating-dominated region before arriving at the WNM. The truncation point corresponds to the peak of the temperature in the second row of figure \[fig:j0\](b). Since the mass flux is still low, the pressure is almost constant. This type solutions already has been found in @Eetal92 under the isobaric approximation and a more simplified cooling rate. @IIK06 also found them as the finite extent solutions, and they truncated the solution at the first peak of the temperature profile near the transition front. We call this type of solutions ‘C-U-o’ solutions, where ‘C-U’ means solutions connecting CNM and unstable phase, and ‘o’ means the oscillation.
[*C-U Solutions.*]{} For larger mass flux $j=25j_\mathrm{ZP}$, the topological properties of the stationary point of the unstable phase changes from spiral to node (see the first row of figure \[fig:j0\]c) . Thus, from the second row of figure \[fig:j0\](c), there is no oscillation in the temperature profile, and the CNM is monotonically connected with the unstable phase. Figure \[fig:large\_flux\] shows solutions for much larger mass flux, $j/j_\mathrm{ZP}=25$, 1000, 2000, and 3000. One can see that as the mass flux increases, the density (pressure) of the unstable phase at $x=\infty$ increases (decreases) along the equilibrium curve. Because of large mass flux, the pressure increases significantly toward the CNM. This type solutions with lower mass flux already has been found in @Eetal92 under isobaric approximation. We call this type of solutions ‘C-U’ solutions.
![ Trajectories of solutions for $j/j_\mathrm{ZP}=1$(the solid line), 1000(the dashed line), 2000(the dotted line), 3000(the dot-dashed line). The CNM pressure is set to $P_\mathrm{c}=3000k_\mathrm{B}$ K cm$^{-3}$. The filled circle shows the state at $x=\infty$. []{data-label="fig:large_flux"}](fig3.eps){width="8.0cm"}
![ Trajectories of solutions for $j/j_\mathrm{ZP}=300$(the solid line), 500(the dashed line), 1000(the dotted line), 1500(the dot-dashed line). The CNM pressure is set to $P_\mathrm{c}=4000k_\mathrm{B}$ K cm$^{-3}$. The filled circle shows the state at $x=\infty$. []{data-label="fig:large_flux_sonic"}](fig4.eps){width="8.0cm"}
[*C-c Solutions.*]{} Figure \[fig:large\_flux\_sonic\] shows the solutions for $j/j_\mathrm{ZP}=300$, 500, 1000, and 1500. Here, we set $P_\mathrm{c}/k_\mathrm{B}=4000$ K cm$^{-3}$. The corresponding mass flux is $j_\mathrm{ZP}=-2.15\times10^{-2}m_\mathrm{H}$ km s$^{-1}$. The solution for $j=300j_\mathrm{ZP}$ belongs to the C-U solution. For larger mass flux $j=500j_\mathrm{ZP}$, the solution truncates at a certain point before arriving at the equilibrium state. This critical point corresponds to $T=T_\mathrm{crit}=M^2/(4{\cal R}j^2)$ above which solutions do not exist (see equation (\[rho\])-(\[P\])). The physical variables at the critical point is denoted by using the subscript of ‘crit’. From equations (\[const\]) and (\[const mom\]), the condition $T=T_\mathrm{crit}$ is equivalent to $$|v_\mathrm{crit}| = \sqrt{P_\mathrm{crit}/\rho_\mathrm{crit}}.
\label{vcrit}$$ Note that equation (\[vcrit\]) is slightly smaller than the adiabatic sound speed $\sqrt{\gamma P_\mathrm{crit}
/\rho_\mathrm{crit}}$. These critical velocity and temperature are also seen in the steady state structure of the shock front with heat conduction without physical viscosity [^2][@ZR67]. At the critical point, one can see that equation (\[integ eq\]) becomes infinity. Thus, in order to obtain a finite solution, $d\theta/dx$ must vanish at the critical point. From equations (\[P\]) and (\[integ eq\]), the pressure gradient becomes finite as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{dP}{dx} \right)_{\mathrm{crit}} &=& - \left( \frac{2{\cal R}j^2}{\sqrt{M^2-4{\cal R}j^2T}}
\frac{dT}{dx}\right)_\mathrm{crit} \\
&=& - \left( \rho{\cal L}_\mathrm{crit} \right)\sqrt{\frac{\rho_\mathrm{crit}}{P_\mathrm{crit}}}\nonumber
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ The pressure at the critical point can be derived from the momentum flux conservation. At the CNM $(x=-\infty)$, since the velocity is still subsonic because of its high density, the momentum flux becomes $$M=\rho_\mathrm{c}v_\mathrm{c}^2 + P_\mathrm{c}\simeq P_\mathrm{c}.$$ On the other hand, from equation (\[P\]), the pressure at the critical point is given by $P_\mathrm{crit}=M/2$. Therefore, the pressure at the critical point can be expressed by $P_\mathrm{c}$ as follows: $$P_\mathrm{crit}\simeq P_\mathrm{c}/2.
\label{P crit}$$ The density at the critical point is given by $$\rho_\mathrm{crit}=j^2/P_\mathrm{crit}\simeq 2j^2/P_\mathrm{c}.
\label{rho crit}$$ One can see that $P_\mathrm{crit}$ for $j=500j_\mathrm{ZP}$ and 1000$j_\mathrm{ZP}$ is roughly equal to $P_\mathrm{c}/2=2000k_\mathrm{B}$ K cm$^{-3}$, and its density increases for larger mass flux as seen in equation (\[rho crit\]). Around the critical point, since $dT/dx=d\theta/dx/\kappa=0$, the trajectories in the $(n,P)$ plane approach constant temperature lines of $T=T_\mathrm{crit}$ in figure \[fig:large\_flux\_sonic\].
We investigate the topological properties at the critical point in the phase diagram. The Jacobi matrix of equation (\[integ eq\]) around the critical point becomes infinite. Thus, there is no solution passing the critical point smoothly. In order to obtain infinite extent solution, shock front is required. Solutions with shock front are described in Appendix \[app:shock\]. We call this type of solutions “C-c” solution, where “C-c” means solutions connecting the CNM and the critical point.
[*C-C Solutions.*]{} For much larger mass flux case $j=1500j_\mathrm{ZP}$, since the solution passes the equilibrium curve before arriving at the critical point, the solution becomes the infinite extent solution connecting the CNM and CNM (see figure \[fig:large\_flux\_sonic\]). We call this type of solutions C-C solutions, where ‘C-C’ means solutions connecting the CNM and CNM.
![ Classification diagram of obtained solutions in parameter space $(P_\mathrm{c},j)$. The white dashed line corresponds to $j_\mathrm{ZP}$. The solid line indicates the critical mass flux $j_\mathrm{crit}(P_\mathrm{c})$. The black area where $|j|<|j_\mathrm{ZP}|$ is not focused in this paper. []{data-label="fig:sol_diag_lowpre"}](fig5.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Figure \[fig:sol\_diag\_lowpre\] shows classification of solutions in the parameter space $(P_\mathrm{c},j)$ for $P_\mathrm{min}<P_\mathrm{c}<P_\mathrm{max}$. The white dashed line corresponds to $j=j_\mathrm{ZP}(P_\mathrm{c})$ on which the ZP solutions exist. The black area where $|j|<|j_\mathrm{ZP}|$ is not focused in this paper. From figure \[fig:sol\_diag\_lowpre\], one can see that C-c solutions exist only for $P_\mathrm{c}>2P_\mathrm{min}$. This is because if $P_\mathrm{c}<2P_\mathrm{min}$, the solutions meet the equilibrium state before arriving at the critical point (see equation (\[P crit\])).
### Structure of Transition Layers {#sec:jcrit}
We investigate how the structure of transition layers depends on the mass flux. As mentioned in section \[sec:ZP\], in the ZP solutions, the thickness of the front is characterized by the Field length because the mass flux is very small. As $|j|$ increases, the effect of advection (the first term of equation (\[integ eq0\])) becomes important compared with the heat conduction (the third term of equation (\[integ eq0\])) in the energy transfer. We can define a critical mass flux $j_\mathrm{crit}$ where the effect of advection becomes comparable to the heat conduction as follows: $$- c_pj_\mathrm{crit}\frac{T_\mathrm{m}}{l_\mathrm{F,m}} = \kappa \frac{T_\mathrm{m}}{l_\mathrm{F,m}^2}
\Rightarrow j_\mathrm{crit}=-\frac{l_\mathrm{F,m}}{\gamma l_\mathrm{c,m}} \rho_\mathrm{m}c_\mathrm{m},
\label{jcrit}$$ where the subscript ‘m’ denotes a reference state in the solutions, $l_\mathrm{c,m}$ is the cooling length defined by $$l_\mathrm{c,m} = c_m \frac{P_\mathrm{m}}{(\gamma-1)\rho_\mathrm{m}{\cal L}_\mathrm{m}},$$ and $c_\mathrm{m}=\sqrt{\gamma P_\mathrm{m}/\rho_\mathrm{m}}$ is the sound speed. As the reference state, we consider the state where $|\cal L|$ has the maximum value for $T>T_\mathrm{c}$ under the constant pressure $P=P_\mathrm{c}$. This state roughly gives minimum Field length and cooling length in the solution. Thus, the critical mass flux is a function of $P_\mathrm{c}$. The actual value of $j_\mathrm{crit}$ is shown by the solid line in figure \[fig:sol\_diag\]. In most range of $P_\mathrm{c}$, $j_\mathrm{crit}$ lies in the region occupied by the C-U solutions.
For $|j|>|j_\mathrm{crit}|$, advection dominates heat conduction in energy transfer. In this case, the thickness of the front is characterized by the cooling length instead of the Field length. In typical ISM, $l_\mathrm{F}/l_\mathrm{c}$ is roughly as small as $10^{-2}$. Therefore, as the mass flux increases, the thickness of the front increases. Figure \[fig:jcrit\_profile\] shows the temperature profiles for $j=j_\mathrm{ZP}$, $j_\mathrm{crit}$, $5j_\mathrm{crit}$, and $10j_\mathrm{crit}$. The CNM pressure is set to $P_\mathrm{c}/k_\mathrm{B}=3000$ K cm$^{-3}$. One can see that the thickness of the layer increases with the mass flux.
![ Temperature profiles for $j=j_\mathrm{ZP}$(the solid line), $j_\mathrm{crit}$(the dashed line), $5j_\mathrm{crit}$(the dotted line), and $10j_\mathrm{crit}$(the dot-dashed line). The CNM pressure is set to $P_\mathrm{c}/k_\mathrm{B}=300$ K cm$^{-3}$. []{data-label="fig:jcrit_profile"}](fig6.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Transition Layers for $P_\mathrm{c}>P_\mathrm{max}$ {#sec:gt Pmax}
---------------------------------------------------
In previous section, we found solutions only for $P_\mathrm{min}<P_\mathrm{c}<P_\mathrm{max}$. However, in actual ISM, the CNM pressure can be greater than $P_\mathrm{max}$, for example, in shock-compressed regions. Our solutions can be directly extend for $P_\mathrm{c}>P_\mathrm{max}$.
Figure \[fig:sol\_diag\] is the same as figure \[fig:sol\_diag\_lowpre\] but it includes the pressure range of $P_\mathrm{c}>P_\mathrm{max}$. Figure \[fig:sol\_diag\] shows that most of the regions are covered by the C-c solution for $P_\mathrm{c}>P_\mathrm{max}$. The area of C-U solutions spreads to the pressure range of $P_\mathrm{max}<P_\mathrm{c}<2P_\mathrm{max}$. This is because solutions in this pressure range can connect with thermal equilibrium states before reaching at the critical point at a certain range of $j$. Figure \[fig:large\_flux\_hp\] shows trajectories of the solutions for $j/j_\mathrm{crit}=1$, 2, 5, and 20. The CNM pressure is set to $2.65\times10^{4}$ K cm$^{-3}$. One can see that the solution terminates at the critical point whose pressure is equal to $P_\mathrm{c}/2$ and where density increases with the mass flux.
![ The same as figure \[fig:sol\_diag\_lowpre\] but including the pressure range of $P_\mathrm{c}>P_\mathrm{max}$. The dashed line corresponds to $T_\mathrm{crit}=10^4$ K. []{data-label="fig:sol_diag"}](fig7.eps){width="8.0cm"}
![ Trajectories of solutions for $j/j_\mathrm{crit}=1$, 2, 5, and 20. The dashed line corresponds to $P=P_\mathrm{crit}/2$. []{data-label="fig:large_flux_hp"}](fig8.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
Implications
------------
@KI06 have investigated multi-dimensional nonlinear development of the TI without external forcing. They found that the turbulence is self-sustained by the TI. The velocity dispersion for sufficiently large simulation box is as large as $\sim0.2-0.4$ km s$^{-1}$. They suggested that this velocity is much larger than the prediction in ZP69. Our solutions exist in such a large mass flux. From their simulation, the mass flux becomes $|j|\sim 0.2\;m_\mathrm{H}\;\mathrm{km\;s^{-1}}(n/0.5\;\mathrm{cm^{-3}})(v/0.4\;\mathrm{km\;s^{-1}})$, where we assume that the accretion velocity to the CNM is comparable to this velocity dispersion. From figure \[fig:sol\_diag\_lowpre\], the corresponding solutions lie in the C-U or C-U-o solutions.
@KI02 have investigated the TI in the shock-compressed region. They found that the velocity dispersion is as large as several km s$^{-1}$. The corresponding mass flux is $|j|\sim 20\;m_\mathrm{H}\;\mathrm{km\;s^{-1}}(n/10\;\mathrm{cm^{-3}})(v/2\;\mathrm{km\;s^{-1}})$ that is larger than the results in @KI06. The pressure of the shock compressed region is larger than $P_\mathrm{max}$, indicting that the two stable phases cannot coexist. In shock compressed regions, the CNM clouds are embedded not by the stable WNM but by the unstable gas that is supplied continuously by shock compression. The C-c solutions in this pressure range $(P>P_\mathrm{max})$ may describe dynamical condensation from the unstable gas to the CNM in shock compression regions.
Curvature Effect
----------------
Our solutions are derived by assuming the plane-parallel geometry. @Netal05 investigated the curvature effect of the transition front by assuming the quasi-steady approximation. They consider the cylindrical and spherical CNM cloud at the centre. In contrast to the plane parallel solutions, the solutions have three parameters, the pressure of the CNM, the velocity of the front with respect to the centre, and the cloud radius. The second parameter corresponds to the mass flux in our solutions. They solved equations as the eigen- and boundary-value problem so that the solutions connect the CNM and WNM. Thus, the velocity of the front $v_f(P_\mathrm{c},R_\mathrm{c})$ is a function of $P_\mathrm{c}$ and cloud radius $R_\mathrm{c}$. The curvature effect enhance the heat flux by the thermal conduction from the CNM to the WNM. Thus, smaller cloud that has larger curvature tends to evaporate quickly. On the other hand, cold gas that has a negative curvature tends to gain mass by the condensation. Thus, the evolution of CNM cloud strongly depends on its shape.
By using the quasi-steady approximation, we can easily take into account curvature effect in our solutions. It is expected that solutions with larger evaporation rate connect the unstable phase and WNM while solutions with larger condensation rate connect the CNM and unstable phase.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
In this paper, we have investigated steady condensation solutions of phase transition layers in large parameter space $(P_\mathrm{c},j)$ much larger than previous works. We summarise our results as follows:
- In the pressure range where the three thermal equilibrium phase can coexist under a constant pressure $(P_\mathrm{min}<P_\mathrm{c}<P_\mathrm{max})$, we find solutions that connects the CNM and the unstable phase. The solutions can be classified into four type solutions, C-U-o, C-U, C-c, and C-C solutions in order of the mass flux. The C-U-o and C-U solutions connect the CNM and the unstable phase with and without the oscillation of physical quantities in the low-density side. The C-c solution is truncated at the maximum temperature above which there are no steady solutions. Combination of a C-c solution and a shock front provides an infinite extent solution. The C-C solutions connect the CNM and CNM.
- We have also found steady solutions in the pressure range $(P_\mathrm{c}>P_\mathrm{max})$ where only CNM can be in equilibrium. This pressure range is realized in the shock compressed region. In this parameter space $(P_\mathrm{c},j)$, most of solutions belong to the C-c solution.
- We derived a critical mass flux $j_\mathrm{crit}$ above which the effect of advection becomes important compared with the heat conduction in energy transfer. For large mass flux, $|j|>|j_\mathrm{crit}|$, the thickness of the front is characterized by the cooling length instead of the Field length, so that the thickness becomes larger.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the referee for valuable comments. We thank Dr. Tsuyoshi Inoue and Dr. Jennifer M. Stone for variable discussions. This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the MEXT of Japan (K.I.:22864006; S.I.:18540238 and 16077202).
Audit, E., & Hennebelle, P. 2005, A&A, 433, 1
Audit, E., & Hennebelle, P. 2010, A&A, 511, 76
Balbus, S. A. 1986, ApJ, 303, 79
Begelman, M. C., & McKee, C. F. 1990, ApJ, 358, 375
Elphick, C., Regev, O., & Shaviv, N. 1992, ApJ, 392, 106
Ferrara, A., & Shchekinov, Yu. A. 1993, ApJ, 417, 595
Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531
Field, G. B., Goldsmith, D. W., & Habing, H. J. 1969, ApJ, 155, L149
Gazol, A., V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., & Kim, J. 2005, ApJ, 630, 911
Graham, R., & Langer, W. D. 1973, ApJ, 179, 469
Heitsch, F., Burkert, A., Hartmann, L., Slyz, A., & Devriendt, J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 113
Heitsch, F., Slyz, A., Devriendt, J., Hartmann, L., & Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1052
Heitsch, F., Stone, J., & Hartmann, L. 2009, ApJ, 695, 248
Hennebelle, P., & Audit, E. 2007, A&A, 465, 431
Hennebelle, P., Banerjee, R., V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., Klessen, R., & Audit, E. 2008, A&A, 486, L43
Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S., 2008, ApJ, 687, 303
Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S., 2009, ApJ, 704, 161
Inoue, T., Inutsuka, S., & Koyama, H. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1331
Iwasaki, K., & Tsuribe, T. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1554
Iwasaki, K., & Tsuribe, T. 2009, A&A, 508, 725
Kritsuk, A. G., & Norman, M. L. 2002, ApJ, 569, L127
Koyama, H, & Inutsuka, S. 2002, ApJ, 564, L97
Koyama, H, & Inutsuka, S. 2006, \[arXiv:astro-ph/0605528\]
Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. 1987, Fluid Mechanics. Pergamon, New York
Nagashima, M., Koyama, H., & Inutsuka, S., 2005, MNRAS, 361, L25
Parker, E. N. 1953, ApJ, 117, 431
Penston, M. V., & Brown, F. E. 1970, MNRAS, 150, 373
Shchekinov, Yu, A., & Ib[á]{}[ñ]{}ez, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 209
Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJ, 508, L99
Stone, J. M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2009, ApJ, 696, 233
Stone, J. M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2010, ApJ, 724, 131
V[á]{}zquez-Semadeni, E., Ryu, D., Passot, T., Gonz[á]{}lez, R., & Gazol, A. 2006, ApJ, 643, 245
Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D., McKee, C. F., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Bakes, E. L. O., 1995, ApJ, 443, 152
Wolfire, M. G., McKee, C. F., Hollenbach, D., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2003, ApJ, 587, 278
Zel’dovich, Ya, B. & Pikel’ner, S. B. 1969, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 56, 310 (English transl. Soviet Phys.-JETP, 29, 170)
Zel’dovich, Ya, B. & Raizer, Y. P. 1967, Physics of Shock Waves and High Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena (New York: Academic)
Solutions with Shock Front {#app:shock}
==========================
In this Appendix, we present steady solutions with shock front. Here, we assume that preshock gas is in thermal equilibrium state. The physical variables in preshock gas are denoted by using the subscript of “E”. The position of the shock front $x=x_\mathrm{sh}$ is determined so that the Rankine-Hugoniot relation is satisfied between the solutions and the thermal equilibrium state by the following method. Given $x=x_\mathrm{sh}$, the specific energy flux is given by $$\frac{\gamma P_\mathrm{sh}}{(\gamma-1)\rho_\mathrm{sh} } + \frac{1}{2}v_\mathrm{sh}^2 \equiv \frac{\gamma+1}{2(\gamma-1)}
c_*^2,$$ where the subscript of “sh” denotes physical variables at $x=x_\mathrm{sh}$, and $c_*^2$ is the effective sound speed. The simple relation among $v_\mathrm{sh}$, $v_\mathrm{E}$, and $c_*$ is given by $$v_\mathrm{sh}v_\mathrm{E}=c_*^2.
\label{v}$$ From equation (\[v\]), one can get $v_\mathrm{E}$, and the Mach number ${\cal M}$ is obtained. From the Rankine-Hugoniot relations, the physical variables in the preshock gas ($\rho_\mathrm{E}$ and $T_\mathrm{E}$) are obtained. In general, the preshock gas is not in thermal equilibrium state. The position of the shock front $x_\mathrm{sh}$ is determined iteratively until ${\cal L}(\rho_\mathrm{E},T_\mathrm{E})=0$ is satisfied by using the bisection method.
As examples, we consider two cases of $j=2$ and 24$j_\mathrm{crit}$ for $P_\mathrm{c}/k_\mathrm{B}=3.114\times10^4$K cm$^{-3}$. For $j=2j_\mathrm{c}$ case, the corresponding physical quantities of the preshock gas are $n_\mathrm{E}=0.57$ cm$^{-3}$ and ${\cal M}=2.17$. For $j=24j_\mathrm{c}$, they are $n_\mathrm{E}=75$ cm$^{-3}$ and ${\cal M}=2.23$. Thus, the preshock gases belong to the WNM for $j=2j_\mathrm{c}$ and CNM for $j=24j_\mathrm{crit}$. The upper panels of figures \[fig:mesh\]a and \[fig:mesh\]b show the density, temperature, and pressure distribution for $j=2j_\mathrm{crit}$ and $j=24j_\mathrm{crit}$, respectively. The lower panels of figure \[fig:mesh\] show the trajectories of obtained solutions in the $(n,P)$ plane.
In addition, we perform one-dimensional hydrodynamical simulation in order to confirm the steady state solutions with shock front are realized. We consider colliding wall problem where the gas flows collide at $x=0$ with $|v_\mathrm{E}-v_\mathrm{c}|$ from $x=\pm\infty$. Two shock wave propagates from $x=0$ outward. Shock heated gas quickly cools until the gas reaches the thermal equilibrium state. After that, the cold layer forms and its thickness grows by gas accretion. The thick gray line in each panel of figure \[fig:mesh\] indicate the results of one-dimensional simulations in the growing phase of the cold layer. One can see that the results of one-dimensional simulations are well described by the steady-state solutions.
{width="10.0cm"}
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: The inclusion of physical viscosity may change the properties and existances of these solutions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Background
: X-ray telescopes are powerful tools for the study of neutron stars and black holes. In order to probe such fascinating astrophysical objects future X-ray telescopes will carry superconducting transition-edge sensors. The analysis of the signals produced by X-rays absorption onto transitional-edge sensor is already mature. Several methods have already been developed (e.g., principal component analysis, nonlinear optimal filtering or high-rate processing method) to analyse the pulses that result from X-rays absorbed in these sensors.
Purpose
: Our goal is to develop a lightweight, linear filter that will maximize energy and time resolution when X-ray photons are detected by transition-edge sensors. Such a method could be implemented in the new generation of X-ray space telescopes. Furthermore, we find the minimal sampling rate that will not degrade the energy and time-resolution of these techniques.
Method
: Our method is designed for the widest range of photon energies (from $0.1$ keV to $30$ keV). Transition-edge sensors exhibit a non-linear response that becomes more pronounced with increasing photon energy; therefore, we need to treat high-energy photons differently from low-energy photons. In general, the switching-point energy depends on the properties of the detector and corresponds to the energy of the photon that begins to saturate the superconductor to normal transition of the TES (at about $4.6$ keV here). In order to retrieve the energy and the arrival time of the photon, we fit simulations of the evolution of the current including the typical noise sources in a sensor with simulated theoretical models. The curve-fitting parameters are interpolated to extract the energy and time resolution.
Results
: For energies from $0.1$ keV to $30$ keV and with a sampling rate of $195$ kHz, we obtain a $2\sigma$-energy resolution between $1.67$ eV and $6.43$ eV. Those results hold if the sampling rate decreases by a factor two. About time resolution, with a sampling rate of $195$ kHz we get a $2\sigma$-time resolution between $94$ ns and $0.55$ ns for a sensor with the physical parameters as those used in the HOLMES experiment.
Conclusions
: We have successfully developed a new method that enables to maximize the energy and the arrival time of photons detected by a TES, using a very simple implementation. In order to make this method useful on a larger scale, it will be essential to get a more general description of the noise in a TES, and it will be necessary to develop a robust way to identify pile-up events.
author:
- Paul Ripoche
- Jeremy Heyl
title: |
Maximizing time and energy resolution for photons\
detected by transition-edge sensors
---
Introduction
============
X-ray telescopes enable us to study fascinating compact objects, such as neutron stars and black holes. In the future, several missions, e.g., Athena [@2018SPIE10699E..1GB], Colibrì [@2019BAAS...51g.175H] or Lynx [@2018SPIE10699E..0NG], are planned to carry arrays of superconducting transition-edge sensors (TESs). Consequently, maximizing energy resolution and timing for photons detected with such sensors is a crucial goal in X-ray astronomy [@2015SuScT..28h4003U].
Recently, several techniques to analyze X-ray data from transition-edge sensors have been developed, such as principal component analysis [@2016JLTP..184..382B], optimal filtering of the resistance signal [@2015ApPhL.107v3503L], nonlinear optimal filtering [@2014AIPA....4k7106S] and optimal fitting [@2002AIPC..605..339F; @2004NIMPA.520..555F; @2019JATIS...5b1008S]. Those techniques achieve an energy resolution between $0.7$ keV and $3.4$ keV full width at half maximum (FWHM), for low energies (below $6$ keV). However, those techniques may be difficult to implement easily on an X-ray space telescope.
Therefore, we propose a new and lighter method, in order to get the energy and the arrival time of photons detected by a TES. We aim to use this technique to predict the behavior of the new generation of non-focusing X-ray telescopes. Indeed, such X-ray telescopes will be studying variable X-ray emissions coming from neutron stars and black holes, and probe the region very close to them, where the dynamical timescales of those region are of the order of microseconds. Since accreting neutron stars and black holes shine bright in the $0.5-10$ keV range, we developed a technique that maximizes time and energy resolution over the widest range of photon energies (here, from $0.1$ keV to $30$ keV).
This paper first describes our detector model and how events were simulated. We next address the issue of noise in TESs and present our method that enables to maximize energy resolution and timing. Finally, we discuss the outcomes.
Transition-edge sensors to detect X-rays
========================================
Detector model {#sec:detectModel}
--------------
A transition-edge sensor is made of a superconducting metal film functioning near its transition temperature (typically $0.1$ K). While electrons move freely in a superconducting metal, they encounter some significant resistance when the metal switches to its normal phase. The transition from superconductor to normal metal occurs within about a narrow 1 mK change in the temperature, but results in a large change in resistance. Thus after an X-ray photon deposits energy in the sensor, the superconductor heats up, the resistance increases, the electric current drops and an X-ray photon is detected.
Indeed, when an X-ray photon hits a TES, the provided energy provokes the needed rise in temperature for the transition to happen; therefore measuring how much the intensity of the current diminishes and how long the sensor takes to recover enables us to determine the energy of that photon. Finally, after the absorption of a photon, a TES needs to be cooled down to its initial temperature by using a cooling bath, at temperature $T_\text{bath}$, in order to be able to detect the next photon. In this work, we simulated current pulses in a TES, using differential equations from the Irwin-Hilton model [@Irwin2005]. The temperature $T$ and the current $I$ of the detector evolve as follows $$\diff{I}{t} = - \frac{R(T,I)+R_L}{L}I + \frac{V}{L},
\label{eq:Idyn}$$ $$\diff{T}{t} = \frac{R(T,I)}{C_V}I^{2} - \frac{k}{C_V}(T^{n} - T_\text{bath}^{n}),
\label{eq:Tdyn}$$ where the detector resistance is given by [@2014AIPA....4k7106S] $$R(T,I) = \frac{R_N}{2} \left \{ 1 + \tanh\left[\frac{T-T_C + (I/A)^{2/3}}{2\ln(2)T_W}\right] \right \}.
\label{eq:Rdetect}$$ We assume that the physical parameters in Eq. (\[eq:Idyn\]), Eq. (\[eq:Tdyn\]) and Eq. (\[eq:Rdetect\]) are the same as for detectors being developed at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) for the HOLMES experiment. Those parameters are summarized in [@2016JLTP..184..263A] and are reported in Table \[tab:physparam\].
[|l|l|]{}\
&\
$n=3.25$ & $V=146.9$ nV\
$k=23.3$ nW.K$^{-n}$ & $T_W = 0.565$ mK\
$T_c=0.1$ K & $A = 1.133$ A.K$^{-3/2}$\
$C_V=0.5$ pJ.K$^{-1}$ & $T_0=0.0980$ K\
$R_L=0.3$ m$\Omega$ & $I_0 = 63.85$ $\mu$A\
$T_\text{bath}=0.07$ K &\
$R_N=10$ m$\Omega$ &\
$R_0=2$ m$\Omega$ &\
$L \in \{12, 24, 48\footnote{We use this value of inductance throughout this work, except mentioned otherwise.}\}$ nH &\
In order to test those parameters, we ran our TES simulation without any photon arrivals. We replaced $R(T,I)$ by $R_0$ in Eq. (\[eq:Idyn\]) and Eq. (\[eq:Tdyn\]), and we used the initial temperature $T_0$ and current $I_0$ given in Table \[tab:physparam\]. We obtained a slightly different current at quiescence, $I_0=63.87$ $\mu$A. This new current at quiescence is the one that will be used throughout this work.
Simulations of events {#sec:simulEvents}
---------------------
[|c|c|c|]{}\
\
& &\
& &\
250 & 5.12 & 195[^1]\
125 & 10.2 & 97.7\
62 & 20.6 & 48.4\
31 & 41.3 & 24.2\
13 & 98.5 & 10.2\
In order to develop a method that gives the energy and the arrival time of incoming photons, while maximizing the resolution for those two parameters, we simulated single events. To simulate each photon arrival, we solved Eq. (\[eq:Idyn\]) and Eq. (\[eq:Tdyn\]) letting the initial temperature and current of the TES be: $$T_{0,\gamma}= T_0 + \frac{E_\gamma}{C_V},$$ $$I_{0,\gamma} = I_0,$$ where $E_\gamma$ is the energy of each simulated incoming photon. The current evolution is shown in Fig. \[fig:singleEventCurrent\] for a $7$ keV photon. We observe that current in a TES drops with a relaxation time of about $0.5$ ms, which limits how much the acquisition time can be reduced.
![Change in current for a single event in a TES. The incoming photon has an energy of $7$ keV.[]{data-label="fig:singleEventCurrent"}](theoretical_TES_current_7keV.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
We generated single events at energies in the $0.1-30$ keV range, for the three different values of inductance coming from Table \[tab:physparam\]. We observed that the total drop in the current in the TES increases with the energy of the incoming photon, until it clearly saturates for $E_\gamma \geq 10$ keV. Once the current drop saturates, the relaxation time increases significantly with the energy of the incoming photon. Those two simple observations, are the basis of the method we have developed.
In order to illustrate those two observations, we plot the maximum current drop in the TES as a function of $E_\gamma$ (see Fig. \[fig:maxIdrop\]), and the FWHM of the current drop as a function of $E_\gamma$ (see Fig. \[fig:FWHM\]). The maximum current drop has a linear behavior for $E_\gamma \leq 4.6$ kev, whereas the FWHM of the current drop becomes linear for $E_\gamma \geq 4.6$ kev. Although the magnitude of X-ray pulses as a function of energy has already been used to retrieve the energy of an incoming photon [@2013ITAS...2300705B], the energy resolution obtained at high-energy is poor because TESs have a very non-linear response. Consequently, to maximize time and energy resolution for X-ray photons, we need to treat high-energy and low-energy photons with two different techniques. In general, the switching-point energy depends on the properties of the detector and corresponds to the energy of the photon that begins to saturate the superconductor to normal transition of the TES.
![Maximum current drop in a TES as a function of the energy of the incoming photon.[]{data-label="fig:maxIdrop"}](theoretical_max_TES_drop.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![FWHM of the current drop in a TES as a function of the energy of the incoming photon.[]{data-label="fig:FWHM"}](theoretical_FWHM.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Noise in a transition-edge sensor
=================================
Two irreducible sources of noise in a TES are thermal fluctuation noise (also known as phonon noise), and Johnson–Nyquist noise [@McCammon2005]. Thermal fluctuation (TF) noise is the statistical fluctuations that arise from energy exchange between the detector and the heat sink. Johnson–Nyquist (JN) noise is produced by the thermal agitation of electrons in a TES, in other words, it is the electronic noise at equilibrium.
In order to implement our method, we first need to add noise to our simulations. Following the power spectrum of the ARMA-generated noise used in [@2016JLTP..184..263A], we generate a power spectral density (PSD) for the thermal fluctuation noise and for the Johnson-Nyquist noise, at equilibrium: $$% PSD_\text{TF}^\text{eq}(f_j)=\frac{0.15\times10^{-12}}{(4\times10^3)^2+f_j^2}~\mathrm{A^2 Hz^{-1}}
PSD_\text{TF}^\text{eq}(f)=\frac{9.4\times10^{-21}}{1 + \left (\frac{f}{4\times 10^3 \mathrm{Hz}}\right)^2}~\mathrm{A^2 Hz^{-1}}
\label{eq:theoPSDTF}$$
$$PSD_\text{JN}^\text{eq}(f)=0.6\times10^{-21}~\mathrm{A^2 Hz^{-1}},
\label{eq:theoPSDJN}$$
where the variables with indices “eq” are taken at equilibrium. The PSD of the total noise is simply the sum of the two PSDs. Then, we convert these power spectral densities into real noise signals, for each type of noise by performing an inverse Fourier transform using each power spectral density with randomly chosen phases; that is, we assume that the two noise sources are uncorrelated and add them incoherently.
In order to account for non-stationary effects in the noise [@McCammon2005], we scaled both these noises sources at equilibrium, using current, temperature and resistance in a TES at a given moment, $t_j$: $$N_\text{TF}^\text{non-eq}(t_j) = \frac{T}{R}\frac{R_\text{eq}}{T_\text{eq}}\diff{R}{T}\left(\diff{R}{T}\right)_\text{eq}^{-1}N_\text{TF}^\text{eq}(t_j)
\label{eq:expnoiseTF}$$ $$N_\text{JN}^\text{non-eq}(t_j) = \sqrt{\frac{T}{R}\frac{R_\text{eq}}{T_\text{eq}}}N_\text{JN}^\text{eq}(t_j).
\label{eq:expnoiseJN}$$ The total noise is simply the sum of the two noise signals. In order to obtain the resulting equilibrium and non-equilibrium PSDs, we perform a Fourier transform of the noise signals, yielding resulting depicted in Fig. \[fig:comparisonpsd\]. We compare the PSDs of the total non-equilibrium noise (averaged over 1,000 iterations) to the one at equilibrium. They slightly differ for photons with high energies because of the scaling effects in non-stationary noise [@Irwin2005]. As the sensor cools from absorbing a 9.5 keV photon, the thermal fluctuation noise is slightly larger than at equilibrium and conversely the Johnson-Nyquist noise is slightly smaller. Simulating these non-stationary noise signals enables us to test our methods in close-to-real conditions.
![Comparison between the non-equilibrium PSDs (dashed lines) and the ones at equilibrium (solid lines). The Johnson-Nyquist noise has a constant PSD whereas the thermal fluctuation noise has a PSD which drops off at high frequencies. The incoming photon has an energy $E_\gamma = 9.5$ keV.[]{data-label="fig:comparisonpsd"}](psd.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Measuring the energy and the arrival time of an incoming X-ray photon
=====================================================================
We now present our method to maximize energy and time resolution for photons hitting a TES. We use the physical parameters outlined in Tab. \[tab:physparam\] with $L=48$nH and a sampling interval of 5.12 $\mu$s.
High-energy photons
-------------------
As explained in Sec. \[sec:simulEvents\], we need to treat photons differently according to their energy. In this section, we develop a technique to measure energy and arrival time for high-energy photons. We first describe our method through an example. We simulate a single event at $9.5$ keV, with $L =48$ nH. We work with that inductance so that the onset of the pulse can be resolve even with sampling rates less than 100 khZ. We then use a theoretical model at $7$ keV to fit the noisy pulse. This model was obtained by interpolating current-drop simulations, described in Sec. \[sec:simulEvents\], at a given energy. We split this theoretical model in two parts (see Fig. \[fig:noisyDropHighModel\]), the “onset” part, and the “decay” part: $$I_\text{onset} = \frac{3}{4}I_\text{TES}(t<t_\text{max})$$ $$I_\text{decay} = \frac{3}{4}I_\text{TES}(t>t_\text{max}),$$ where $3/4$ is a numerical factor that enables to have enough points for curve fitting while avoiding effects from the shape of the current-drop maximum, and $t_\text{max}$ is the time at which the current drop is maximum. The “onset” part enables us to obtain the arrival time, whereas the decay part enables us to get the energy of the incoming photon. The theoretical model was chosen for an event at $7$ keV; we however do not expect the energy of the theoretical model to affect the resolution, as long as it has a large enough energy to saturate the transition, that is, $E>4.6$ keV.
![Single event at $E_\gamma = 9.5$ keV, and theoretical model at $E_\gamma=7$ keV. We zoom in (box) to attest the presence of noise in the simulation.[]{data-label="fig:noisyDropHighModel"}](noisy_TES_drop_high_energy_model.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The curve-fitting model is the following: $$I^\text{fit}_\text{onset}= k_\text{onset} I_\text{onset}(t-t_\text{onset}),
\label{eq:yOnset}$$ $$I^\text{fit}_\text{decay}= I_\text{decay}(t-t_\text{decay}).
\label{eq:yDecay}$$
We then ran simulations for energies between $0.1$ keV and $30$ keV, and retrieved the parameter values for each energy. The response of $k_\text{onset}$ is linear at low energies, which gives a first glimpse of the method used for low-energy photons. On the other hand, the response of $(t_\text{decay}-t_\text{onset})$ is linear at high energies, therefore this parameter is used to obtain the energy of the incoming photon. The parameter $t_\text{onset}$ is used to get the arrival time. In our simulations, the actual arrival time is zero, so the value of $t_\text{onset}$ in the simulations yields the uncertainty in the measurement arrival times.
Finally, for each photon energy, we run 1,000 simulations and retrieve the energy and arrival time uncertainty. Going back to our example where we fit a photon of energy 9.5 keV, we obtained the energy of the incoming photon with an uncertainty of {$+2.35$ eV, $-2.23$ eV} within the 68-percent confidence region. Moreover, the resolution on the arrival time is {$+0.45533$ ns, $-0.48716$ ns} with 68-percent confidence.
Low-energy photons
------------------
In this section, we develop a technique to measure energy and arrival time for low-energy photons. We simulated a single event at $0.5$ keV. We then used a theoretical model at $1$ keV to fit the whole noisy pulse [@2002AIPC..605..339F; @2004NIMPA.520..555F; @2019JATIS...5b1008S]. This is showed in Fig. \[fig:noisyDropLowModel\].
The curve-fitting model is the following: $$I^\text{fit}_\text{shape} = k_\text{shape} I_\text{shape}(t-t_\text{shape}),
\label{eq:yShape}$$ We then ran the simulations for energies between $0.1$ keV and $30$ keV, and retrieved the parameters for each energy. The response of $k_\text{shape}$ is linear at low energies, this is therefore the parameter that we use to obtain the energy of the incoming photon. The parameter $t_\text{shape}$ is used to determine the arrival time.
![Single event at $E_\gamma = 0.5$ keV, and theoretical model at $E_\gamma=1$ keV. We zoomed in (box) to attest the presence of noise in the simulation.[]{data-label="fig:noisyDropLowModel"}](noisy_TES_drop_low_energy_model.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Finally, for each energy, we run 1,000 simulations and retrieve the energy and arrival time uncertainty. Going back to our example, we obtained the energy of the incoming photon with a resolution of {$+0.87$ eV, $-0.83$ eV}. In addition, the resolution on the arrival time is {$+11.69120$ ns, $-10.84495$ ns}. Both of these results are 68-percent confidence intervals.
Energy and arrival time resolution
----------------------------------
We now summarize the energy resolutions for all photon energies in Fig. \[fig:uncertainty2sigmas10kev\]. As one would expect, $k_\text{shape}$ gives the best energy resolution at low energies and $t_\text{decay}-t_\text{onset}$ gives it at high energies. One can see that the switching point energy is at about $4.6$ keV. Our method enables us to reach an energy resolution at $2 \sigma$ between $1.67$ eV and $6.43$ eV, for $0.1$ keV $< E_\gamma < 30$ keV.
Regarding the arrival time, one can notice that the resolution saturates at high energies. Our method enables us to reach a resolution at $2 \sigma$ between $94$ ns and $0.55$ ns, for $0.1$ keV $< E_\gamma < 30$ keV (see Fig. \[fig:timeuncertainty2sigmas\]).
These resolutions were obtained with a very simple method, which is promising for future analysis of X-ray-telescope data. However, pile-up events are known to alter the obtained resolution [@2014JLTP..176...16F]. Therefore, whenever a consistent photon energy cannot be retrieved with our method, the event can be treated separately as a pile-up event.
![Energy uncertainty range (within $2\sigma$), for the parameters $t_\text{decay}-t_\text{onset}$ and $k_\text{shape}$; as a function of $E_\gamma$.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainty2sigmas10kev"}](energy_uncertainty_2sigmas10keV.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![Arrival time uncertainty range (within $2\sigma$), for the parameters $t_\text{onset}$ and $t_\text{shape}$, as a function of $E_\gamma$.[]{data-label="fig:timeuncertainty2sigmas"}](time_uncertainty_2sigmas.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Energy and time resolution for different parameters of a TES
============================================================
The resolution obtained depend on the physical parameters of a detector, such as the sampling rate and the heat capacity. Consequently, we need to change those parameters to see how the resolution is impacted. We also digitized the signal with $16$ bits to see how the resolution would be affected by signal processing.
For simulations at $195$ kHz, we use the better energy resolution given by either ($t_\text{decay}-t_\text{onset}$) or $k_\text{shape}$, and the best time resolution given by either $t_\text{onset}$ or $t_\text{shape}$. However, for lower sampling rates not enough points are present in the onset part of the curve fitting. Therefore, for those lower sampling rates, we use the better energy resolution given by either ($t_\text{decay}-t_\text{shape}$) or $k_\text{shape}$, and the time resolution is given by $t_\text{shape}$.
Energy resolutions for different TES parameters are showed in Fig. \[fig:uncertainty2sigmasDiffParam\]. One notices that digitizing the signal with $16$ bits has no effect on energy resolution and time resolution, which is a promising result for a future use of this method on a real telescope. Increasing the heat capacity however diminishes our energy resolution at low energies. Reducing the sampling rate to $97.7$ kHz doesn’t influence our energy resolution; this enables us to use lower sampling rates than in previous methods [@2016JLTP..184..382B]. One can see that if the sampling rate goes as low as $48.4$ kHz, then the energy resolution decreases by a factor two. To account for the decrease in resolution with lower sampling rates, one could be tempted to increase the heat capacity and the acquisition time. However this would increase the FWHM of the signal and would not let enough time to the TES to cool down for the next incoming photon. Consequently, the sampling rate is the only parameter that can be modified without losing significant resolution.
![Energy uncertainty range (within $2\sigma$) for different parameters of the TES.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainty2sigmasDiffParam"}](energy_uncertainty_2sigmas10keV_diffParam.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Changing the TES parameters affects the time resolution as well, but in any case it remains far below $1~\mu$s.
Conclusion
==========
TESs are key elements for future X-ray astrophysics telescopes [@2017ITAS...2749839D]. While retrieving the energy and the arrival time of a photon detected by a TES is not new; we have successfully developed a new method that enables to optimize the measurements of the energy and the arrival time of photons detected by a TES, using a very simple linear-filter implementation. Such a simple method is promising for future X-ray analysis. Our method treats high-energy photons and low-energy photons separately. Indeed, since TESs have a very non-linear response, scaling effects in non-stationary noise are more important at high energies. We retrieve the energy and arrival time of low-energy photons by fitting the entire current drop in a TES and by interpolating the magnitude of the drop as a function of the energy. This technique is not new, but gives poor results for high-energy photons. Consequently, for the latter, we developed a new technique; we use the width of the current drop instead of its size, by splitting the curve fitting in two parts. In order to work in closest to real conditions, we generated non-stationary noise in a TES. We noticed that using stationary noise does not change the energy resolution at low-energies, but does for high-energies (where the scaling effects are more important).
We successfully retrieved energy and arrival time for an incoming photon, with resolutions similar to the ones obtained with previous methods at low energies. However, thanks to our new technique, we improve the energy resolution for high-energy photons.
In order to make this method useful on a larger scale, it will be essential to get a more general description of the noise in a TES, and it will be necessary to develop a robust way to identify pile-up events. Eventually, we will determine how to efficiently deal with real-time processing, and therefore enable its implementation in future X-ray telescopes.
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.
\[1\]\[1\][\#1]{}
[16]{}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 in [**](https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2312409), , Vol. () p. in @noop [**]{}, Vol. () p. in [**](https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2314149), , Vol. () p. [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/8/084003) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-015-1357-z) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4936793) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4901291) in [**](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1457659), Vol. , () pp. [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2003.11.313) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JATIS.5.2.021008) , in [**](https://doi.org/10.1007/10933596_3), (, , ) pp. [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-015-1402-y) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2013.2238752) , in [**](https://doi.org/10.1007/10933596_1), (, , ) pp. [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-014-1149-x) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2017.2649839)
[^1]: All plots are at this sampling rate, except where mentioned otherwise.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[Diffraction and its QCD interpretation ]{}\
[**Laurent SCHOEFFEL$^1$** ]{}\
[*(1) CEA Saclay/Irfu-SPP, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France* ]{}
=============================================================
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
--------
The most important results on hadronic diffractive phenomena obtained at HERA and Tevtaron are reviewed and new issues in nucleon tomography are discussed. Some challenges for understanding diffraction at the LHC, including the discovering of the Higgs boson, are outlined.
Experimental diffraction at HERA
--------------------------------
Between 1992 and 2007, the HERA accelerator provided $ep$ collisions at center of mass energies beyond $300 \ {\rm GeV}$ at the interaction points of the H1 and ZEUS experiments. Perhaps the most interesting results to emerge relate to the newly accessed field of perturbative strong interaction physics at low Bjorken-$x$ ($x_{Bj}$), where parton densities become extremely large. Questions arise as to how and where non-linear dynamics tame the parton density growth and challenging features are observed. Central to this low $x_{Bj}$ physics landscape is a high rate of diffractive processes, in which a colorless exchange takes place and the proton remains intact. Indeed, one of the most important experimental result from the DESY $ep$ collider HERA is the observation of a significant fraction of events in Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS) with a large rapidity gap (LRG) between the scattered proton, which remains intact, and the rest of the final system. This fraction corresponds to about 10% of the DIS data at $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$.
In DIS, such events are not expected in such abundance, since large gaps are exponentially suppressed due to color string formation between the proton remnant and the scattered partons. Events are of the type $ep \rightarrow eXp$, where the final state proton carries more than $95$ % of the proton beam energy. A photon of virtuality $Q^2$, coupled to the electron (or positron), undergoes a strong interaction with the proton (or one of its low-mass excited states $Y$) to form a hadronic final state system $X$ of mass $M_X$ separated by a LRG from the leading proton (see Fig. \[difproc\]). These events are called diffractive. In such a reaction, $ep \rightarrow eXp$, no net quantum number is exchanged and the longitudinal momentum fraction $1-x_{{\rm l \! P }}$ is lost by the proton. Thus, the mongitudinal momentum ${x_{{\rm l \! P }} }P$ is transfered to the system $X$. In addition to the standard DIS kinematic variables and ${x_{{\rm l \! P }} }$, a diffractive event is also often characterized by the variable $\beta={x_{Bj}}/{x_{{\rm l \! P }}}$, which takes a simple interpretation in the parton model discussed in the following. Comparisons with hard diffraction in proton-(anti)proton scattering have also improved our knowledge of absorptive and underlying event effects in which the diffractive signature may be obscured by multiple interactions in the same event. In addition to their fundamental interest in their own right, these issues are highly relevant to the modeling of chromodynamics at the LHC.
Experimentally, for a diffractive DIS event, $ep\rightarrow eXp$, the dissociating particle is the virtual photon emitted by the electron. The final state consists of the scattered electron and hadrons which populate the photon fragmentation region. The proton is scattered in the direction of the initial beam proton with little change in momentum and angle. In particular, we detect no hadronic activity in the direction of the proton flight, as the proton remains intact in the diffractive process. On the contrary, for a standard DIS event, the proton is destroyed in the reaction and the flow of hadronic clusters is clearly visible in the proton fragmentation region (forward part of the detector).
The experimental selection of diffractive events in DIS proceeds in two steps. Events are first selected based on the presence of the scattered electron in the detector. Then, for the diffractive selection itself, three different methods have been used at HERA:
1. A reconstructed proton track is required in the leading (or forward) proton spectrometer (LPS for ZEUS or FPS for H1) with a fraction of the initial proton momentum $x_L>0.97$. Indeed, the cleanest selection of diffractive events with photon dissociation is based on the presence of a leading proton in the final state. By leading proton we mean a proton which carries a large fraction of the initial beam proton momentum. This is the cleanest way to select diffractive events, but the disadvantage is a reduced kinematic coverage.
2. The hadronic system $X$ measured in the central detector is required to be separated by a large rapidity gap from the rest of the hadronic final state. This is a very efficient way to select diffractive events in a large kinematic domain, close to the standard DIS one. The prejudice is a large background as discussed in the following.
3. The diffractive contribution is identified as the excess of events at small $M_X$ above the exponential fall-off of the non-diffractive contribution with decreasing $\ln M^2_X$. The exponential fall-off, expected in QCD, permits the subtraction of the non-diffractive contribution and therefore the extraction of the diffractive contribution without assuming the precise $M_X$ dependence of the latter. This is also a very efficient way to select diffractive events in a large kinematic domain.
Extensive measurements of diffractive DIS cross sections have been made by both the ZEUS and H1 collaborations at HERA, using different experimental techniques [@f2d97; @marta]. Of course, the comparison of these techniques provides a rich source of information to get a better understanding of the experimental gains and prejudices of those techniques. These last published set of data [@marta] contain five to seven times more statistics than in preceding publications of diffractive cross sections, and thus opens the way to new developments in data/models comparisons. A first relative control of the data samples is shown in Fig. \[lpsoverlrg\], where the ratio of the diffractive cross sections is displayed, as obtained with the LPS and the LRG experimental techniques. The mean value of the ratio of $0.86$ indicates that the LRG sample contains about 24% of proton-dissociation background, which is not present in the LPS sample. This background corresponds to events like $ep \rightarrow e X Y$, where $Y$ is a low-mass excited state of the proton (with $M_Y < 2.3$ GeV). It is obviously not present in the LPS analysis which can select specifically a proton in the final state. This is the main background in the LRG analysis. Due to a lack of knowledge of this background, it causes a large normalization uncertainty of 10 to 15 % for the cross sections extracted from the LRG analysis. We can then compare the results obtained by the H1 and ZEUS experiments for diffractive cross sections (in Fig. \[datah1zeus\]), using the LRG method. A good compatibility of both data sets is observed, after rescaling the ZEUS points by a global factor of 13%. This factor is compatible with the normalization uncertainty described above. We can also compare the results obtained by the H1 and ZEUS experiments (in Fig. \[datah1zeuslps\]), using the tagged proton method (LPS for ZEUS and FPS for H1). In this case, there is no proton dissociation background and the diffractive sample is expected to be clean. It gives a good reference to compare both experiments. A global normalization difference of about 10% can be observed in Fig. \[datah1zeuslps\], which can be studied with more data. It remains compatible with the normalization uncertainty for this tagged proton sample. It is interesting to note that the ZEUS measurements are globally above the H1 data by about 10% for both techniques, tagged proton or LRG. The important message at this level is not only the observation of differences as illustrated in Fig. \[datah1zeus\] and \[datah1zeuslps\], but the opportunity opened with the large statistics provided by the ZEUS measurements. Understanding discrepancies between data sets is part of the experimental challenge. It certainly needs analysis of new data sets from the H1 experiment. However, already at the present level, much can be done with existing data for the understanding of diffraction at HERA.
Soft physics at the proton vertex {#soft}
---------------------------------
![(a) -top- Measurements of the exponential $t$ slope from ZEUS LPS data, shown as a function of $Q^2$, $x_{I\!\!P}$ and $M_X$. (b) -bottom- ZEUS extractions of the effective pomeron intercept describing the $x_{I\!\!P}$ dependence of diffractive DIS data at different $Q^2$ values.[]{data-label="regge"}](newman_paul.fig3a.ps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![(a) -top- Measurements of the exponential $t$ slope from ZEUS LPS data, shown as a function of $Q^2$, $x_{I\!\!P}$ and $M_X$. (b) -bottom- ZEUS extractions of the effective pomeron intercept describing the $x_{I\!\!P}$ dependence of diffractive DIS data at different $Q^2$ values.[]{data-label="regge"}](newman_paul.fig3b.ps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
To good approximation, LRG and LPS data show that diffractive DIS data satisfy a proton vertex factorization, whereby the dependences on variables which describe the scattered proton ($x_{I\!\!P}$, $t$) factorize from those describing the hard partonic interaction ($Q^2$, $\beta$). For example, the slope parameter $b$, extracted by fitting the $t$ distribution to the form ${\rm d} \sigma / {\rm d} t \propto e^{b t}$, is shown as a function of diffractive DIS (DDIS) kinematic variables in Fig. \[regge\]a. There are no significant variations from the average value of $b \simeq 7 \ {\rm GeV^{-2}}$ anywhere in the studied range. The measured value of $b$ is significantly larger than that from ‘hard’ exclusive vector meson production ($ep \rightarrow eVp$). It is characteristic of an interaction region of spatial extent considerably larger than the proton radius, indicating that the dominant feature of DDIS is the probing with the virtual photon of non-perturbative exchanges similar to the Pomeron of soft hadronic physics.
Fig. \[regge\]b shows the $Q^2$ dependence of the effective Pomeron intercept $\alpha_{I\!\!P} (0)$, which is extracted from the $x_{I\!\!P}$ dependence of the data. No significant dependence on $Q^2$ is observed, again compatible with proton vertex factorization.
The intercept of the effective Pomeron trajectory is consistent within errors with the soft Pomeron results from fits to total cross sections and soft diffractive data. Although larger effective intercepts have been measured in hard vector meson production, no deviations with either $Q^2$ or $\beta$ have yet been observed in inclusive diffractive DIS.
Diffractive PDFs at HERA
------------------------
In order to compare diffractive data with perturbative QCD models, or parton-driven models, the first step is to show that the diffractive cross section shows a hard dependence in the center-of-mass energy $W$ of the $\gamma^*p$ system. In Fig. \[figdata\], we observe a behavior of the form $\sim W^{ 0.6}$ , compatible with the dependence expected for a hard process. This observation is obviously the key to allow further studies of the diffractive process in the context of perturbative QCD [@collins]. Events with the diffractive topology can be studied in terms of Pomeron trajectory exchanged between the proton and the virtual photon. In this view, these events result from a color-singlet exchange between the diffractively dissociated virtual photon and the proton (see Fig. \[pomeron\]).
![Cross sections of the diffractive process $\gamma^* p \rightarrow p' X$, differential in the mass of the diffractively produced hadronic system $X$ ($M_X$), are presented as a function of the center-of-mass energy of the $\gamma^*p$ system $W$. Measurements at different values of the virtuality $Q^2$ of the exchanged photon are displayed. We observe a behavior of the form $\sim W^{ 0.6}$ for the diffractive cross section, compatible with the dependence expected for a hard process. []{data-label="figdata"}](schoeffel.fig9.ps){width="8cm" height="8.5cm"}
![ZEUS down quark (one sixth of the total quark $+$ antiquark) and gluon densities as a function of generalised momentum fraction $z$ at $Q^2 = 6 \ {\rm GeV^2}$ [@zeus:diffqcd]. Two heavy flavour schemes are shown, as well as H1 results corrected for proton dissociation with a factor of 0.81.[]{data-label="dpdfsh1"}](newman_paul.fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![ZEUS down quark (one sixth of the total quark $+$ antiquark) and gluon densities as a function of generalised momentum fraction $z$ at $Q^2 = 6 \ {\rm GeV^2}$ [@zeus:diffqcd]. Two heavy flavour schemes are shown, as well as H1 results corrected for proton dissociation with a factor of 0.81.[]{data-label="dpdfsh1"}](newman_paul.fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
A diffractive structure function $F_2^{D(3)}$ can then be defined as a sum of two factorized contributions, corresponding to a Pomeron and secondary Reggeon trajectories: $$F_2^{D(3)}(Q^2,\beta,x_{{\rm l \! P }})=
f_{{\rm l \! P }/ p} (x_{{\rm l \! P }}) F_2^{D({\rm l \! P })} (Q^2,\beta)$$ $$+ f_{{\rm l \! R }/ p} (x_{{\rm l \! P }}) F_2^{D({\rm l \! R })} (Q^2,\beta),$$ where $f_{{\rm l \! P }/ p} (x_{{\rm l \! P }})$ is the Pomeron flux. It depends only on ${x_{{\rm l \! P }} }$, once integrated over $t$, and $F_2^{D({\rm l \! P })}$ can be interpreted as the Pomeron structure function, depending on $\beta$ and $Q^2$. The other function, $F_2^{D({\rm l \! R })}$, is an effective Reggeon structure function taking into account various secondary Regge contributions which can not be separated. The Pomeron and Reggeon fluxes are assumed to follow a Regge behavior with linear trajectories $\alpha_{{\rm l \! P },{\rm l \! R }}(t)=\alpha_{{\rm l \! P },{\rm l \! R }}(0)+\alpha^{'}_{{\rm l \! P },{\rm l \! R }} t$, such that $$f_{{{\rm l \! P }} / p,{{\rm l \! R }} / p} (x_{{\rm l \! P }})= \int^{t_{min}}_{t_{cut}}
\frac{e^{B_{{{\rm l \! P }},{{\rm l \! R }}}t}}
{x_{{\rm l \! P }}^{2 \alpha_{{{\rm l \! P }},{{\rm l \! R }}}(t) -1}} {\rm d} t ,
\label{flux}$$ where $|t_{min}|$ is the minimum kinematically allowed value of $|t|$ and $t_{cut}=-1$ GeV$^2$ is the limit of the measurement. We take $\alpha^{'}_{{\rm l \! P }}=0.06$ GeV$^{-2}$, $\alpha^{'}_{{\rm l \! R }}=0.30$ GeV$^{-2}$, $B_{{\rm l \! P }}=5.5$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $B_{{\rm l \! R }}=1.6$ GeV$^{-2}$. The Pomeron intercept $\alpha_{{\rm l \! P }}(0)$ is left as a free parameter in the QCD fit and $\alpha_{{\rm l \! R }}(0)$ is fixed to $0.50$.
The next step is then to model the Pomeron structure function $F_2^{D({\rm l \! P })}$ [@f2d97; @lolo1; @zeus:diffqcd]. Among the most popular models, the one based on a point-like structure of the Pomeron has been studied extensively using a non-perturbative input supplemented by a perturbative QCD evolution equations [@lolo1; @zeus:diffqcd]. In this formulation, it is assumed that the exchanged object, the Pomeron, is a color-singlet quasi-particle whose structure is probed in the DIS process. As for standard DIS, diffractive parton distributions related to the Pomeron can be derived from QCD fits to diffractive cross sections. The procedure is standard: we assign parton distribution functions to the Pomeron parametrized in terms of non-perturbative input distributions at some low scale $Q_0^2$. The quark flavor singlet distribution ($z{ {S}}(z,Q^2)=u+\bar{u}+d+\bar{d}+s+\bar{s}$) and the gluon distribution ($z{\it {G}}(z,Q^2)$) are parametrized at this initial scale $Q^2_0$, where $z=x_{i/I\!\!P}$ is the fractional momentum of the Pomeron carried by the struck parton. Functions $z{\it{S}}$ and $z{\it{G}}$ are evolved to higher $Q^2$ using the next-to-leading order DGLAP evolution equations. For the structure of the sub-leading Reggeon trajectory, the pion structure function [@owens] is assumed with a free global normalization to be determined by the data. Diffractive PDFs (DPDFs) extracted from H1 and ZEUS data are shown in Fig. \[dpdfsh1\] [@f2d97; @lolo1; @zeus:diffqcd]. We observe that some differences in the data are reflected in the DPDFs, but some basic features are common for all data sets and the resulting DPDFs. Firstly, the gluon density is larger than the sea quark density, which means that the major fraction of the momentum (about 70%) is carried by the gluon for a typical value of $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$. Secondly, we observe that the gluon density is quite large at large $\beta$, with a large uncertainty, which means that we expect positive scaling violations still at large values of $\beta$. This is shown in Fig. \[scalingviol\]. We note that even at large values of $\beta \sim 0.5$, the scaling violations are still positive, as discussed above. The strength of the DPDFs approach is to give a natural interpretation of this basic observation and to describe properly the $Q^2$ evolution of the cross sections. Other approaches are also well designed to describe all features of the data [@plb], but this is another story. The near future of the study of DPFDs is to combine all existing data and check their compatibility with respect to the QCD fit technique. If this is verified, a new global analysis can be followed to get the most complete understanding of DPDFs [@lolo1].
DPDFs and implications for the LHC
----------------------------------
Note that diffractive distributions are process-independent functions. They appear not only in inclusive diffraction but also in other processes where diffractive hard-scattering factorization holds. The cross section of such a process can be evaluated as the convolution of the relevant parton-level cross section with the diffractive PDFs (DPDFs). For instance, the cross section for charm production in diffractive DIS can be calculated at leading order in $\alpha_s$ from the $\gamma^* g \rightarrow c \bar c$ cross section and the diffractive gluon distribution. An analogous statement holds for jet production in diffractive DIS. Both processes have been analyzed at next-to-leading order in $\alpha_s$ and are found to be consistent with the factorization theorem [@collins].
A natural question to ask is whether one can use the DPDFs extracted at HERA to describe hard diffractive processes such as the production of jets, heavy quarks or weak gauge bosons in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at the Tevatron. Fig. \[cdfh\] shows results on diffractive dijet production from the CDF collaboration compared to the expectations based on the DPDFs from HERA [@cdf]. The discrepancy is spectacular: the fraction of diffractive dijet events at CDF is a factor 3 to 10 smaller than would be expected on the basis of the HERA data. The same type of discrepancy is consistently observed in all hard diffractive processes in $p\bar{p}$ events. In general, while at HERA hard diffraction contributes a fraction of order 10% to the total cross section, it contributes only about 1% at the Tevatron. This observation of QCD-factorization breaking in hadron-hadron scattering can be interpreted as a survival gap probability or a soft color interaction which needs to be considered in such reactions. In fact, from a fundamental point of view, diffractive hard-scattering factorization does not apply to hadron-hadron collisions. Attempts to establish corresponding factorization theorems fail, because of interactions between spectator partons of the colliding hadrons. The contribution of these interactions to the cross section does not decrease with the hard scale. Since they are not associated with the hard-scattering subprocess, we no longer have factorization into a parton-level cross section and the parton densities of one of the colliding hadrons. These interactions are generally soft, and we have at present to rely on phenomenological models to quantify their effects [@cdf]. The yield of diffractive events in hadron-hadron collisions is then lowered precisely because of these soft interactions between spectator partons (often referred to as re-interactions or multiple scatterings). They can produce additional final-state particles which fill the would-be rapidity gap (hence the often-used term rapidity gap survival). When such additional particles are produced, a very fast proton can no longer appear in the final state because of energy conservation. Diffractive factorization breaking is thus intimately related to multiple scattering in hadron-hadron collisions. Understanding and describing this phenomenon is a challenge in the high-energy regime that will be reached at the LHC [@afp]. We can also remark simply that the collision partners, in $pp$ or $p\bar{p}$ reactions, are both composite systems of large transverse size, and it is not too surprising that multiple interactions between their constituents can be substantial. In contrast, the virtual photon in $\gamma^* p$ collisions has small transverse size, which disfavors multiple interactions and enables diffractive factorization to hold. According to our discussion, we may expect that for decreasing virtuality $Q^2$ the photon behaves more and more like a hadron, and diffractive factorization may again be broken.
A brief comment on unitarity and diffraction
--------------------------------------------
Kaidalov et al. [@kaidalov] have investigated what fraction of the gluon distribution in the proton leads to diffractive final states. The ratio of diffractive to inclusive dijet production cross sections as a function of $x_{Bj}$ of the gluon, for different hard scattering scales and for the diffractive PDFs is presented in Fig. \[fig:xgam2\].
![The ratio of diffractive to inclusive dijet production cross section as a function of $x_{Bj}$ of the gluon for different scales of the hard scattering, for the diffractive PDFs. Also shown is the unitarity limit, called Pumplin bound.[]{data-label="fig:xgam2"}](diff2jets.eps){width="5.cm"}
This ratio should be smaller than 0.5 [@pumplin], while for scales $\mu^2 =15$ GeV$^{2}$ this limit is exceeded for $x=10^{-4}$. This indicates that unitarity effects may already be present in diffractive scattering.
The dipole picture of hadronic diffraction
------------------------------------------
The dynamics behind diffractive DIS can be easier understood if the process is viewed in the rest frame of the proton. The virtual photon develops a partonic fluctuations, whose lifetime is $\tau
=1/2m_px$ [@Ioffe:1984]. At the small $x_{Bj}$ typical of HERA, where $\tau \sim 10 - 100$ fm, it is the partonic state rather than the photon that scatters off the proton (see Fig. \[f2dipoletot\]). If the scattering is elastic, the final state will have the features of diffraction.
The fluctuations of the ${\gamma^\star}$ are described by the wave functions of the transversely and longitudinally polarized ${\gamma^\star}$ which are known from perturbative QCD. Small and large partonic configurations of the photon fluctuation are present. For large configurations non-perturbative effects dominate in the interaction and the treatment of this contribution is subject to modeling. For a small configuration of partons (large relative $k_T$) the total interaction cross section of the created color dipole on a proton target can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{q\bar{q}p}&=&\frac{\pi^2}{3}r^2\alpha_S(\mu)xg(x,\mu) \, ,
\label{eq:qqp} \\
\sigma_{q\bar{q}gp}&\simeq& \sigma_{ggp}=\frac{9}{4}\sigma_{q\bar{q}p} \, ,
\label{eq:qqgp}\end{aligned}$$ where $r$ is the transverse size of the color dipole and $\mu \sim
1/r^2$ is the scale at which the gluon distribution $g$ of the proton is probed. The corresponding elastic cross section is obtained from the optical theorem. In this picture, the gluon dominance in diffraction results from the dynamics of perturbative QCD (see equation (\[eq:qqgp\])) [@dipole].
Models of diffraction that follow this approach are quite successful in describing both the inclusive $F_2$ and the diffractive $F_2^D$ measurements, where the former are used to parameterize the dipole-proton cross section [@dipole].
Exclusive processes in DIS
--------------------------
The presence of small size $q\bar{q}$ configurations in the photon can be tested in exclusive vector meson (VM) production as well as for deeply inelastic Compton scattering. At high energy (low $x_{Bj}$) and in the presence of a large scale (large $Q^2$ or heavy flavor), these reactions are expected to be driven by two-gluon exchange.
![ Logarithmic derivatives $\delta=d\log\sigma({\gamma^\star p})/d
\log W$ as a function of $Q^2+M_V^2$ for exclusive VM production. []{data-label="fig:deltatop"}](delta-lp07.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
A closer look at the theory of exclusive processes in QCD shows that the two partons taking part in the exchange do not carry the same fraction of the proton momentum. That makes these processes sensitive to correlations between partons, which are encoded in the so-called generalized parton distributions, GPDs [@gpds]. These new functions relate in various limits to the parton distributions, form factors and orbital angular momentum distributions. The motivation behind studies of exclusive processes is to establish the region of validity of pQCD expectations and ultimately to pursue a full mapping of the proton structure, which cannot be achieved in inclusive measurements [@Schoeffel:2009aa].
![ Exponential slope of the $t$ distribution measured for exclusive VM production as a function of $Q^2+M_V^2$. []{data-label="fig:deltabottom"}](DESY-08-132_5.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
The cross section for the exclusive processes is expected to rise with $W$, with the rate of growth increasing with the value of the hard scale. A compilation of logarithmic derivatives $\delta=d\log\sigma({\gamma^\star p})/d\log W$, for $\rho$, $\phi$ and $J/\psi$ exclusive production, as a function of the scale defined as $Q^2+M_{V}^2$, where $M_{V}$ is the mass of the VM, is presented in Fig. \[fig:deltatop\] [@Schoeffel:2009aa].
In Fig. \[fig:deltatop\], we observe a universal behavior, showing an increase of $\delta$ as the scale becomes larger. The value of $\delta$ at low scale is the one expected from the soft Pomeron intercept, while the one at large scale is in accordance with twice the logarithmic derivative of the gluon density with respect to $W$. Then, when $\delta$ is measured to be of the order of $0.6$ or higher, the process is hard and calculable in perturbative QCD.
Another fundamental measurement concerns the cross section of exclusive VM production, differential in $t$, where $t=(p-p')^2$ is the momentum transfer (squared) at the proton vertex. A parametrization in $d\sigma/dt \sim e^{-b|t|}$ gives a very good description of all measurements in the kinematic range of HERA (at low $x<0.01$). Then, when $Q^2+M_V^2$ is increasing, which corresponds to a decreasing transverse size of the $q\bar{q}$ dipole, the $t$ distribution is expected to become universal, independent of the scale and of the VM. The exponential slope of the $t$ distribution, $b$, reflects then the size of the proton. A compilation of measured $b$ values is presented in Fig.\[fig:deltabottom\]. Around $Q^2+M_V^2$ of about $15$ GeV$^2$ indeed the $b$ values become universal. A qualitative understanding of this behavior is simple. Indeed, $b$ is essentially the sum of a component coming from the probe in $1/\sqrt{Q^2+M_{VM}^2}$ and a component related to the target nucleon. Then, at large $Q^2$ or large $M_{VM}^2$, the $b$ values decrease to the solely target component. That’s why in Fig. \[fig:deltabottom\], we observe that for large $Q^2$ or for heavy VMs, like $J/\psi$, $b$ is reaching a universal value of about $5$ GeV$^{-2}$, scaling with $Q^2$ asymptotically. This value is related to the size of the target probed during the interaction and we do not expect further decrease of $b$ when increasing the scale, once a certain scale is reached [@Schoeffel:2009aa].
Nucleon Tomography
------------------
Measurements of the $t$-slope parameters $b$, presented in the previous section (Fig. \[fig:deltabottom\]), are key measurements for almost all exclusive processes. Indeed, a Fourier transform from momentum to impact parameter space readily shows that the $t$-slope $b$ is related to the typical transverse distance between the colliding objects. At high scale, the $q\bar{q}$ dipole is almost point-like, and the $t$ dependence of the cross section is given by the transverse extension of the gluons (or sea quarks) in the proton for a given $x_{Bj}$ range. In particular for DVCS [@dvcs], interpretation of $t$-slope measurements does not suffer from the lack of knowledge of the VM wave function. Then, a DVCS cross section, differential in $t$, is directly related to GPDs [@gpds] More precisely, from GPDs, we can compute a parton density which also depends on a spatial degree of freedom, the transverse size (or impact parameter), labeled $R_\perp$, in the proton. Both functions are related by a Fourier transform $$PDF (x, R_\perp; Q^2)
\;\; \equiv$$ $$\int \frac{d^2 \Delta_\perp}{(2 \pi)^2}
\; e^{i ({\Delta}_\perp {R_\perp})}
\; GPD (x, t = -{\Delta}_\perp^2; Q^2).$$ Thus, the transverse extension $\langle r_T^2 \rangle$ of gluons (or sea quarks) in the proton can be written as $$\langle r_T^2 \rangle
\;\; \equiv \;\; \frac{\int d^2 R_\perp \; PDF(x, R_\perp) \; R_\perp^2}
{\int d^2 R_\perp \; PDF(x, R_\perp)}$$ $$= \;\; 4 \; \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\left[ \frac{GPD (x, t)}{GPD (x, 0)} \right]_{t = 0} = 2 b$$ where $b$ is the exponential $t$-slope. Measurements of $b$ presented in Fig. \[fig:deltabottom\] corresponds to $\sqrt{r_T^2} = 0.65 \pm 0.02$ fm at large scale $Q^2$ for $x_{Bj} < 10^{-2}$. This value is smaller that the size of a single proton, and, in contrast to hadron-hadron scattering, it does not expand as energy $W$ increases. This result is consistent with perturbative QCD calculations in terms of a radiation cloud of gluons and quarks emitted around the incoming virtual photon. In short, gluons are located at the preiphery of the proton as measured here and valence quarks are assumed to form the core of the proton at small value of $\sqrt{r_T^2}$.
In other words, the Fourier transform of the DVCS amplitude is the amplitude to find quarks at $R_\perp$ in an image plane after focusing by an idealized lens. The square of the profile amplitude, producing the PDF (in transverse plane) is positive, real-valued, and corresponds to the image, a weighted probability to find quarks in the transverse image plane.
Perspectives at CERN
--------------------
The complete parton imaging in the nucleon would need to get measurements of $b$ for several values of $x_{Bj}$, from the low $x_{Bj} < 0.01$ till $x_{Bj}>0.1$. Experimentally, it appears to be impossible. Is it the breakout of quark and gluon imaging in the proton? In fact, there is one way to recover $x_{Bj}$ and $t$ correlations over the whole $x_{Bj}$ domain: we need to measure a Beam Charge Asymmetry (BCA).
A determination of a cross section asymmetry with respect to the beam charge has been realized by the H1 experiment by measuring the ratio $(d\sigma^+ -d\sigma^-)/ (d\sigma^+ + d\sigma^-)$ as a function of $\phi$, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between leptons and proton plane. The result has recently been obtained by the H1 collaboration (see Ref. [@dvcs]) with a fit in $\cos \phi$. After applying a deconvolution method to account for the resolution on $\phi$, the coefficient of the $\cos \phi$ dependence is found to be $p_1 = 0.16 \pm 0.04 (stat.) \pm 0.06 (sys.)$. This result represents obviously a major progress in the understanding of the very recent field of the parton imaging in the proton. We are at the hedge of the giving a new reading on the most fundamental question to know how the proton is built up by quarks and gluons.
Feasibilities for future BCA measurements at COMPASS have been studied extensively in the last decade [@dhose]. COMPASS is a fixed target experiment which can use 100 GeV muon beams and hydrogen targets, and then access experimentally the DVCS process $\mu p \rightarrow \mu \gamma p$. The BCA can be determined when using positive and negative muon beams. One major interest is the kinematic coverage from $2$ GeV$^2$ till $6$ GeV$^2$ in $Q^2$ and $x_{Bj}$ ranging from $0.05$ till $0.1$. It means that it is possible to avoid the kinematic domain dominated by higher-twists and non-perturbative effects (for $Q^2 < 1$ GeV$^2$) and keeping a $x_{Bj}$ range which is extending the HERA (H1/ZEUS) domain.
Conclusions
-----------
We have reviewed the most recent experimental results from hard diffractive scattering at HERA and Tevatron. We have shown that many aspects of diffraction in $ep$ collisions can be successfully described in QCD if a hard scale is present. A key to this success are factorization theorems, which render parts of the dynamics accessible to calculation in perturbation theory. The remaining non-perturbative quantities, namely diffractive PDFs and generalized parton distributions, can be extracted from measurements and contain specific information about small-$x_{Bj}$ partons in the proton that can only be obtained in diffractive processes. To describe hard diffractive hadron-hadron collisions is more challenging since factorization is broken by re-scattering between spectator partons. These re-scattering effects are of interest in their own right because of their intimate relation with multiple scattering effects, which at LHC energies are expected to be crucial for understanding the structure of events in hard collisions.
A combination of data on inclusive and diffractive $ep$ scattering hints at the onset of parton saturation at HERA, and the phenomenology developed there is a helpful step towards understanding high-density effects in hadron-hadron collisions. In this respect, we have discussed a very important aspect that makes diffraction in DIS so interesting at low $x_{Bj}$. Its interpretation in the dipole formalism and its connection to saturation effects. Indeed, diffraction in DIS has appeared as a well suited process to analyze saturation effects at large gluon density in the proton. In the dipole model, it takes a simple and luminous form, with the introduction of the so-called saturation scale $Q_s$. Diffraction is then dominated by dipoles of size $r \sim 1/Q_s$. In particular, it provides a simple explanation of the constance of the ratio of diffractive to total cross sections as a function of $W$ (at fixed $Q^2$ values).
Then, exclusive processes in DIS, like VMs production or DVCS, have appeared as key reactions to trigger the generic mechanism of diffractive scattering. Decisive measurements have been performed recently, in particular concerning dependences of exclusive processes cross section within the momentum exchange (squared) at the proton vertex, $t$. This allows to extract first experimental features concerning proton tomography, on how partons are localized in the proton. It provides a completely new information on the spatial extension of partons inside the proton (or more generally hadrons), as well as on the correlations of longitudinal momenta. A unified picture of this physics is encoded in the GPDs formalism. We have shown that Jefferson laboratory experiments or prospects at COMPASS are essential, to gain relevant information on GPDs. Of course, we do not forget that the dependence of GPDs on three kinematical variables, and the number of distributions describing different helicity combinations present a considerable complexity. In a sense this is the price to pay for the amount of physics information encoded in these quantities. It is however crucial to realize that for many important aspects we need not fully disentangle this complexity. The relation of longitudinal and transverse structure of partons in a nucleon, or of nucleons in a nucleus, can be studied quantitatively from the distribution in the two external kinematical variables $x_{Bj}$ and $t$.
[10]{}
A. Aktas [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**48**]{} (2006) 715; Eur. Phys. J. C [**48**]{} (2006) 749; ZEUS Collab., S. Chekanov [ et al.]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**713**]{} (2005) 3; Eur. Phys. J. C [**38**]{} (2004) 43.
M. Ruspa et al. \[ZEUS Collaboration\], \[arXiv:hep-ex/0808.0833\].
J.C. Collins, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 3051 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**61**]{} (2000) 019902\]. J.F. Owens, [ Phys. Rev. ]{} D [**30**]{} (1984) 943.
C. Royon, L. Schoeffel, S. Sapeta, R.B. Peschanski and E. Sauvan, Nucl. Phys. B [**781**]{} (2007) 1; C. Royon, L. Schoeffel, R.B. Peschanski and E. Sauvan, Nucl. Phys. B [**746**]{} (2006) 15; C. Royon, L. Schoeffel, J. Bartels, H. Jung and R. B. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 074004. ZEUS Collaboration, [*‘A QCD analysis of diffractive DIS data from ZEUS’*]{} \[ZEUS-pub-09-010\].
T. Affolder [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 5043. C. Marquet and L. Schoeffel, Phys. Lett. B [**639**]{} (2006) 471. AFP TDR in ATLAS to be submitted; see: http://project-rp220. web.cern.ch/project-rp220/index.html.
A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Lett. B [**567**]{}, 61 (2003), hep-ph/0306134.
J. Pumplin, Phys. Rev. D [**8**]{} (1973) 2899.
B. L. Ioffe, V. A. Khoze and L. N. Lipatov, “Hard Processes. Vol. 1: Phenomenology, Quark Parton Model,” [*Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland, 1984*]{}. A.H. Mueller, [ Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B335**]{} (1990) 115; N.N. Nikolaev and B.G. Zakharov, [Zeit. für. Phys.]{} [**C49**]{} (1991) 607; A. Bialas and R. Peschanski, [Phys. Lett.]{} [**B378**]{} (1996) 302; [ Phys. Lett.]{} [**B387**]{} (1996) 405; H. Navelet, R. Peschanski, C. Royon, S. Wallon, Phys. Lett. B [**385**]{} (1996) 357; H. Navelet, R. Peschanski, C. Royon, Phys. Lett. B366 (1996) 329; K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 014017; Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 114023; A. Bialas, R. Peschanski, C. Royon, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 6899; S. Munier, R. Peschanski, C. Royon, Nucl. Phys. B [**534**]{} (1998) 297; E. Iancu, K. Itakura and S. Munier, Phys. Lett. B [**590**]{} (2004) 199.
M. Diehl, T. Gousset, B. Pire and J. P. Ralston, Phys. Lett. B [**411**]{} (1997) 193; L. L. Frankfurt, A. Freund and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 114001 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**59**]{} (1999) 119901\]; A. V. Belitsky, D. Mueller and A. Kirchner, Nucl. Phys. B [**629**]{} (2002) 323; M. Diehl, [Phys. Rept.]{} [**388**]{}, 41 (2003). L. Schoeffel, arXiv:0908.3287 \[hep-ph\].
H. Collaboration, arXiv:0907.5289 \[hep-ex\]; Eur. Phys. J. C [**44**]{} (2005) 1; S. Chekanov [*et al.*]{} \[ZEUS Collaboration\], JHEP [**0905**]{} (2009) 108.
N. d’Hose et al., Nucl. Phys. A [**711**]{} (2002) 160.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Vehicles become more vulnerable to remote attackers in modern days due to their increasing connectivity and range of functionality. Such increased attack vectors enable adversaries to access a vehicle . As of today in-vehicle access can cause drastic consequences, because the most commonly used in-vehicle bus technology, the , lacks sender identification. With low limits on bandwidth and payload, as well as resource constrains on hardware, usage of cryptographic measures is limited. As an alternative, sender identification methods were presented, identifying the sending on the basis of its analog message signal. While prior works showed promising results on the security and feasibility for those approaches, the potential changes in signals over a vehicle’s lifetime have only been partly addressed. This paper closes this gap. We conduct a four months measurement campaign containing more than 80,000 frames from a real vehicle. The data reflects different driving situations, different seasons and weather conditions, a 19-week break, and a car repair altering the physical properties. We demonstrate the impact of temperature dependencies, analyze the signal changes and define strategies for their handling. In the evaluation, the identification rate can be increased from 91.23% to 99.98% by a targeted updating of the system parameters. At the same time, the detection of intrusions can be improved from 76.83% to 99.74%, while no false positives occured during evaluation. Lastly, we show how to increase the overall performance of such systems by double monitoring the bus at different positions.'
author:
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'Robustness-arxiv.bib'
title: 'On the Robustness of Signal Characteristic-Based Sender Identification'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the $\overline{\partial}$-Dirac system that Ablowitz and Fokas used to transform the defocussing Davey–Stewartson system to a linear evolution equation. The nonlinear Plancherel identity for the associated scattering transform was established by Beals and Coifman for Schwartz functions. Sung extended the validity of the identity to functions belonging to $L^1\cap L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and Brown to $L^2$-functions with sufficiently small norm. More recently, Perry extended to the weighted Sobolev space $H^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and here we extend to $H^{s,s}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $0<s<1$.'
address:
- 'Le Studium, Loire Valley Institute for Advanced Studies, Orléans & Tours, France; Mapmo, University of Orléans, rue de Chartres, 45100 Orléans, France; Department of mathematics and statistics, Po.Box 68, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland'
- 'Departamento de Matemáticas - Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas CSIC-UAM-UC3M-UCM, 28049 Madrid, Spain'
- 'Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas CSIC-UAM-UC3M-UCM, 28049 Madrid, Spain'
author:
- Kari Astala
- Daniel Faraco
- 'Keith M. Rogers'
title: 'On Plancherel’s identity for a two–dimensional scattering transform'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
Plancherel’s identity for the Fourier transform $\, \widehat{\ }$ defined initially on Schwartz functions by $$\widehat{F}(\xi)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\int_{\R^n} F(x)\,e^{-i \xi\cdot x}dx,$$ states that $$\|\widehat{F}\|_2=\|F\|_2.$$ Using the linearity of the transform, this also yields Lipschitz continuity $$\label{lc}
\|\widehat{F}-\widehat{G}\|_2{\leqslant}\|F-G\|_2,$$ and so the Fourier transform of Cauchy sequences are Cauchy sequences, which have limits in $L^2$. This allows us to define the transform for all $L^2$ functions and extend the identity to this larger class.
In this note we consider the two-dimensional nonlinear Fourier transform $\FF $ associated with the $\overline{\partial}$-Dirac system, first considered by Ablowitz and Fokas [@AF; @FA] (see the following section for the precise definition). Beals and Coifman [@BC0; @BC1; @BC] established Plancherel’s identity $$\|\FF [F]\|_2=\|F\|_2$$ for Schwarz functions $F$. Unlike in the linear case, the Lipschitz continuity is not an immediate consequence of the identity and so this is not enough to extend to $L^2$. Sung treated $F\in L^1\cap L^\infty(\R^2)$ in [@S1], then Brown [@brown] proved Lipschitz continuity for $L^2$-functions with sufficiently small norm, allowing him to extend the definition of $\FF $ and the validity of the Plancherel identity to these functions. In [@perry], Perry proved a local version of Lipschitz continuity for functions in the class $H^{1,1}$, where $$\|F\|_{H^{s,s}}=\max\{\|F\|_{L^2(\R^2)}, \|D^sF\|_{L^2(\R^2)},\||\cdot|^sF\|_{L^2(\R^2)}\},$$ and $\widehat{D^sF}=|\cdot|^s \widehat{F}$; in Perry’s case $D^1$ can of course be replaced by the gradient. He then applied his result to the Davey–Stewartson system, as did the previously mentioned authors, proving global well-posedness in $H^{1,1}$ for the defocussing system. Indeed, the main motivation for studying this scattering problem (there are many other scattering models of course, see for example [@CK], [@MTT]) is that it solves the defocussing Davey–Stewartson system in the same way as the linear nonelliptic Schrödinger equation can be solved using the Fourier transform. This was first observed by Ablowitz and Fokas [@AF; @FA]. That there can be blow–up in the focussing Davey–Stewartson system is due to Ozawa [@O].
Here we refine part of Perry’s argument, proving a substitute for Lipschitz continuity for the functions in $H^{s,s}$ with $s\in(0,1)$, allowing us to extend the validity of the Plancherel identity to this space.
In the following section we will recall the definition of the scattering transform and give a self-contained proof of the Plancherel identity for Schwartz functions. As in the case of the linear Fourier transform, there are slightly different conventions regarding the definition which consist of little more than changes in parameters – we use the same normalisation as Sung [@S1]. In the third section, we will prove the key technical lemma and recall how the arguments of Brown and Perry achieve the local Lipschitz continuity.
The Plancherel identity for Schwartz functions
==============================================
In this section we take $q$ in the Schwartz class and start by defining the scattering solutions $u$. We then define the scattering transform $\mathcal{F}[q]$, and prove the Plancherel identity for Schwartz functions.
As $e^{i\overline{k}z/2}$ is a holomorphic function of $z\in \mathbb{C}$, the Cauchy–Riemann equations tell us that $\partial_{\overline{z}} e^{i\overline{k}z/2}=0$, where $\partial_{\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{d}{dz_1}+i\frac{d}{dz_2})$. In order to find similar vector-valued solutions to the system $$\label{scat0}
\partial_{\overline{z}}\psi=Q\overline{\psi},\qquad Q=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & q \\
q & 0
\end{array} \right),$$ we require that $\lim_{|z|\to\infty}\psi(z,k)e^{-i\overline{k}z/2}\to (1,0)$. Writing $\psi=e^{i\overline{k}z/2}U$ and $e_k(z)=e^{i(\overline{k}z+k\overline{z})/2}=e^{ik\cdot z}$, this is equivalent to solving the system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scat}
\partial_{\overline{z}}u_{1}&=e_{-k}q\overline{u_{2}}\\\nonumber
\partial_{\overline{z}}u_{2}&=e_{-k}q\overline{u_{1}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\lim_{|z|\to\infty}u_1(z,k)\to 1$ and $\lim_{|z|\to\infty}u_2(z,k)\to 0$.
We first recall why the solutions to this system are unique. By writing $v_1=u_1+u_2$ and $v_2=u_1-u_2$, we can add and subtract to obtain the equivalent pair of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yksi} \partial_{\overline{z}}v_1&=e_{-k}q\overline{v_1}\\
\label{kaksi} \partial_{\overline{z}}v_2&=-e_{-k}q\overline{v_2}.\end{aligned}$$ By a Liouville-type theorem (see for example [@AIM Theorem 8.5.1]), bounded solutions to or have the form $$\label{kolme}
v(z) = C e^{\phi(z)}, \qquad \phi \in C_0(\C).$$ In particular, by the linearity of the equations, bounded solutions $v_1,v_2$ with the same given limit at infinity are unique. By adding and subtracting we see that $u_1,u_2$ are also unique. For existence we appeal to Fredholm theory. By defining the operator $$\label{operator}
\S^k_q [F]=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\Big[e_{-k}
q\,\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\Big],$$ we see from that $(\I-\S^{k}_{q})u_{1}=1$ and $(\I-\S^{k}_{q})u_{2}=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q]$ and so it will suffice to invert $(\I-\S^{k}_{q})$ to obtain solutions. To see this, we require a number of well-known properties of the Cauchy transform. For example, by [@AIM Theorems 4.3.11], we have the uniform bound $$\|\S^{k}_{q}[F]\|_\infty{\leqslant}C_p\|q\|_p\|q\|_{p'}\|F\|_\infty{\leqslant}C_s\|q\|_{H^{s,s}}^2\|F\|_\infty,\quad s>1-\tfrac{2}{p}>0.$$ Equicontinuity can be deduced from [@AIM Theorem 4.3.13], so by the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem $\S^{k}_{q}$ is a compact operator on $L^\infty(\R^2)$. In order to prove that $(\I-\S^{k}_{q})$ is injective we suppose that $(\I-\S^{k}_{q})[F]=F$ which is equivalent to $$F=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q\overline{G}]\quad \text{where}\quad G=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q\overline{F}].$$ By adding and subtracting to obtain an equivalent system, we can argue as in - to see that $F$ is zero and so $(\I-\S^{k}_{q})$ is injective.
Thus, by the Fredholm alternative, $\I-\S^k_{q}$ can be inverted so that $$u_{1}(z,k)=(\I-\S^k_{q})^{-1}[1](z),\qquad u_{2}=(\I-\S^k_{q})^{-1}\big[\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q]\big](z),$$ and we have obtained our scattering solutions.
We now make the simplifying assumption that $q$ has compact support, although we will soon see that this is unnecessary using arguments due to Sung [@S1]. From we see that $u_1$ and $u_2$ are holomorphic near infinity and so they have asymptotics given by their Laurent series; $$\begin{aligned}
u_1(z,k)&=1+a(k)z^{-1}+\sum_{j{\geqslant}2}a_j(k)z^{-j}\\
u_2(z,k)&=b(k)z^{-1}+\sum_{j{\geqslant}2}b_j(k)z^{-j},\end{aligned}$$ for $z$ outside a disk containing $\text{supp}(q)$. The development combined with and the Cauchy formula allows us to define the scattering transform by $$\label{kuusi}
\mathcal{F}[q](k):=\tfrac{i}{2} b(k)=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{\R^2} e_{-k}(z)\, q(z)\, \overline{u_1(z,k)}\, dz.$$ With this quantity we will be able to invert the process. To see this, we consider $
(\partial_k\psi_{1}, \partial_{\overline{k}}\psi_{2})$, as functions of $z$, which also solve . Note that the pair can be written as $$e^{i\overline{k}z/2}(\partial_k u_1,\frac{iz}{2}u_2+\partial_{\overline{k}}u_2),$$ and by differentiating the asymptotic series above, we see that $$\label{asym}\lim_{|z|\to\infty}\big(\partial_k u_1,\frac{iz}{2}u_2+\partial_{\overline{k}}u_2\big)=(0,\mathcal{F}[q]).$$ Therefore, by uniqueness of solutions to , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theform}
\partial_{k}\psi_1&=\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}\psi_2\\\nonumber
\partial_{\overline{k}}\psi_2&=\mathcal{F}[q]\psi_1.\end{aligned}$$ This system takes a form similar to in terms of the $\partial_k$-derivative. Indeed, writing $\phi_1=\psi_1$, $\phi_2=
\overline{\psi_{2}}$ and taking the complex conjugate of the second equation, it is equivalent to $$\label{scat2}
\partial_{k}\phi=\overline{\mathcal{F}[Q]} \, \overline{\, \phi \,},\qquad \overline{\mathcal{F}[Q]}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \overline{\mathcal{F}[q]} \\
\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]} & 0
\end{array} \right).$$ Note that the first coordinate $\phi_1=\psi_1$ is the same for both equations and .
By formally repeating the argument we return to the original form; $$\label{scat23}
\partial_{\overline{z}}\psi=\overline{\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[Q]}}\, \overline{\psi},\qquad \overline{\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[Q]}}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \overline{\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}} \\
\overline{\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}} & 0
\end{array} \right).$$ This yields the inversion formula since, arguing as in - the function $\psi_1 + \psi_2$ is nonvanishing, and $$q=\frac{\partial_{\overline{z}}(\psi_1 + \psi_{2})}{\overline{\psi_1} + \overline{\psi_{2}}}=\overline{\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}}.$$ We remark that this formal repetition of the argument is not yet rigorous as we have not analysed the $k$-asymptotics – we cannot use Laurent series as $\mathcal{F}[q]$ does not have compact support as a function of $k$. However we now avoid the use of Laurent series, by differentiating $$\begin{aligned}
u_{1}&=1+\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q\overline{u_{2}}],\\
u_{2}\nonumber
&=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q\overline{u_{1}}],\end{aligned}$$ equivalent to , and using their first order asymptotics and uniqueness properties to prove as in [@S1]. Indeed, by writing $$e_k(z)u_{2}(z)= \partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}(\cdot-z)q\overline{u_{1}}]$$ and differentiating, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivatives}
\partial_ku_{1}&=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}q\overline{e_{-k}\partial_{\overline{k}}[e_ku_{2}]}\big]\\
e_{-k}\partial_{\overline{k}}[e_ku_{2}]&=\mathcal{F}[q]+\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q\overline{\partial_ku_{1}}],\end{aligned}$$ where, in the noncompactly supported case, $\mathcal{F}[q]$ is defined directly via the integral in . Differentiating under the integral can be justified using [@S1 Lemma A.5]. By differentiating more directly, we also have that $e_{-k}\partial_{\overline{k}}[e_ku_{2}]=\frac{iz}{2}u_2+\partial_{\overline{k}}u_2$ which yields . Then by uniqueness of solutions to as before, we obtain and .
In order to repeat the argument in in the $k$ variable, with $q$ replaced by $\mathcal{F}[q]$, we need to show that $\lim_{|k|\to\infty}\phi(z,k)e^{-i\overline{k}z/2}\to (1,0)$. This will follow from estimates in the next section (see the forthcoming Remark \[rem\]). That $\mathcal{F}[q] \in L^1 \cap L^{\infty}$ (needed to use [@AIM Theorem 8.5.1] and to be sure that the integral in the definition of $\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[Q]}$ is well-defined), follows by repeated integration by parts in , where we write $e_{-k} = 2i \partial_{z} (e_{-k}/\overline{k})$ and use and at each iteration, generating as much decay in $|k|$ as is needed.
Plancherel’s identity then follows as usual using Fubini’s theorem and the inversion formula; $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathcal{F}[q]\|_2^2&=\int_{\R^2} \mathcal{F}[q](k)\, \overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}(k)\, dk\\
&=\int_{\R^2} \frac{i}{2\pi} \int_{\R^2} e_{-k}(z)\,q(z)\, \overline{u_{1}(z,k)}\, dz\, \overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}(k)\, dk\\
&=\int_{\R^2} q(z)\,\mathcal{F}\circ\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}(z)\, dz\\
&=\int_{\R^2} q(z)\,\overline{q(z)}\, dz=\|q\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here we use that the factor $\overline{u_{1}(z,k)}$ is the same when defined with respect to $q$ or $\overline{\mathcal{F}[q]}$.
In order to extend the identity to potentials that are not in the Schwartz class, it remains to prove a substitute for the Lipschitz continuity .
Local Lipschitz continuity
==========================
From the previous section we know that the scattering transform of Schwartz potentials could be measured’ in order to recover the potential, via the inversion formula. Then a substitute for the inequality $$\|F-G\|_2=\|(\widehat{F})^\vee-(\widehat{G})^\vee\|_2{\leqslant}\|\widehat{F}-\widehat{G}\|_2$$ would also tell us that this recovery process is in some sense stable; two similar scattering transforms must have been produced by two similar potentials.
We will require the following lemma.
\[isitgood\] Let $s\in[0,1]$ and $p\in(2,\infty)$. Then $$\|\S^k_q [F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-s}\|q\|^2_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^{p}}$$ and $$\|\S^k_q [F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-s}\|q\|^2_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^{p+s}}.$$ Moreover, if $p\in (2/s,\infty)$, then $$\|\S^k_q [F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-s}\|q\|^2_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_\infty.$$
It will suffice to prove that if $s>2(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{r})$, then $$\|\S^k_q [F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-s}\|q\|^2_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^{r}}.$$ To deal with the first part of the operator, we will require the estimate $$\label{isitgood0}
\big\|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]\big\|_{p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-s}\Big(\|G\|_{\frac{2p}{p+2}}+\|D^sG\|_{\frac{2p}{p+2}}\Big),$$ which follows easily by complex interpolation between $$\big\|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]\big\|_{p}{\leqslant}C\|G\|_\frac{2p}{p+2},$$ which is a consequence of the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality (see for example [@G Theorem 1.2.16 or Theorem 6.1.3]) as the kernel of $\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}$ is $\frac{1}{\pi z}$, and $$\label{per}
\big\|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]\big\|_{p}{\leqslant}C|k|^{-1}\|D G\|_\frac{2p}{p+2}.$$ For this second inequality, we note that the Fourier multiplier associated to $G\mapsto e_{k}\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]$ can be written as $$\frac{2}{i(\xi_1-k_1)-(\xi_2-k_2)}=\frac{2}{ik_1-k_2}\Big(\frac{i\xi_1-\xi_2}{i(\xi_1-k_1)-(\xi_2-k_2)}-1\Big),$$ so that $$\big|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]\big|{\leqslant}\frac{2}{|k|}\Big(\big|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}\partial_{\overline{z}} G\big]\big|+|G|\Big),$$ and then we apply the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality again. Note that $$\|\partial_{\overline{z}} G\|_\frac{2p}{p+2}{\leqslant}C\|DG\|_\frac{2p}{p+2}.$$ See formula (2.8) of [@perry] for a proof of by integration by parts.
Now after applying , we are required to prove $$\Big\|D^s\Big[
q\,\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\Big]\Big\|_{\frac{2p}{p+2}}{\leqslant}C\|q\|^2_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^{r}}$$ and $$\big\|
q\,\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\big\|_{\frac{2p}{p+2}}{\leqslant}C\|q\|^2_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^{r}}.$$ By the fractional Leibnitz rule (see for example [@B] or the appendix of [@KPV]) for the first, and Hölder’s inequality for the second, these estimates would follow from $$\big\|\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\big\|_p{\leqslant}C\|q\|_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^r}$$ and $$\big\|D^{s}\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\big\|_{p}{\leqslant}C\|q\|_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^r}.$$ These inequalities would in turn follow from $$\label{cuns}
\|qF\|_t{\leqslant}C\|q\|_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^r}$$ with $\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{t}-\frac{1}{p}$ and with $\frac{1-s}{2}=\frac{1}{t}-\frac{1}{p}$. To see that the second inequality follows from , we note that the Fourier multiplier associated to $D^s\partial_{z}^{-1}$ can be written as $$\frac{|\xi|^{s}}{i\xi_1+\xi_2}=\frac{|\xi|^s(\xi_2-i\xi_1)}{|\xi|^2}=\frac{\xi_2-i\xi_1}{|\xi|}\frac{1}{|\xi|^{1-s}}$$ so that the expected bounds for $D^s\partial_{z}^{-1}$ hold by the $L^{p}$-boundedness of the Riesz transforms followed by the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality.
Now, by Hölder’s inequality, would be a consequence of $$\label{abov}
\|q\|_{t(r/t)'}{\leqslant}C\|q\|_{H^{s,s}}.$$ Note that $$t(r/t)'=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{t}-\frac{1}{r}}{\leqslant}\frac{2}{1-s}$$ so that if $t(r/t)'{\geqslant}2$ we can employ the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality again to get the result. On the other hand, if $t(r/t)'< 2$ we will use Hölder’s inequality to prove the estimate and the worst case is when $\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{t}-\frac{1}{p}$. Indeed, by writing $$\|q\|^{t(r/t)'}_{t(r/t)'}=\int |q(z)|^{t(r/t)'}\frac{(1+|z|^2)^\alpha}{(1+|z|^2)^\alpha}\,dz$$ and applying Hölder’s inequality we obtain whenever $$\Big(\frac{2}{t(r/t)'}\Big)'\alpha>1,$$ where $\alpha=s\frac{t(r/t)'}{2}$. This is equivalent to the condition $s+1>2(\frac{1}{t}-\frac{1}{r})$, which is true as long as $s>2(\frac1p-\frac1r)$.
One can also obtain $L^\infty$-estimates that take the following form.
\[isitgood2\] Let $p>2$. Then $$\|\S^k_q [F]\|_{L^\infty}{\leqslant}C|k|^{-1}\big(\|q\|_{W^{1,p}}+\|q\|_{W^{1,p'}}\big)^2\|F\|_{L^{\infty}}.$$
In the previous proof, we saw that $$\big|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]\big|{\leqslant}\frac{2}{|k|}\Big(\big|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}\partial_{\overline{z}} G\big]\big|+|G|\Big),$$ so by [@AIM Theorems 4.3.11], $$\label{fr}\big\|\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}\big[e_{-k}G\big]\big\|_\infty{\leqslant}\frac{2}{|k|}\Big(\|\partial_{\overline{z}} G\|_{p}+\|\partial_{\overline{z}} G\|_{p'}+\|G\|_\infty\Big).$$ Taking $G=q\,\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]$, we see that $$\|\partial_{\overline{z}}G\|_p{\leqslant}\|\partial_{\overline{z}}q\|_p\|\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\|_\infty+\|q\|_\infty\|\partial_{\overline{z}}\partial_{z}^{-1}\big[e_{k}\overline{q}F\big]\|_p,$$ so by a further application of [@AIM Theorems 4.3.11], the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, and the boundedness of the Beurling transform, we can deal with the first term on the right hand side of . The second and third terms are dealt with in a similar fashion.
\[rem\] The previous lemma yields the asymptotics in the $k$ variable of $(u_1,u_2)$ for Schwartz $q$. Namely, recalling that $u_1=(\I-\S^k_{q})^{-1}[1]\in L^\infty$, by Neumann series and the previous lemma, we obtain $u_1(z,k)\to 1$ as $|k|\to \infty$. Together with an application of the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma to $(z-\cdot)^{-1}q \in L^1$ this also yields that $u_{2}
=\partial_{\overline{z}}^{-1}[e_{-k}q\overline{u_{1}}]\to 0$ as $|k|\to\infty$.
Armed with the Lemma \[isitgood\], we can now follow the proof of Lemma [4.1]{} in [@perry] to prove that $\mathcal{F}:H^{s,s}\to L^2$ is continuous.
\[one\] Let $s\in(0,1)$ and $q_1,q_2\in H^{s,s}$. Then there is a function $\,C:\mathbb{R}_+^2\to \mathbb{R}_+$, bounded on compact subsets of its domain, such that $$\big\|\FF [q_2]-\FF [q_1]\big\|_2{\leqslant}C(s,\|q_1\|_{H^{s,s}})C(s,\|q_2\|_{H^{s,s}})\big\|q_2-q_1\big\|_{H^{s,s}}.$$
As we have Lipschitz regularity for the linear Fourier transform, by the triangle inequality we can replace $u_1$ with $u_1-1$ in . Using the expansion $$\label{expansion}
(\I-\S^k_{q})^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} (\S^k_{q})^n+(\S^k_{q})^{N}(\I-\S^k_{q})^{-1},$$ we write $u_1-1=\sum_{n=1}^{N} u_q^n$, where $u_q^n(\cdot,k)=(\S^k_{q})^n[1]$ for $1{\leqslant}n{\leqslant}N-1$, and the remainder term $u_q^{N}$ is defined by $$u_q^{N}(\cdot,k)=(\S^k_{q})^{N}(\I-\S^k_{q})^{-1}[1].$$ By the triangle inequality, it will suffice to prove the lemma with $\FF [q_2]-\FF [q_1]$ replaced by $\FF_n [q_2]-\FF_n [q_1]$ defined by $$\FF_n[q](k)=\int_{\R^2} e_{-k}(z)\,q(z)\, \overline{u_q^n(z,k)}\, dz.$$ For $n=1,\ldots,N-1$, this was proven by Perry [@perry Lemma 4.6] by explicitly writing out the iterated operators, and applying the multilinear estimate of Brown [@brown] (see also the deep $L^p$–versions in [@B0; @B1]). These terms can be bounded with $q\in L^2$. Thus, we are left to deal with the remainder term.
As long as $N>2/s^2$, we can use an application of the third inequality in Lemma \[isitgood\] followed by $N-1$ applications of the second inequality to prove $$\label{this}
\|(\S^k_{q})^{N} [F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-Ns}\|q\|^{2N}_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_\infty.$$
Now, for local Lipschitz continuity, we write $\FF_N [q_2]-\FF_N [q_1]$ as $$\label{thetwo}
\int_{\R^2} e_{-k}(z)\,q_2(z)\, \big(\overline{u_{q_2}^N(z,k)}-\overline{u_{q_1}^N(z,k)}\big)\, dz\,+\int_{\R^2} e_{-k}(z)\,\big(q_2(z)-q_1(z)\big)\, \overline{u_{q_1}^N(z,k)}.$$ By Hölder’s inequality, the second integral is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\|q_2-q_1\|_{p'}\big\|(\S^k_{q_1})^{N}(\I-\S^k_{q_1})^{-1}[1]\big\|_p.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $2<p<\frac{2}{1-s}$, one can use Hölder’s inequality again, first multiplying and dividing by a weight as in the proof of the previous lemma, in order to show that $\|q_2-q_1\|_{p'}{\leqslant}C\|q_2-q_1\|_{H^{s,s}}$. Combining this with we can bound the second integral by a constant multiple of $$\begin{aligned}
(1+|k|)^{-Ns}\|q_1\|^{2N}_{H^{s,s}}\|q_2-q_1\|_{H^{s,s}},\end{aligned}$$ which can be squared and integrated with respect to the $k$-variable to achieve the desired bound.
Similarly, to deal with the first integral, it will suffice to bound $$\big\|u_{q_2}^N(\cdot,k)-u_{q_1}^N(\cdot,k)\big\|_p=\Big\|(\S^k_{{q_2}})^{N}(\I-\S^k_{{q_2}})^{-1} [1]-(\S^k_{{q_1}})^{N}(\I-\S^k_{{q_1}})^{-1} [1]\Big\|_p.$$ However, by the triangle inequality, this is bounded by the sum of $$\label{fd}
\Big\|\Big((\S^k_{{q_2}})^{N} -(\S^k_{{q_1}})^{N}\Big)(\I-\S^k_{{q_2}})^{-1}[1]\Big\|_p$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sd}
&\Big\|(\S^k_{{q_1}})^{N}\Big[(\I-\S^k_{{q_2}})^{-1}-(\I-\S^k_{{q_1}})^{-1}\Big] [1]\Big\|_p\\\nonumber
=\,\,&\Big\|\Big(\S^k_{{q_2}}-\S^k_{{q_1}}\Big)(\S^k_{{q_1}})^{N}(\I-\S^k_{{q_2}})^{-1}(\I-\S^k_{{q_1}})^{-1} [1]\Big\|_p,\end{aligned}$$ where in the final equality we have used the second resolvent identity. Now, for a fixed $F$ the terms $(\S^k_{{q}})^{N} [F]$ and $\S^k_{q}[F]$ can be written as multilinear operators in $q$. Then, writing $B_1[q,q,F]=\S^k_{{q}}[F]$, from the proof of the first estimate in Lemma \[isitgood\] we also have that $$\label{first}
\|B_1[q_1,q_2,F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-s}\|q_1\|_{H^{s,s}}\|q_2\|_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_{L^{p}}$$ and similarly, by writing $B_N[q,\ldots,q,F]=(\S^k_{{q}})^N[F]$ and adapting the proof of we obtain $$\label{second}
\|B_N[q_1,\ldots,q_{2N},F]\|_{L^p}{\leqslant}C(1+|k|)^{-Ns}\|q_1\|_{H^{s,s}}\ldots\|q_{2N}\|_{H^{s,s}}\|F\|_\infty.$$ Writing the difference terms in the form $$\begin{gathered}
B_2[q_2,q_2,q_2,q_2,F]-B_2[q_1,q_1,q_1,q_1,F]\\
=\,B_2[q_2-q_1,q_2,q_2,q_2,F]+B_2[q_1,q_2-q_1,q_2,q_2,F]
\, \\+B_2[q_1,q_1,q_2-q_1,q_2,F]+B_2[q_1,q_1,q_1,q_2-q_1,F],\end{gathered}$$ the estimate for $\|\FF_N [q_2]-\FF_N [q_1]\|_p$ then follows by bounding and by combining , , and the fact that $(\I-\S^k_{{q}})$ is bounded in $L^\infty$.
[*Added in Proof.*]{} This final result was recently improved in [@BOP], where they show that $\mathcal{F}$ is in fact locally Lipschitz continuous from $H^{s_1,s_2}$ to $H^{s_2,s_1}$ with $0<s_1,s_2<1$.
[11]{}
M.J. Ablowitz and A. S. Fokas, Comments on the inverse scattering transform and related nonlinear evolution equations, in [*Nonlinear phenomena (Oaxtepec, 1982)*]{}, 3–24, Lecture Notes in Phys., [**189**]{}, Springer, Berlin.
K. Astala, T. Iwaniec and G. Martin, [*Elliptic partial differential equations and quasiconformal mappings in the plane*]{}, Princeton Mathematical Series, [**48**]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009.
R. Beals and R.R. Coifman, Multidimensional inverse scatterings and nonlinear partial differential equations, in [*Pseudodifferential operators and applications (Notre Dame, Ind., 1984)*]{}, 45–70, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., [**43**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI.
R. Beals and R. R. Coifman, The spectral problem for the Davey–Stewartson and Ishimori hierarchies, Nonlinear Evolution Equations: Integrability and Spectral Methods, Manchester University Press (1990).
R. Beals and R.R. Coifman, Linear spectral problems, nonlinear equations and the $\overline\partial$-method, Inverse Problems [**5**]{} (1989), no. 2, 87–130.
J. Bennett, A. Carbery, M. Christ and T. Tao, The Brascamp-Lieb inequalities: finiteness, structure and extremals, Geom. Funct. Anal. [**17**]{} (2008), no. 5, 1343–1415.
J. Bennett, A. Carbery, M. Christ and T. Tao, Finite bounds for Hölder-Brascamp-Lieb multilinear inequalities, Math. Res. Lett. [**17**]{} (2010), no. 4, 647–666.
F. Bernicot, D. Maldonado, K. Moen and V. Naibo, Bilinear Sobolev–Poincaré Inequalities and Leibniz-Type Rules, J. Geom. Anal. [**24**]{} (2014), no. 2, 1144–1180.
R.M. Brown, Estimates for the scattering map associated with a two-dimensional first-order system, J. Nonlinear Sci. [**11**]{} (2001), no. 6, 459–471.
R.M. Brown, K.A. Ott and P.A. Perry, Action of a scattering map on weighted Sobolev spaces in the plane, arXiv:1501.04669, (2015)
M. Christ and A. Kiselev, WKB asymptotic behavior of almost all generalized eigenfunctions for one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with slowly decaying potentials, J. Funct. Anal. [**179**]{} (2001), no. 2, 426–447.
A.S. Fokas and M.J. Ablowitz, On the inverse scattering transform of multidimensional nonlinear equations related to first-order systems in the plane, J. Math. Phys. [**25**]{} (1984), no. 8, 2494–2505.
L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 249, Springer, New York, 2008.
C.E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega, Well-posedness and scattering results for the generalized Korteweg–de Vries equation via the contraction principle, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**46**]{}, 1993, 527–620.
T. Ozawa, Exact blow-up solutions to the Cauchy problem for the Davey–Stewartson systems, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A [**436** ]{} (1992), no. 1897, 345–349.
C. Muscalu, T. Tao and C. Thiele, A Carleson theorem for a Cantor group model of the scattering transform, Nonlinearity [**16**]{} (2003), no. 1, 219–246.
P.A. Perry, Global well-posedness and long-time asymptotics for the defocussing Davey–Stewartson II equation in $H^{1,1}(\R^2)$, arXiv : 1110.5589, (2011).
L.-Y. Sung, An inverse scattering transform for the Davey-Stewartson II equations. I, II & III, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**183**]{} (1994), 121–154, 289–325, 477–494.
[^1]: Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 35P25, 45Q05; Secondary 42B37
[^2]: Supported by Academy of Finland project SA-12719831, by MINECO grants MTM2011-28198, MTM2013-41780-P and SEV-2011-0087 (Spain) and ERC grant 307179
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The visualization of an exceptional point in a symmetric directional coupler(DC) is demonstrated. In such a system the exceptional point can be probed by varying only a single parameter. Using the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory we prove that the spectrum of a symmetric Hamiltonian is real as long as the radius of convergence has not been reached. We also show how one can use a symmetric DC to measure the radius of convergence for non symmetric structures. For such systems the physical meaning of the rather mathematical term: radius of convergence, is exemplified.'
author:
- Shachar Klaiman
- Nimrod Moiseyev
- Uwe Günther
title: '**Visualization of Branch Points in $\mathcal{PT}$-Symmetric Waveguides**'
---
In the past several years, following the seminal paper by Bender and Boettcher [@benderprl1], non-hermitian -symmetric Hamiltonians have caught a lot of attention (see [@benderMKS] and references therein). Under certain conditions - symmetric Hamiltonians can have a completely real spectrum and thus can serve, under the appropriate inner products, as the Hamiltonians for unitary quantum systems [@mostafazadehprl].
Recently, the realization of - symmetric “Hamiltonians” has been studied using optical waveguides with complex refractive indices [@Muga; @Christo]. The equivalence of the Maxwell and Schrödinger equations in certain regimes provides a physical system in which the properties of -symmetric operators can be studied and exemplified.
An extremely interesting property of - symmetric operators stems from the anti-linearity of the time symmetry operator. Consider a - symmetric operator $\hat{H}$, i.e., $[\mathcal{PT} , \hat{H}]=0$. Due to the non-linearity of $\mathcal{T}$ one *cannot* in general choose simultaneous eigenfunctions of the operators and $\hat{H}$. However, if an eigenvalue of the $\hat{H}$ is real then it’s corresponding eigenfunction is a also an eigenfunction of the operator. This property has come to be known as exact/spontaneously-broken - symmetry. Exact - symmetry refers to the case when every eigenfunction of the symmetric operator is also an eigenfunction of the operator. In any other case the - symmetry is said to be broken.
Usually, the transition between exact and spontaneously-broken symmetry can be controlled by a parameter in the Hamiltonian. This parameter serves as a measure of the non-hermiticity. An important class of - symmetric Hamiltonians are of the form: $\hat{H}(\lambda)=H_0+i\lambda V$. Where $H_0$(and $V$) are real and symmetric(anti-symmetric) with respect to parity so that $[\mathcal{PT} , \hat{H}]=0$. When $\lambda=0$ the Hamiltonian is hermitian and the entire spectrum is real. The spectrum remains real even when $\lambda\neq0$ as long as $\lambda<\lambda_c$. At this critical value and beyond, pairs of eigenvalues collide and become complex, see for example [@Znojil]. Bender [@BBM] showed that the reality of the spectrum is explained by the real secular equations one can write for - symmetric matrices. These secular equations will depend on the non-hermiticity parameter and, consequently, yield either real or complex solutions. Delabaere [@Delabaere] showed for the one-parameter family of complex cubic oscillators that pairs of eigenvalues cross each other at Bender and Wu branch points. Dorey [@Doreyproof] after proving the reality of the spectrum for a family of -symmetric Hamiltonians, showed [@Dorey] that at the point where the energy levels cross, i.e., the critical value of $\lambda$, a super-symmetry is broken and not only the eigenvalues but also the eigenfunctions become the same.
Consider the family of Hamiltonians given by: $\hat{H}=H_0+\lambda
V=H_0+i|\lambda| V $. The existence of a branch point in the Hamiltonian’s spectrum determines the radius of convergence of a series expansion of the energy in $\lambda$. Friedland and one of us [@NMF] proved that for two real symmetric matrices $\bf{H_0}$ and $\bf{V}$ that do not commute there exists *at least* one branch point $\lambda_{bp}$ for which $\frac{dE}{d\lambda}|_{\lambda=\lambda_{bp}}=\infty$. Therefore, the expansion of the energy in powers of $\lambda$ converges only as long as $|\lambda|<|\lambda_{bp}|$. The most common situation is when the branch point is associated with the coalescence of two eigenfunctions and the two corresponding eigenvalues. Such a point in the spectrum is often referred to as an *exceptional point* [@Kato]. Exceptional points in physical systems have been studied, e.g., in [@Berry; @Cartarius; @Rubinstein; @Uwe; @Cejnar]. Recently, exceptional points have been observed experimentally in microwave cavities [@Dembowski]. In general, as stated in the theorem above, the value of the parameter $\lambda$ at which the branch point occurs is a complex number. This demands the control of the Hamiltonian by at least two parameters [@Cartarius]. From the evidence of branch points in previous studies of -symmetric Hamiltonians, e.g., [@Znojil], it is plausible to assume that the branch point is located on the imaginary axis, i.e., $\lambda_{bp}=i|\lambda_{bp}|$. Hence, the two parameter dependence reduces to a dependence on a single real parameter. Therefore, the study of exceptional points in - symmetric systems is strongly simplified.
We restrict the discussion to the cases for which $|\lambda_{bp}|\neq0$. Thus for $\lambda=i|\lambda|$ and $\lambda_{bp}=i|\lambda_{bp}|$ in the vicinity of an exceptional point one can write, $$\begin{aligned}
E(\lambda)&=& E^{bp}\pm D\sqrt{(\lambda-\lambda_{bp})(\lambda-\lambda_{bp}^*)}\\
&=& E^{bp} \pm D\sqrt{|\lambda_{bp}|^2-|\lambda|^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ If $|\lambda| > |\lambda_{bp}|$ one gets a pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues $E$ and $E^*$, whereas in the case for which $|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|$ the system has two real eigenvalues. Therefore, $\lambda_{bp}$ corresponds to the critical value, $\lambda_c$, at which the transition between exact and spontaneously broken symmetry occurs. An interesting consequence of the above analysis is that if one treats the potential $\lambda V$ as a perturbation the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation expansion would converge as long as $|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|$. One would then expect that the reality of the spectrum should be apparent from such an expansion. We shall prove this in the following.
Consider the following time-independent Schrödinger equation: $$(H_0+\lambda V)\Psi_j(\lambda)=E_j(\lambda)\Psi_j(\lambda),$$ Where again, $H_0$(and $V$) are real and symmetric(anti-symmetric) with respect to parity and are both hermitian operators. Assuming that $|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|$, one can expand the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions in a *convergent* power series in powers of $\lambda$: $$\begin{aligned}
E_j(|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|)&=&\sum_{n=0}^\infty \lambda^nE_j^{(n)}, \\
\Psi_j(|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|)&=&\sum_{n=0}^\infty \lambda^n \Psi_j^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where $E_j^{(n)}\,(\Psi_j^{(n)})\,;\,n=0,1,2..$ are the [*real*]{} energy (wavefunction) correction terms of the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation expansion. The (2n+1)- rule stated by Wigner [@wigner] implies that, $$E_j = \langle\chi_j^{(n)}|H_0+\lambda V| \chi_j^{(n)}\rangle
+O(\lambda^{2n+2})$$ where, $$\chi_j^{(n)}(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n \lambda^k \psi_j^{(k)}$$ and $\langle\chi_j^{(n)}|\chi_j^{(n)}\rangle=1$. Therefore, following the (2n+1)-rule, $$E_j^{(2n+1)}=\langle\psi_j^{(n)}|V|\psi_j^{(n)}\rangle
\label{E-odd}$$ where the n-th order correction to the exact eigenfunction $\Psi_j$ is the solution of the following equation, \_j\^[(n)]{}(x)&=& G\_0’(E\_j\^[(0)]{})V(x)|\_j\^[(n-1)]{}\
&-&\_[k=1]{}\^[n-1]{}E\_j\^[(k)]{}G\_0’(E\_j\^[(0)]{}) |\_j\^[(n-k)]{}, \[psi-n\] and $G_0'(E_j^{(0)})=\sum_{q\ne j}\langle
x|\psi_q^{(0)}\rangle\langle \psi_q^{(0)} | (
E_j^{(0)}-E_q^{(0)})^{-1}$. The parity symmetry of the zeroth-order Hamiltonian ensures that its eigenfunction $\psi_q^{(0)}(x)$ has either [*even*]{} or [*odd*]{} parity. From the hermiticity of $H_0$ the eigenvalues of the zeroth-order Hamiltonian are real. Therefore, the n-th order energy correction term, $\{E_k^{(n)}\}$, is also real. As can be verified by substitution, the definite parity of the $\psi_q^{(0)}(x)$ together with the antisymmetric parity of the perturbing potential, i.e., $V(x)=-V(-x)$, generate a definite parity n-th correction to the wavefunction. That is, \_j\^[(n)]{}(x)=(-1)\^[j+n-1]{}\_j\^[(n)]{}(-x), for: $j=1,2,\ldots$ and $n=0,1,\ldots$. One can now immediately conclude that, $$E_j^{(2n+1)}=0\,. \label{odd-E}$$ Therefore, $$E_j(|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \lambda^{2n}
E_j^{(2n)}.$$ Consequently for $\lambda=i|\lambda|$ the series $$E_j(|\lambda| < |\lambda_{bp}|)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n|\lambda|^{2n} E_j^{(2n)}$$ converges to real values.
The above analysis shows that the transition between exact and spontaneously broken - symmetry occurs at a branch point where the non-hermiticity parameter ($|\lambda|$ in our case) reaches the radius of convergence of the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation expansion. As we will show below this phenomenon can be observed experimentally.
The measurement of the radius of convergence of a Rayleigh-Schrödinger series expansion will be demonstrated in a - symmetric waveguide configuration. A - symmetric waveguide can be easily realized with a symmetric index guiding profile and an antisymmetric gain/loss profile, i.e., $n(x)=n^*(-x)$ [@Christo]. We consider two coupled planar waveguides depicted in Fig. \[fig1\] for which the refractive index varies only in the x direction. The direction of propagation in the waveguides is taken to be the z axis. The wave equation for the transverse-electric (TE) modes then reads:
![(color online) A -symmetric directional coupler. The structure consists of two coupled slab waveguides. The real and imaginary part of the refractive index is also portrayed. The refractive index only varies in the x direction.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1_Shachar_Klaiman.eps){width="3.5in"}
\[waveEQ\] (+k\^2n(x)\^2)\_y(x)=\^2\_y(x), where the y component of the electric field is given by: $E_y(x,z,t)=\mathcal{E}_y(x)e^{i(\omega t-\beta z)}$, $k=2\pi/\lambda$, and $\lambda$ is the vacuum wavelength. Clearly, the wave equation for the y component of the electric field, i.e., Eq. (\[waveEQ\]), is analogous to the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation: $\left(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x^2}+V(x)\right)\Psi(x)=E\Psi(x)$, identifying the potential as $V(x)=-\frac{1}{2}k^2n^2$ and the energy as: $E=-\frac{1}{2}\beta^2$. As shown in Fig. \[fig1\] we couple between one gain-guiding waveguide (positive imaginary part of the refractive index) and one loss-guiding waveguide (negative imaginary part of the refractive index) [@Siegman] in order to create the - symmetric structure. For simplicity we take the separation between the two coupled waveguides to be the same as the waveguides’ width, i.e., $2a$. The effect of changing the separation of two coupled - symmetric waveguides was studied in [@Christo], and showed that as in regular (non - symmetric) directional couplers the coupling length is an increasing monotonic function of the separation. The beat time period usually used to describe quantum beating systems , e.g., [@Lovering] is exchanged in the study of waveguides by a beat length: $L=2\pi/\Delta\beta$, where $\Delta\beta$ is the difference between the propagation constants of the two modes. As described below a different method of controlling the beat length is by changing the non-hermiticity of the potential which can be controlled by the gain(loss) coefficient: $\Delta\alpha$.
![(color online) The two trapped modes of the wave-guide depicted in Fig. \[fig1\] as a function of the non-hermiticity parameter strength. The eigenmodes approach each other on the real axis as $\Delta\alpha$ increases until a critical value of $\Delta\alpha_c\sim8.4$ is reached. At the critical value one finds a branch (exceptional) point where the two modes coalesce. Beyond the branch point the directional coupler sustains one gain guiding mode and one loss guiding mode.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2_Shachar_Klaiman.eps){width="3.5in"}
In order to illustrate the control of the beat length using the non-hermiticity parameter we choose the following parameters for the waveguide structure shown in Fig. \[fig1\]: The background index is taken to be: $n_0=3.3$, the vacuum wavelength: $\lambda=1.55\mu m$, the real index difference between the waveguides and the background material: $\Delta n=10^{-3}$, and the separation between the waveguides which equals the waveguides’ width: $2a=5\mu m$. The parameters are chosen such that each waveguide contains only a single guided mode before we couple them. The coupled guided modes are calculated by diagonalizing the matrix representation of Eq. \[waveEQ\] in a sine basis. The “Hamiltonian” matrix is non-hermitian and one needs to take care when normalizing the eigenvectors. We choose to normalize our eigenvectors according to the so-called *c-product* [@nimrodrev], i.e., $\left(\mathcal{E}_{n}|\mathcal{E}_{m}\right)=\langle
\mathcal{E}_{n}^*|\mathcal{E}_{m}\rangle=\delta_{n,m}$.
The coupled waveguides support two guided modes. The propagation constants of the two modes are plotted in Fig. \[fig2\] as a function of the non-hermiticity parameter. Increasing $\Delta\alpha$ causes the propagation constants of the two modes to move towards each other up to a critical point, i.e., the branch point. Beyond the branch point the propagation constants become complex conjugates of one another. As long as - symmetry remains exact, i.e., $\Delta\alpha<\Delta\alpha_c\simeq8.4$, the two guided modes can be classified according to the parity of the real part of the transverse electric field just as in the non - symmetric case. The critical value of $\Delta\alpha$ corresponds to a branch point, i.e., an exceptional point, where the two modes coalesce. At the branch point both the propagation constants and the corresponding electric field become equal. One can, therefore, study the exceptional point in a - symmetric waveguide by varying only a *single parameter*. Past the critical value of $\Delta\alpha$, the waveguides support one gain-guiding mode and one loss-guiding mode. The transverse field past the branch point no longer retains the symmetry properties of the operator, but rather each of the two modes becomes localized in one of the waveguides.
![(color online) The power distribution for a propagating sum field consisting of the two guided modes, see Eq. \[sumfield\]. The propagating light is shown for three values of $\Delta\alpha$. As can be readily observed, the beat length (analogous to the beat time period in quantum mechanics) increases as the value of $\Delta\alpha$ approaches the critical value. See the text for further details.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3_Shachar_Klaiman_arxiv.eps){width="3.5in"}
The progression of the propagation constants on the real axis towards the branch point can be visualized experimentally by observing the beat length (time, in the corresponding quantum mechanical problem) of the sum field for the symmetric waveguide. Fig. \[fig3\] displays the power distribution, \[sumfield\] |E\_y(x,z)|\^2=|(\_[1]{}(x)e\^[-i\_1z]{}+\_[2]{}(x)e\^[-i\_2z]{})|\^2, for three values of $\Delta\alpha$. As the value of $\Delta\alpha$ approaches the critical value the beat length increases. This is a direct observation of the movement of the propagation constants towards each other on the real axis. Near the critical value of $\Delta\alpha$, i.e., the exceptional point, the sum field no longer oscillates between the waveguides but rather travels in both waveguides simultaneously. Therefore, by tuning the value of $\Delta\alpha$ one can visualize the movement of the eigenmodes towards the branch point or away from it, as seen in Fig. \[fig3\].
The effect of the non-hermiticity on the beat length is clearly reflected in Fig. \[fig3\]. However, this visualization of the branch point is not the only information one can get from such an experiment. By finding what is the critical value of $\Delta\alpha$ which corresponds to the branch point one can infer the radius of convergence for any symmetric waveguide structure with an antisymmetric perturbation. Therefore, while the visualization is done on a symmetric waveguide, the critical value of $\Delta\alpha$ corresponds to the maximum value of an added antisymmetric index profile which can still be treated within perturbation theory.
In conclusion, a proof of the reality of the spectrum of - symmetric Hamiltonians has been given using the Rayleigh-Schrodinger perturbation theory. We showed that the transition between exact and spontaneously broken - symmetry occurs at a branch point and the transition can be visualized in a symmetric waveguide structure. Such a system has many advantages for the study of exceptional points as the movement towards the branch point is controlled by a single parameter. We also show that by such a measurement one can find the radius of convergence for the family of waveguides where a symmetric index profile is supplemented with an antisymmetric index profile. This antisymmetric profile need not be imaginary. The knowledge of the radius of convergence is important if one wishes to treat the added antisymmetric index as a perturbation.
NM acknowledges the financial support of Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 890015). UG has been supported by the German Research Foundation DFG, grant GE 682/12-3. SK acknowledges the support of the ministry of science, culture, and sports.
[99]{} C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, . C. M. Bender, Rep. Prog. Phys., **70**, 947, (2007). A. Mostafazadeh, . A. Ruschhaupt, F. Delgado, and J. G. Muga, . R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, D. N. Christodoulides, and Z. H. Musslimani, Opt. Lett., **32**, 2632, (2007); M. Znojil, ; H. Langer, C. Tretter, Czech. J. Phys., **54**,1113, (2004).
C. M. Bender, M. V. Berry and A. Mandilara, . E. Delabaere and D. T. Trinh, . P. Dorey, C. Dunning, and R. Tateo . P. Dorey, C. Dunning, and R. Tateo, . N. Moiseyev and S. Friedland, Phys. Rev. A, 22, 618 (1980). E. P. Wigner, Math. u. Naturwiss. Anzeig. d. Ungar. Akad. Wiss., **L III**, 475,(1935). T. Kato, *Perturbation Theroy of Linear Operators* (Springer, Berlin, 1966). M. V. Berry, Czech. J. Phys., **54**, 1039, (2004). H. Cartarius, J. Main, and G. Wunner, . J. Rubinstein, P. Sternberg, and Q. Ma, . U. Gnther, I. Rotter, and B. Samsonov, . P. Cejnar, S. Heinze, and M. Macek, . C. Dembowski , ; *ibid*. . A. Siegman, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, **20**,1617,(2003). D. J. Lovering , . N. Moiseyev, Phys. Rep., **302**, 211,(1998).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new variational method for the study of stability in the isoperimetric inequality. The method is quite general as it relies on a penalization technique combined with the regularity theory for quasiminimizers of the perimeter. Two applications are presented. First we give a new proof of the sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Second we positively answer to a conjecture by Hall concerning the best constant for the quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ in the small asymmetry regime.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni “R. Caccioppoli”, Universit[à]{} degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”, Via Cintia, Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica Pura e Applicata “G. Vitali”, Universit[à]{} degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 213/b, I-41100 Modena, Italy'
author:
- Marco Cicalese
- Gian Paolo Leonardi
title: |
A Selection Principle for the Sharp Quantitative\
Isoperimetric Inequality
---
Introduction
============
Let $E$ be a Borel set in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, $n\geq 2$, with positive and finite Lebesgue measure $|E|$. Denoting by $B_E$ the open ball centered at $0$ such that $|B_E| = |E|$, and by ${{P}}(E)$ the distributional perimeter of $E$ (in the sense of Caccioppoli-De Giorgi), we define the *isoperimetric deficit* of $E$ as $${{\delta P}}(E) = \frac{{{P}}(E) - {{P}}(B_E)}{{{P}}(B_E)}.$$ By the classical isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, ${{\delta P}}(E)$ is non-negative and zero if and only if $E$ coincides with $B_E$ up to null sets and to a translation. A natural issue arising from the optimality of the ball in the isoperimetric inequality, is that of stability estimates of the type $${{\delta P}}(E)\geq\varphi(E),$$ where $\varphi(E)$ is a measure of how far $E$ is from a ball. Such inequalities, called [*Bonnesen-type inequalities*]{} by Osserman ([@Osserman79]), have been widely studied after the results by Bernstein ([@Bernstein05]) and Bonnesen ([@Bonnesen21; @Bonnesen24]) in the convex, $2$-dimensional case (see also [@Hadwiger48] and [@Dinghas48] for extensions to convex sets in higher dimensions). Among inequalities of this kind, the well-known [*quantitative isoperimetric inequality*]{} states that there exists a constant $C = C(n)>0$, such that $$\label{QII}
{{\delta P}}(E) \geq C {{\alpha}}(E)^2,$$ where $${{\alpha}}(E) = \inf\left\{ \frac{|E{\bigtriangleup}(x+B_E)|}{|B_E|},\ x\in
{{\mathbb R}}^n\right\}$$ and $V{\bigtriangleup}W = (V\setminus W)\cup (W\setminus V)$. We recall that ${{\alpha}}(E)$ is known as the [*Fraenkel asymmetry*]{} of $E$ (see [@HalHayWei91]). Observe that both ${{\delta P}}(E)$ and ${{\alpha}}(E)$ are invariant under isometries and dilations. For this reason, denoting by $B$ the unit open ball in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, in studying we are allowed to restrict ourselves to sets $E$ with $|E|=|B|$.
Before the complete proof of the inequality by Fusco, Maggi and Pratelli [@FusMagPra08], a number of partial results came one after the other. A first stability result outside the convex setting was proved by Fuglede in [@Fuglede86] (see also [@Fuglede89]), who gave a proof of in the class of *nearly-spherical* sets in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. A set $E$ is *nearly-spherical* in the sense of Fuglede if ${\partial}E$ can be represented as the normal graph of a Lipschitz function $u$ defined on ${\partial}B$ and such that $\|u\|_{W^{1,\infty}({\partial}B)}$ is suitably small. More specifically, the following inequality between the isoperimetric deficit ${{\delta P}}(E)$ and the Sobolev norm of $u$ is proved in [@Fuglede86] under the assumption that $E$ is nearly-spherical and has the same barycenter as $B$: $$\label{Fug_intro}
{{\delta P}}(E)\geq C\| u \|^2_{W^{1,2}({\partial}B)},$$ where $C=C(n)>0$. By one easily obtains (see Section \[sect:app\]).
A few years later, Hall proved in [@Hall92] the inequality for sets with an axis of rotational symmetry (axisymmetric sets). Combining this result with a previous estimate obtained in [@HalHayWei91], he was able to prove the quantitative isoperimetric inequality for all sets in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, but with a sub-optimal exponent ($4$ instead of $2$) for the asymmetry.
The full proof of the quantitative isoperimetric inequality (with the sharp exponent $2$, as conjectured by Hall in [@Hall92]) has been recently accomplished by Fusco, Maggi and Pratelli in [@FusMagPra08], via a ingenious geometric construction by which the proof of is reduced to sets having more and more symmetries and eventually to axisymmetric sets, for which Hall’s result leads to the conclusion.
Since the publication of [@FusMagPra08] the study of quantitative forms of various geometric and functional inequalities has received a new impulse (see for instance [@FusMagPra07], [@FusMagPra09], [@FigMagPra09], [@FigMagPra09-2], [@CiaFusMagPra10] and the review paper [@Maggi08]). Among the recent results on this subject, the one by Figalli, Maggi and Pratelli [@FigMagPra10] is of particular interest since the authors develop a new technique to study the stability in isoperimetric inequalities. More precisely, they show a more general version of , namely a quantitative version of the Wulff theorem, and their analysis relies on Gromov’s proof of the isoperimetric inequality [@MilSch86] and on the theory of optimal mass transportation.
In this paper we develop a technique that we call *Selection Principle*, which allows us to drastically restrict the class of sets on which the stability for the isoperimetric inequality has to be proved. The Selection Principle basically combines a penalization technique with the regularity theory for quasiminimizers of the perimeter. We point out that the main ideas of this method work in more general frameworks, but we present them here in a form which is tailored to study the stability for the isoperimetric inequality. Indeed, as a first application of our technique we present a new proof of the sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$.
We start from the simple observation that is equivalent to $$\label{DIQQ}
\frac{{{\delta P}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}(E)^2}\geq C$$ when ${{\alpha}}(E)>0$ (i.e., when $E$ is not a ball up to null sets). On the other hand, since ${{\alpha}}(E)<2$, it is enough to show under a smallness assumption on ${{\delta P}}(E)$. This, in turns, translates into a smallness assumption on ${{\alpha}}(E)$ (see Section \[sect:selprin\]). Therefore, we only need to estimate from below the left-hand side of in the [*small asymmetry regime*]{}, that is, as ${{\alpha}}(E)$ gets smaller and smaller. To study the quotient on the left hand side of in this regime we introduce the functional $Q$ defined as $$Q(E) = \inf \Big\{ \liminf_k \frac{{{\delta P}}(F_k)}{{{\alpha}}(F_k)^2}:\ |F_k|=|E|,\ {{\alpha}}(F_k)>0,\ |F_k{\bigtriangleup}E|\to 0\Big\}.$$ By the definition of $Q$, the inequality in the small asymmetry regime turns out to be equivalent to the inequality $$\label{QB_intro}
Q(B)>0.$$
The Selection Principle, that we state below, allows us to compute $Q(B)$ as the limit of $Q(E_j)$, as $j\to \infty$, and where $(E_j)_j$ is an “optimal” sequence of sets with asymmetry going to zero. More precisely, we prove in Section \[sect:selprin\] the following result:
There exists a sequence of sets $(E_j)_j$ with the following properties:
- $|E_j| = |B|$, ${{\alpha}}(E_j)>0$ and ${{\alpha}}(E_j) \to 0$ as $j\to \infty$;
- $Q(E_j) \to Q(B)$ as $j\to \infty$;
- there exists a function $u_j\in C^1({\partial}B)$ such that ${\partial}E_j = \{(1+u_j(x))x:\ x\in {\partial}B\}$ and $u_j \to 0$ in the $C^1$-norm, as $j\to \infty$;
- ${\partial}E_j$ has (scalar) mean curvature $H_j\in
L^\infty({\partial}E_j)$ and $\|H_j - 1\|_{L^\infty({\partial}E_j)} \to 0$ as $j\to \infty$.
As a striking consequence of the Selection Principle, in Theorem \[teo:QII\] we obtain a new and very short proof of the quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Indeed, thanks to (iii) and for $j$ large enough, $E_j$ is a nearly spherical set, and thus, by Fuglede’s estimate , we have that $Q(E_j)\geq C$ for some $C=C(n)>0$. Eventually passing to the limit in $j$, we get .
In addition, in Theorem \[teo:Hconj\] we positively answer to another conjecture posed by Hall in [@Hall92], and asserting that for any measurable set in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ with positive and finite Lebesgue measure the following [*Taylor-type lower bound*]{} holds true: $$\label{eq:HHWconj}
{{\delta P}}(E) \geq C_0 {{\alpha}}(E)^2 + o({{\alpha}}(E))^2,$$ with *optimal asymptotic constant* $C_0=\frac{\pi}{8(4-\pi)}$. The inequality was already established in [@HalHayWei91; @HalHay93] for convex sets in the plane. By property (iv) of the Selection Principle and for $j$ large enough, it turns out that $E_j$ is a convex set, hence by the validity of for convex sets, $$\begin{aligned}
Q(E_j)\geq C_0+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ Passing to the limit as $j\to \infty$ we get $Q(B)\geq C_0$ which immediately implies for all Borel sets in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ with positive and finite Lebesgue measure. Actually, an even more precise estimate than can be proved. Indeed, in the forthcoming paper [@CicLeo10-2], relying on a more refined version of the Selection Principle, we show in a rather direct way how to compute any order of the optimal Taylor-type lower bound of the isoperimetric deficit in terms of powers of the asymmetry (this result extend to all Borel sets a former one obtained in [@AlvFerNit10] for convex sets in the plane).
We conclude this introduction by briefly describing the main ideas of the proof of the Selection Principle. First, we construct a suitable sequence of penalized functionals $(Q_j)_j$ defined as $$Q_j(E) = Q(E) + \left(\frac{{{\alpha}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)}-1\right)^2,$$ where $(W_j)_j$ is a recovery sequence for $Q(B)$. Then, in Lemma \[lemma:exist-approx\] we check that $Q_j$ admits a minimizer $E_j$ enjoying a number of useful properties. First of all, the sequence $(E_j)_j$ is a recovery sequence for $Q(B)$, that is (ii) in the statement of the Selection Principle. Moreover, we can show in Lemma \[lemma:Lambda-min\] that each $E_j$ is a quasiminimizer of the perimeter (more specifically, a strong $\Lambda$-minimizer, see Section \[sect:selprin\] and [@Ambrosio97]). Therefore, in Lemma \[lemma:regconv\], we can appeal to the regularity theory for quasiminimizers of the perimeter (see [@DeGiorgi61], [@Massari74], [@Tamanini82], [@Tamanini84], [@Almgren76]) to get the property (iii) stated in the Selection Principle. In addition, by a first variation argument, in Lemma \[lemma:firstvar\], we obtain (iv).
Notation and preliminaries {#sect:prelim}
==========================
Given a Borel set $E\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$, we denote by $|E|$ its Lebesgue measure. Let $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $r>0$ be given, then we denote $B(x,r)$ as the open ball in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ centered at $x$ and of radius $r$. We also set $B=B(0,1)$ and $\omega_n=|B|$. Given $E\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ we also denote by $\chi_E$ its characteristic function and we say that a sequence of sets $E_j$ converges to $E$ with respect to the $L^1$ or the $L^1_{\rm loc}$-convergence of sets if $\chi_{E_j}\to \chi_E$ in $L^1$ or in $L^1_{\rm loc}$, respectively. We recall that the *perimeter* of a Borel set $E$ inside an open set $\Omega\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is $${{P}}(E,\Omega) := \sup \left\{\int_E {\mathop{\mathrm{div}}}g(x)\, dx:\ g\in
C^1_c(\Omega;{{\mathbb R}}^n),\ |g|\leq 1\right\}.$$ This definition extends the natural notion of $(n-1)$-dimensional area of a smooth (or Lipschitz) boundary ${\partial}E$. We will say that $E$ has *finite perimeter* in $\Omega$ if $P(E,\Omega)<\infty$. Equivalently, $E$ is a set of finite perimeter in $\Omega$ if the distributional derivative $D{\chi_{E}}$ of its characteristic function ${\chi_{E}}$ is a vector-valued Radon measure in $\Omega$ with finite total variation $|D{\chi_{E}}|(\Omega)$. We will simply write ${{P}}(E)$ instead of ${{P}}(E,{{\mathbb R}}^n)$, and we will say that $E$ is a set of finite perimeter if ${{P}}(E)<\infty$. From the well-known De Giorgi’s Rectifiability Theorem (see [@AmbFusPal00], [@EvaGar92]), $D{\chi_{E}}=\nu_E\,{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}\lfloor{\partial}^*E$ where ${{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}$ is the $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure and ${\partial}^*E$ is the [*reduced boundary*]{} of $E$, i.e., the set of points $x\in{\partial}E$ such that the [*generalized inner normal*]{} $\nu_E(x)$ is defined, that is, $$\nu_E(x)=\lim\limits_{r\to 0}\frac{D{\chi_{E}}(B(x,r))}{|D{\chi_{E}}|(B(x,r))}\quad\text{and}\quad|\nu_E(x)|=1.$$ We recall (see for instance [@Giusti84]) that, given $E$ of finite perimeter in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, for all $x\in{\partial}^*E$ $$\label{density}
\lim_{r\to 0^+}\frac{|E\cap B(x,r)|}{|B(x,r)|}=\frac12,$$ and for a.e. $r\in{{\mathbb R}}$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{giusti}
{{P}}(E, B(0,r))= {{P}}(E\cap B(0,r))- {{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(E\cap {\partial}B(0,r)).\end{aligned}$$
We now recall some classical definitions and properties of quasiminimizers of the perimeter (see [@Tamanini82], [@Tamanini84], [@Ambrosio97]). Given $E\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ of finite perimeter and $A\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ an open bounded set, we define the *deviation from minimality* of $E$ in $A$ as $${\Psi}(E,A) = {{P}}(E,A) - \inf\{{{P}}(F,A):\ F{\bigtriangleup}E \subset\subset A\},$$ where $F{\bigtriangleup}E = (F\setminus E) \cup (E\setminus F)$ and $S\subset\subset A$ iff $S$ is a relatively compact subset of $A$. Note that ${\Psi}(E,A) \geq 0$, with equality if and only if $E$ minimizes the perimeter in $A$ (w.r.t. all of its compact variations $F$). We set ${\Psi}(E,x,r) = {\Psi}(E,B(x,r))$ and, given $\gamma\in (0,1)$, $R>0$ and $\Lambda>0$, we call *quasiminimizer* of the perimeter (in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$) any set $E$ of finite perimeter for which $$\label{def:qmin}
{\Psi}(E,x,r) \leq \Lambda \omega_{n-1} r^{n-1+2\gamma}$$ for all $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $0<r<R$ (see [@Tamanini82; @Ambrosio97]). We will also equivalently write $E\in
{{\mathcal{QM}}}(\gamma, R, \Lambda)$ to highlight the key parameters occurring in the above definition of quasiminimality. If $E\in {{\mathcal{QM}}}(\frac 12,R,\Lambda)$, i.e. when $\gamma = \frac 12$ in , then we call $E$ a *$\Lambda$-minimizer* (see [@Ambrosio97]). Finally, if $E$ satisfies $${{P}}(E,B(x,r)) \leq {{P}}(F,B(x,r)) + \Lambda \omega_{n-1}
\frac{|E{\bigtriangleup}F|}{\omega_n}$$ for all $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$, $0<r<R$ and all Borel sets $F$ such that $E{\bigtriangleup}F\subset\subset B(x,r)$, then $E$ is said to be a *strong* $\Lambda$-minimizer. It is easy to check that any strong $\Lambda$-minimizer is also a $\Lambda$-minimizer, hence a quasiminimizer of the perimeter (we refer to [@Tamanini84] for a clear treatment of the subject).
We now extend the definition of quasiminimality to sequences of sets of finite perimeter. We say that a sequence $(E_h)_h$ of sets of finite perimeter is a *uniform sequence of quasiminimizers* if $E_h\in {{\mathcal{QM}}}(\gamma,R,\Lambda)$ for some fixed parameters $\gamma\in
(0,1)$, $R>0$ and $\Lambda>0$, and for all $h\in{{\mathbb N}}$.\
Before going on, we recall the notion of *convergence in the Kuratowski sense*. Let $(S_h)_h$ be a sequence of sets in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, then we say that $S_h$ converges in the Kuratowski sense to a set $S\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ as $h\to \infty$, if the following two properties hold:
- if a sequence of points $x_h\in S_h$ converges to a point $x$ as $h\to \infty$, then $x\in S$;
- for any $x\in S$ there exists a sequence $x_h\in S_h$ such that $x_h$ converges to $x$ as $h\to \infty$.
In addition, given $(S_h)_h$ an equibounded sequence of compact sets, the convergence of $S_h$ to $S$ in the Kuratowski sense is equivalent to the convergence in the Hausdorff metric.\
In the following proposition we recall some crucial properties of uniform sequences of quasiminimizers (see for instance Theorem 1.9 in [@Tamanini84]).
\[prop:qmin\] Let $(E_h)_h$ be a uniform sequence of quasiminimizers, i.e. assume there exist $\gamma\in(0,1)$, $R>0$ and $\Lambda>0$ such that $E_h \in {{\mathcal{QM}}}(\gamma,R,\Lambda)$ for all $h\in {{\mathbb N}}$. Then, if $E_h$ converges to $E$ in $L^1$, the following facts hold.
- ${\partial}E_h$ converges to ${\partial}E$ in the Kuratowski sense, as $h\to \infty$. If in addition ${\partial}E$ is compact, then ${\partial}E_h$ converges to ${\partial}E$ in the Hausdorff metric.
- If $x\in{\partial}^*E$ and $x_h\in{\partial}E_h$ is such that $x_h\to
x$, then there exists $\bar h$, such that $x_h\in{\partial}^*E_h$ for all $h\geq\bar h$. Moreover, $\nu_{E_h}(x_h)\to \nu_{E}(x)$ as $h\to
\infty$.
The deviation from minimality (and, thus, the concept of quasiminimality described above) turns out to be closely related to another key quantity in De Giorgi’s regularity theory: the *excess*. Given $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$, $r>0$ and $E$ of locally finite perimeter, the excess of $E$ in $B(x,r)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{Exc}(E,x,r) &=& r^{1-n} \left({{P}}(E,B(x,r)) -
\left|D{\chi_{E}}(B(x,r))\right|\right)\\
&=& \frac{r^{1-n}}{2} \min_{\stackrel{\xi\in {{\mathbb R}}^n}{|\xi|=1}} \left\{\int_{{\partial}^* E \cap B(x,r)} |\nu_E(y) - \xi|^2\, d{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(y)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
In the following proposition we state a useful continuity property of the excess and the fundamental regularity result for quasiminimizers (see for instance Proposition 4.3.1 in [@Ambrosio97] and Theorem 1.9 in [@Tamanini84]). Before stating the proposition, we introduce some extra notation. Given a point $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and a unit vector $\nu\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$, we write with a little abuse of notation $x = {x_\nu^\perp}+ {x_\nu}\nu =
({x_\nu^\perp},{x_\nu})$, where ${x_\nu^\perp}$ is the projection of $x$ onto the orthogonal complement of $\nu$ and ${x_\nu}= \langle x,\nu\rangle$. Given $r>0$ and a unit vector $\nu\in
{{\mathbb R}}^n$, we define the *cylinder* ${{\mathcal C}}_{\nu,r} = \{x = ({x_\nu^\perp},{x_\nu}):\
\max(|{x_\nu^\perp}|,|{x_\nu}|)<r\}$. Following our notation, ${{\mathcal C}}_{\nu,r}$ can be defined as the Cartesian product $B_{\nu,r} \times (-r,r)\cdot\nu$, where $B_{\nu,r}$ is the open ball of radius $r$ in the orthogonal complement of $\nu$. Given a function $f:B_{\nu,r}\to {{\mathbb R}}$, we define its *graph* as $${\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(f) = \{({x_\nu^\perp}, f({x_\nu^\perp})\nu):\ {x_\nu^\perp}\in B_{\nu,r}\}.$$
\[prop:psiexc\] Given $\gamma\in (0,1)$, $R>0$ and $\Lambda>0$, the following facts hold.
- Let $(E_h)_h$ be a sequence in ${{\mathcal{QM}}}(\gamma,R,\Lambda)$ and assume $E_h \to E$ in $L^1_{loc}$, as $j\to \infty$. Then $$\lim_j \operatorname*{Exc}(E_j,x,r) = \operatorname*{Exc}(E,x,r),$$ for all $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $0<r<R$ for which ${{P}}(E,{\partial}B(x,r)) = 0$.
- There exists ${\varepsilon}_0 = {\varepsilon}_0(n, \gamma,R,\Lambda)>0$ with the following property: if $E\in {{\mathcal{QM}}}(\gamma,R,\Lambda)$, $x_0\in {\partial}E$, and if $\operatorname*{Exc}(E,x_0,2r)<{\varepsilon}_0$ for some $0<r<R/2$, then $x_0\in
{\partial}^* E$ and, setting $\nu = \nu_E(x_0)$, one has that $$({\partial}E - x_0) \cap {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu,r} = {\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(f),$$ where $f\in C^{1,\gamma}(B_{\nu, r})\to {{\mathbb R}}$, with $f(0) = |\nabla
f(0)| = 0$. Moreover, one has the Hölder estimate $$\label{eq:nuholder}
|\nabla f(v) - \nabla f(w)| \leq C |v-w|^\gamma$$ for all $v,w\in B_{\nu,r}$ and for a suitable constant $C = C(n, \gamma, R, \Lambda)>0$.
\[rmk:regularity\]Given a quasiminimizer $E\in {{\mathcal{QM}}}(\gamma,R,\Lambda)$, and owing to Proposition \[prop:psiexc\] and the fact that for any $x_0\in {\partial}^*E$ one has $\operatorname*{Exc}(E,x_0,r) \to 0$ as $r\to 0$, we conclude that ${\partial}^* E$ is a smooth hypersurface of class $C^{1,\gamma}$. Moreover, by Federer’s blow-up argument (see [@Giusti84]), the Hausdorff dimension of the *singular set* ${\partial}E\setminus
{\partial}^*E$ cannot exceed $n-8$. Finally, one can show via standard elliptic estimates for weak solutions to the mean curvature equation with bounded prescribed curvature (see Section 7.7 in [@AmbFusPal00]) that, if $E$ is a strong $\Lambda$-minimizer, then ${\partial}^*E$ is of class $C^{1,\eta}$ for all $0<\eta<1$ (and of class $C^{1,1}$ in dimension $n=2$).
In what follows we will denote by ${{\mathcal S}}^n$ the class of Borel subsets of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ with positive and finite Lebesgue measure. Given $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$, we define its *isoperimetric deficit* ${{\delta P}}(E)$ and its *Fraenkel asymmetry* ${{\alpha}}(E)$ as follows: $$\label{deficit}
{{\delta P}}(E) := \frac{{{P}}(E) - {{P}}(B_E)}{{{P}}(B_E)}$$ and $$\label{asym}
{{\alpha}}(E) := \inf\left\{ \frac{|E{\bigtriangleup}(x+B_E)|}{|B_E|},\ x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n\right\},$$ where $B_E$ denotes the ball centered at the origin such that $|B_E|=|E|$ and $E{\bigtriangleup}F$ denotes the symmetric difference of the two sets $E$ and $F$. Since both ${{\delta P}}(E)$ and ${{\alpha}}(E)$ are invariant under isometries and dilations, from now on we will set $|E|=|B|$ so that $B_E=B$. By definition, the Fraenkel asymmetry ${{\alpha}}(E)$ satisfies ${{\alpha}}(E)\in [0,2)$ and it is zero if and only if $E$ coincides with $B$ in measure-theoretic sense and up to a translation. Notice that the infimum in is actually a minimum.
The Selection Principle {#sect:selprin}
=======================
Given a Borel set $E$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ with $|E| = |B|$, the classical isoperimetric inequality states that $$\label{ISOP}
{{P}}(E) \geq {{P}}(B),$$ with equality if and only if ${{\alpha}}(E) = 0$ (i.e., if $E$ coincides with the ball $B$ up to translations and to negligible sets), that is to say, the isoperimetric deficit ${{\delta P}}(E)$ is always non-negative and zero if and only if ${{\alpha}}(E) = 0$.
In the next section we will provide a new proof of the sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ which is a quantitative refinement of and asserts the existence of a positive constant $C$ such that, for any $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ it holds $$\label{QII_2}
{{\delta P}}(E)\geq C{{\alpha}}^2(E).$$ With the aim of presenting the main ideas of the method that will lead to the proof of , we start with some relatively elementary comments. As we have recalled before, the equality case in the isoperimetric inequality is attained precisely when $E$ coincides with a ball in measure-theoretic sense. This uniqueness property can be equivalently stated as the implication $$\label{eq:defasym}
{{\delta P}}(E)=0\ {\mathop{\Rightarrow}}\ {{\alpha}}(E)=0.$$ By Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 5.1 in [@FusMagPra08] (or via a standard concentration-compactness type argument in [@Almgren76] Lemma VI.15) it is possible to strengthen and state the following
\[lemma:smallness\] For all $\alpha_0>0$ there exists $\delta_0>0$ such that, for any $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$, if ${{\delta P}}(E)<\delta_0$ then ${{\alpha}}(E)<\alpha_0$.
It is worth noticing that, as a consequence of Lemma \[lemma:smallness\], to prove it is enough to work in the [*small asymmetry regime*]{}, i.e. to show that there exist $\alpha_0>0$ and $C_0>0$ such that $$\label{QII_q}
\frac{{{\delta P}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}^2(E)}\geq C_0$$ for all $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ with $0<{{\alpha}}(E)<\alpha_0$. In fact, assume otherwise that ${{\alpha}}(E)\geq\alpha_0$ and let $\delta_0$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:smallness\]. Then, since ${{\alpha}}(E)<2$, it holds that $\frac{{{\delta P}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}^2(E)}\geq\frac{\delta_0}{4}$, and thus follows by taking $C=\min\{C_0,\frac{\delta_0}{4}\}$.
In order to study the small asymmetry regime, it is convenient to introduce the functional $Q:{{\mathcal S}}^n\to[0,+\infty]$ defined as $$\label{eq:Q}
Q(E) = \inf \Big\{ \liminf_k \frac{{{\delta P}}(F_k)}{{{\alpha}}(F_k)^2}:\ (F_k)_k\subset{{\mathcal S}}^n,\ |F_k|=|E|,\ {{\alpha}}(F_k)>0,\ |F_k{\bigtriangleup}E|\to 0\Big\}.$$ The functional $Q$ is the lower semicontinuous envelope of the quotient $\frac{{{\delta P}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}(E)^2}$ with respect to the $L^1$-convergence of sets and, by the lower semicontinuity of the perimeter and the continuity of the asymmetry with respect to this convergence, $Q(E)=\frac{{{\delta P}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}(E)^2}$ whenever ${{\alpha}}(E)>0$. Let us now observe that, by the definition of $Q$, the inequality in the small asymmetry regime (and, in turn, ) turns out to be equivalent to $$\label{QBm0}
Q(B)>0.$$ In order to prove one may study a recovery sequence for $Q(B)$, that is a sequence of sets $(W_j)_j$ such that $|W_j|=|B|$, ${{\alpha}}(W_j)>0$ and $|W_j{\bigtriangleup}B|\to 0$, for which $Q(B)=\lim_jQ(W_j)$. However, such a sequence may not be “good enough” to handle in order to get the desired estimate . To overcome this problem, we take advantage of the following theorem, which is the main result of this section, and asserts the existence of a recovery sequence $(E_j)_j$ for $Q(B)$ satisfying some useful additional properties which simplify the computation of $Q(B)$.
\[teo:SP\] There exists a sequence of sets $(E_j)_j\subset {{\mathcal S}}^n$, such that
- $|E_j| = |B|$, ${{\alpha}}(E_j)>0$ and ${{\alpha}}(E_j) \to 0$ as $j\to \infty$;
- $Q(E_j) \to Q(B)$ as $j\to \infty$;
- for each $j$ there exists a function $u_j\in C^1({\partial}B)$ such that ${\partial}E_j = \{(1+u_j(x))x:\ x\in {\partial}B\}$ and $u_j \to 0$ in the $C^1$-norm, as $j\to \infty$;
- ${\partial}E_j$ has (scalar) mean curvature $H_j\in
L^\infty({\partial}E_j)$ and $\|H_j - 1\|_{L^\infty({\partial}E_j)} \to 0$ as $j\to \infty$.
The rest of the section will be devoted to the proof of Theorem \[teo:SP\]. The latter will be a consequence of several intermediate results, most of them having their own independent interest and being suitable for applications to more general frameworks. The main ingredients of the proof of Theorem \[teo:SP\] involve a penalization argument combined with some properties of quasiminimizers of the perimeter.
Let $(W_j)_j$ be a recovery sequence for $Q(B)$ having $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asymbound}
{{\alpha}}(W_j)\leq\frac{1}{4(Q(B)+2)}\end{aligned}$$ and satisfying $$\label{eq:W_j}
|Q(W_j) - Q(B)| < \frac{1}{j}\qquad \mbox{for all }j\geq 1.$$ Note that, as pointed out in [@Hall92], by selecting a suitable sequence of ellipsoids converging to $B$, one can show that $Q(B)<+\infty$ (see also [@Maggi08]).\
We now define the sequence of functionals $(Q_j)_j:{{\mathcal S}}^n\to[0,+\infty)$ as $$\label{eq:Q_j}
Q_j(E) = Q(E) + \left(\frac{{{\alpha}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)}-1\right)^2.$$ The following lemma holds
\[lemma:exist-approx\] For any integer $j\geq 1$,
- $Q_j$ is lower semicontinuous with respect to the $L^1$-convergence of sets;
- there exists a bounded minimizer of the functional $Q_j$, i.e. a bounded set $E_j$ such that $|E_j|=|B|$ and $Q_j(E_j) \leq Q_j(F)$ for all $F\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$;
- $E_j \to B$ in $L^1$, $Q(E_j) \to Q(B)$ and $\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)} \to 1$, as $j\to \infty$;
\(i) follows from the lower semicontinuity of the perimeter and the continuity of $\frac{{{\alpha}}(\cdot)}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)}$ with respect to $L^1$-convergence of sets.
The proof of (ii) borrows some ideas from Lemma VI.15 in [@Almgren76] (see also [@Morgan94]). Let $j$ be fixed and let $(V_{j,k})_k\subset{{\mathcal S}}^n$ be a minimizing sequence for $Q_j$ satisfying $|V_{j,k}| = |B|$, $Q_j(V_{j,k}) \leq \inf Q_j + 1/k$, and such that ${{\alpha}}(V_{j,k})=\frac{|V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}B|}{|B|}$ for all $k\geq 1$. Since $\inf Q_j \leq Q_j(W_j) = Q(W_j)$ and $Q(W_j) \to Q(B)$ as $j\to \infty$, we may assume without loss of generality that, for all $k\geq 1$, $$\label{Qjbound}
Q_j(V_{j,k}) \leq Q(B) + 1.$$
In particular, this implies that there exists $M>0$ such that $\sup_k{{P}}(V_{j,k}) \leq M$. By the well-known compactness properties of sequences of sets with equibounded perimeter, we can assume that there exists $V_j\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ such that (up to subsequences) $V_{j,k}\to V_j$ in the $L^1_{loc}$ convergence of sets, which in particular implies that $|V_j|\leq\liminf_k|V_{j,k}|=|B|$. Moreover, by the lower semicontinuity of the perimeter, we have also that ${{P}}(V_j) \leq M$. By the definition of $Q_j$, thanks to and , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}B|}{|B|}={{\alpha}}(V_{j,k})\leq((Q(B)+1)^{\frac
12}+1){{\alpha}}(W_j)\leq\frac{(Q(B)+1)^{\frac 12}+1}{4(Q(B)+2)}<\frac 14.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\label{eq:piudi34}
|V_{j,k} \cap B| > \frac 34 |B|,$$ for all $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$. We now show that $$\label{eq:minper}
{{P}}(V_j) \leq {{P}}(F),$$ for all sets $F\in {{\mathcal S}}^n$ such that $F{\bigtriangleup}V_j {\subset\subset}{{\mathbb R}}^n\setminus B(0,3)$ and $|F| =
|V_j|$. Let us assume by contradiction that does not hold, i.e., there exist $\delta>0$ and $F$ as above, such that $$\label{falsottimo}
{{P}}(F)\leq{{P}}(V_j)-\delta.$$ Given $0<r<R$, we set $C(r,R)=B(0,R)\setminus\overline {B(0,r)}$ and define $(\hat V_{j,k})_k\subset {{\mathcal S}}^n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat V_{j,k}=(V_{j,k}\setminus C(r,R))\cup(F\cap C(r,R)).\end{aligned}$$ Note that, by the definition of $F$, by the $L^1_{loc}$ convergence of $V_{j,k}$ to $V_j$ and thanks to , we can choose $r$ and $R$ such that
- $3<r<R$,
- $F{\bigtriangleup}V_j\subset\subset C(r,R)$,
- ${{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}((V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}V_j)\cap{\partial}C(r,R))\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$,
- ${{P}}(\hat V_{j,k})={{P}}(V_{j,k},{{\mathbb R}}^n\setminus\overline{C(r,R)})+{{P}}(F,C(r,R))+{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}((V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}V_j)\cap{\partial}C(r,R))$.
Let us observe that, since ${{P}}(V_j,C(r,R))\leq\liminf_k {{P}}(V_{j,k},C(r,R))$, on combining (c) and (d), and thanks to , there exists $k_j\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that, for all $k\geq k_j$ we get $$\label{perdelta}
{{P}}(\hat V_{j,k})\leq {{P}}(V_{j,k})-\frac{2\delta}3.$$ Moreover, by the definition of $\hat V_{j,k}$ we also have that $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat V_{j,k}|&=&|F\cap C(r,R)|+|V_{j,k}\setminus C(r,R)|\\&=&|V_{j,k}|+|V_j\cap C(r,R)|-|V_{j,k}\cap C(r,R)|\\&=&|B|+|V_j\cap C(r,R)|-|V_{j,k}\cap C(r,R)|,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, passing to the limit as $k\to \infty$, one obtains $$\label{limvolB}
\lim_k|\hat V_{j,k}|=|B|.$$ Let us now fix $x_j\in{\partial}^*F\cap C(r,R)$. Thanks to and , for $k$ large enough there exists $0\leq\rho_{j,k}<\left(\frac{\delta}{3n\omega_n}\right)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}$, such that, defining $(\tilde V_{j,k})_k$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{falsuc}
\tilde V_{j,k}=\begin{cases}\hat V_{j,k}\cup B(x_j,\rho_{j,k})&\text{if } |\hat V_{j,k}|\leq|B|\cr
\hat V_{j,k}\setminus B(x_j,\rho_{j,k})&\text{if } |\hat V_{j,k}|>|B|,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ we get $|\tilde V_{j,k}|=|B|$, $B(x_j,\rho_{j,k})\subset\subset C(r,R)$, and $$\label{perpalla}
|{{P}}(\hat V_{j,k})-{{P}}(\tilde V_{j,k})|\leq{{P}}(B(x_j,\rho_{j,k}))=n\omega_n(\rho_{j,k})^{n-1}<\frac{\delta}{3}.$$ By and , we eventually get $$\label{perdeltapalla}
{{P}}(\tilde V_{j,k})\leq {{P}}(V_{j,k})-\frac{\delta}{3}.$$ This, in turn, would contradict the fact that $V_{j,k}$ is a minimizing sequence for $Q_j$, once we prove that, for $k$ sufficiently large, $$\label{eq:asymFE}
{{\alpha}}(\tilde V_{j,k}) = {{\alpha}}(V_{j,k}).$$ Indeed, by and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FBpiccolo}
|\tilde V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}B| &=& |V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}B|\\ \nonumber
&=& 2(|B| - |V_{j,k}\cap B|)\\ \nonumber
&\leq & |B|/2.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n\setminus B(0,2)$ then $V_{j,k}\cap B
\subset \tilde V_{j,k} {\bigtriangleup}(x+B)$, and therefore by we get $$\label{eq:FBgrande}
|\tilde V_{j,k}{\bigtriangleup}(x+B)| \geq |V_{j,k}\cap B| > \frac 34|B|.$$ On combining and , one shows that the asymmetry of $\tilde V_{j,k}$ is attained on a ball centered in $x\in
B(0,2)$, that is holds, as wanted.
Thanks to , and by well-known results about minimizers of the perimeter subject to a volume constraint, there exists $R>1$ such that $V_j\subset B(0,R)$.
We now distinguish two cases.
*Case $1$.* $|V_j| = |B|$. In this case the local convergence is equivalent to convergence in $L^1({{\mathbb R}}^n)$, hence by the lower semicontinuity of $Q_j$ we have that $V_j$ is a minimizer of $Q_j$, thus we conclude taking $E_j=V_j$.
*Case $2$.* $|V_j| < |B|$. In this case the sequence $(V_{j,k})_k$ “looses volume at infinity”. We now claim that, setting $x_0 = (R+2,0,\dots,0)\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $0<t<1$ such that $\omega_n t^n + |V_j|= |B|$, the set $E_j := V_j \cup B(x_0,t)$ is a minimizer for $Q_j$. To this end, note that, since $V_j\subset B(0,R)$, there exists a null set ${\mathcal N}\subset(R,R+1)$ such that, for all $j\geq 1$ and $\rho\in(R,R+1)\setminus{\mathcal N}$, we have that $$\label{giusti-2}
{{P}}(V_{j,k}, B(0,\rho))= {{P}}(V_{j,k}\cap B(0,\rho))- {{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(V_{j,k}\cap {\partial}B(0,\rho)),\ \forall k\geq 1,$$ thanks to , and $$\label{giusti-3}
\lim_k {{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(V_{j,k}\cap {\partial}B(0,\rho)) = 0$$ since $|V_{j,k}\setminus B(0,\rho)|\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$.
By and , and owing to the isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:previousineq}
{{P}}(E_j) &=& {{P}}(V_j, B(0,\rho)) + n\omega_n t^{n-1}\\ \nonumber
&\leq& \liminf_k {{P}}(V_{j,k}, B(0,\rho)) + n\omega_n t^{n-1}\\ \nonumber
&=& \liminf_k({{P}}(V_{j,k}\cap B(0,\rho))-{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(V_{j,k}\cap {\partial}B(0,\rho)))+n\omega_n t^{n-1}\\ \nonumber
&=&\liminf_k ({{P}}(V_{j,k}) - {{P}}(V_{j,k}\setminus B(0,\rho))) + n\omega_n t^{n-1}\\ \nonumber
&\leq & \liminf_k ({{P}}(V_{j,k}) - n\omega_n t^{n-1}_k) + n\omega_n
t^{n-1}\\ \nonumber
&=& \liminf_k {{P}}(V_{j,k}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have denoted by $t_k$ the radius of a ball equivalent to $V_{j,k} \setminus B(0,\rho)$ and used the fact that $t_k \to t$ as $k\to
\infty$. Taking into account , one can check that the asymmetry of $E_j$ is attained on balls that are disjoint from $B(x_0,t)$, hence $$\label{eq:asimlimasimk}
0<{{\alpha}}(E_j) = \lim_k {{\alpha}}(V_{j,k}).$$ Then by and we conclude that $Q_j(E_j) \leq \liminf_k Q_j(V_{j,k}) = \inf Q_j$, as claimed.
Finally, to prove (iii) we take $E_j$ a minimizer for $Q_j$ and observe that $$Q(E_j) \leq Q_j(E_j) \leq Q_j(W_j) = Q(W_j).$$ This implies that ${{\alpha}}(E_j) = {{\alpha}}(W_j) + o({{\alpha}}(W_j))$ and that $\lim
Q(E_j) = \lim Q_j(E_j) = Q(B)$. Eventually, by the invariance of $Q_j$ under translation we may assume that $E_j$ converges to $B$, thus completing the proof.
We omit the elementary proof of the next lemma. It follows quite directly from the definition of asymmetry and from the triangular inequality $$\label{trineq}
|A {\bigtriangleup}B| \leq |A {\bigtriangleup}C| + |C {\bigtriangleup}B|$$ which holds in particular for any $A,\ B,\ C\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$.
\[lemma:stimasym\] Let $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ with $|E|=|B|=\omega_n$. For all $x\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and for any $F\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ with $E{\bigtriangleup}F
{\subset\subset}B(x,\frac 12)$, it holds that $|{{\alpha}}(E) - {{\alpha}}(F)| \leq \frac{2^{n+2}}{(2^n-1)\omega_n} |E{\bigtriangleup}F|$.
We now establish a fundamental property of the sequence $(E_j)_j$ of Lemma \[lemma:exist-approx\], i.e., the fact that it is a uniform sequence of $\Lambda$-minimizers (see Section \[sect:prelim\]).
\[lemma:Lambda-min\] There exist $\Lambda = \Lambda(n)>0$ and $j_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ with the following property: for all $j\geq j_0$ and for any minimizer $E_j$ of the functional $Q_j$ satisfying $|E_j| = |B|$, $Q(E_j) \leq Q(B)+1$, and such that $|{{\alpha}}(E_j) - {{\alpha}}(W_j)| \leq {{\alpha}}(W_j)/2$, we obtain that $E_j$ is a strong $\Lambda$-minimizer of the perimeter.
Let $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$ be fixed and let $F\subset{{\mathcal S}}^n$ be such that $F{\bigtriangleup}E_j\subset\subset B(x,1/2)$. We want to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
{{P}}(E_j)\leq{{P}}(F)+\Lambda\omega_{n-1}\frac{|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|}{\omega_n}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\Lambda=\Lambda(n)>0$. Without loss of generality let us assume that ${{P}}(F)\leq {{P}}(E_j)$ and that ${{\alpha}}(E_j) = \frac{|E_j{\bigtriangleup}B|}{|B|}$. We divide the proof in two cases.\
*Case 1.* ${{\alpha}}(E_j)^2 \leq |E_j {\bigtriangleup}F|$. In this case, by the assumption $Q(E_j) \leq Q(B)+1$, we get $$\label{L1}
\begin{split}
{{P}}(E_j) & \leq {{P}}(B) + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) {{\alpha}}(E_j)^2 \\
&\leq {{P}}(B)+ (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|
\end{split}$$ By the previous inequality, denoting by $B_F$ the ball equivalent to $F$ centered at the origin, using the isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ and the triangular inequality we have $$\label{L2}
\begin{split}
{{P}}(E_j)
&\leq {{P}}(F) + {{P}}(B)-{{P}}(B_F) + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|\\
&\leq {{P}}(F)+ n\omega_n^{\frac{1}{n}} (|E_j|^{\frac{n-1}{n}} -
|F|^{\frac{n-1}{n}}) + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|\\
&\leq {{P}}(F) + n\omega_n^{\frac{1}{n}} ((|F| + |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|)^{\frac{n-1}{n}} - |F|^{\frac{n-1}{n}}) + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|\\
&= {{P}}(F) + n\omega_n^{\frac{1}{n}} |F|^{\frac{n-1}{n}}((1 + \frac{|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|}{|F|})^{\frac{n-1}{n}} - 1) + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|.
\end{split}$$ Using Bernoulli’s inequality and the fact that, by construction, $|F| \geq \frac 34
\omega_n$, by we get $$\begin{split}
{{P}}(E_j) &\leq {{P}}(F) + (n-1)\omega_n^{\frac{1}{n}} |F|^{\frac{-1}{n}}
|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F| + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|\\
&\leq {{P}}(F) + (n-1) (4/3)^{\frac{1}{n}}
|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F| + (Q(B)+1){{P}}(B) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|\\
& = {{P}}(F) + \Lambda_1 \omega_{n-1}\frac{|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|}{\omega_n},
\end{split}$$ where we have set $\Lambda_1=\frac{\omega_n((n-1) (4/3)^{\frac{1}{n}}+(Q(B)+1){{P}}(B))}{\omega_{n-1}}$.
*Case 2.* $|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F| < {{\alpha}}(E_j)^2$. By the inequality $Q_j(E_j) \leq Q_j(F)$ we obtain $$\label{L2.1}
{{\delta P}}(E_j) \leq {{\delta P}}(F) + \left(\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{\alpha}}(F)^2} -1\right){{\delta P}}(F) + \eta,$$ where $$\eta := {{\alpha}}(E_j)^2 \frac{({{\alpha}}(F) - {{\alpha}}(E_j)) ({{\alpha}}(F) +
{{\alpha}}(E_j) - 2{{\alpha}}(W_j))}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)^2}.$$ By noting that the assumption $|{{\alpha}}(E_j) - {{\alpha}}(W_j)|\leq {{\alpha}}(W_j)/2$ implies ${{\alpha}}(E_j) \leq
3{{\alpha}}(W_j)/2$, and by exploiting Lemma \[lemma:stimasym\], we have that $$\label{stimaA}
\begin{split}
\eta &\leq \tfrac{9}{4} ({{\alpha}}(F) - {{\alpha}}(E_j)) ({{\alpha}}(F) +
{{\alpha}}(E_j) - 2{{\alpha}}(W_j))\\
&\leq C_1 |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|,
\end{split}$$ for some $C_1=C_1(n)>0$. By Lemma \[lemma:stimasym\] we have that $$\label{stimasymfrac1}
\left(\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{\alpha}}(F)^2} -1\right){{\delta P}}(F) \leq \frac{2^{n+4}}{(2^n-1)\omega_n} Q(F) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|.$$ Observe now that, combining the hypothesis $|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|<{{\alpha}}^2(E_j)$ with Lemma \[lemma:stimasym\] and recalling that ${{\alpha}}(E_j)\to 0$, we have that there exists $C>0$ and $j_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that, for all $j\geq j_0$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convergeauno}
\left|\frac{{{P}}(B)}{{{P}}(B_F)}-1\right|\leq C{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2,\quad
\left|\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)}{{{\alpha}}(F)}-1\right|\leq C{{\alpha}}(E_j).\end{aligned}$$ By the previous estimates, using that, by assumption on $F$, ${{P}}(F)\leq{{P}}(E_j)$ we also get that $$\begin{split}
Q(F) &\leq \frac{{{P}}(B) {{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{P}}(B_F){{\alpha}}(F)^2} Q(E_j) +
\left(\frac{{{P}}(B)}{{{P}}(B_F)}-1\right)\frac{1}{{{\alpha}}(F)^2}.
\end{split}$$ By the previous inequality, using , we have for $j$ large enough $$\begin{split}
Q(F)&\leq 2Q(E_j) + 2\leq 2(Q(B)+1) + 2,
\end{split}$$ Therefore, becomes $$\label{stimasymfrac2}
\left(\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{\alpha}}(F)^2} -1\right){{\delta P}}(F) \leq C_2|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|,$$ with $C_2=C_2(n)>0$. In conclusion, starting from we have proved that $${{\delta P}}(E_j) \leq {{\delta P}}(F) + (C_1+C_2) |E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|,$$ that is $$\begin{aligned}
{{P}}(E_j) &\leq & {{P}}(F)+\left(\frac{{{P}}(B)}{{{P}}(B_F)}-1\right){{P}}(F) + (C_1+C_2){{P}}(B)|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|\\
&\leq&{{P}}(F)+\Lambda_2{{P}}(B)|E_j{\bigtriangleup}F|,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Lambda_2=(C_1+C_2){{P}}(B)+1$.
The conclusion follows by setting $\Lambda =
\max(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2)$.
In the next lemma, we prove the $C^{1,\gamma}$ regularity of ${\partial}E_j$ for $j$ large enough, as well as the fact that ${\partial}E_j$ converges to ${\partial}B$ in the $C^1$-topology, as $j\to \infty$. Here, by convergence of ${\partial}E_j$ to ${\partial}B$ in the $C^1$-topology, we mean the following: there exist $r>0$ and an open covering of ${\partial}B$ by a finite family of cylinders $\{\nu_k + {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_k,r}\}_{k=1}^N$, with $\nu_k \in {\partial}B$ such that it holds
- ${\partial}E_j\subset\bigcup\limits_{k=1}^N(\nu_k + {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_k,r})$ for $j$ large;
- ${\partial}E_j\cap {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_k,r}={\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}({g_{j,k}})$ for some function $g_{j,k}\in C^1(B_{\nu_k,r})$, $k=1,\dots,N$, and for $j$ large;
- $g_{j,k}\to g_k$ in $C^1$ as $j\to\infty$, where $g_k\in C^1(B_{\nu_k,r})$ is such that ${\partial}B\cap {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_k,r}={\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}({g_{k}})$, for $k=1,\dots,N$.
\[lemma:regconv\] There exists $j_1\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that, for all $j\geq j_1$ and for any minimizer $E_j$ of $Q_j$, ${\partial}E_j$ is of class $C^{1,\eta}$ for any $\eta\in (0,1)$. Moreover, ${\partial}E_j$ converges to ${\partial}B$ in the $C^1$-topology, as $j\to \infty$.
First, we set $e_n = (0,\dots,0,1)\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and for a given $x\in
{{\mathbb R}}^n$ we write $x = (x',x_n) = ({x_{e_n}^\perp},{x_{e_n}})$ following the notation introduced in Section \[sect:prelim\]. For a given $r>0$ we set $$A_r = \{x'\in {{\mathbb R}}^{n-1}:\ |x'|<r\}.$$ We recall that, owing to Lemma \[lemma:Lambda-min\] and for $j\geq
j_0$, $E_j\in {{\mathcal{QM}}}(\frac 12,\frac 12,\Lambda)$. Then, recalling the above definition of $C^1$ convergence of smooth boundaries, it is enough to prove that there exists $j_1\geq j_0$ and a small $r_1>0$, such that one can find a sequence of functions $(g_j)_{j}$, with $g_j \in
C^{1,\frac 12}(A_{r_1})$ for all $j\geq j_1$, and satisfying the following two properties: $$\label{eq:graphgj}
({\partial}E_j - e_n) \cap {{\mathcal C}}_{e_n,r_1} = {\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(g_j)\quad
\forall\, j\geq j_1,$$ where ${{\mathcal C}}_{e_n,r_1} = A_{r_1} \times (-r_1,r_1)$; $$\label{eq:convgj}
\|g_j - g\|_{C^1(A_{r_1})} \to 0\quad \text{as }j\to \infty,$$ where we have set $g(x') = \sqrt{1-|x'|^2} -1$. Then, the proof of the lemma will be completed on taking into account Remark \[rmk:regularity\].\
To prove and above, we choose $0<r<1$ such that $\operatorname*{Exc}(B,e_n,4r) < \frac{{\varepsilon}_0}{2^{n-1}}$, where ${\varepsilon}_0$ is as in Proposition \[prop:psiexc\] (ii) relative to ${{\mathcal{QM}}}(\frac 12,\frac 12,\Lambda)$. Thanks to Propositions \[prop:psiexc\] (i) and \[prop:qmin\] (i)–(ii), we can find $j_1\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for all $j\geq j_1$
- ${\partial}E_j\cap B(e_n,r)\neq \emptyset$,
- $\operatorname*{Exc}(E_j,e_n,4r)<\frac{{\varepsilon}_0}{2^{n-1}}$,
- there exists $x_j\in {\partial}^* E_j\cap B(e_n,r)$ such that $x_j\to e_n$ and $\nu_j:= \nu_{E_j}(x_j)\to e_n$.
By the definition of the excess, by the inclusion $B(x_j,2r) \subset
B(e_n,4r)$, and by (b) above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{Exc}(E_j,x_j,2r) &=& \frac{(2r)^{1-n}}{2} \inf_{|\xi|=1} \int_{{\partial}^* E_j \cap B(x_j,2r)}
|\nu_{E_j}(z) - \xi|^2\, d{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(z)\\
&\leq & \frac{(2r)^{1-n}}{2} \int_{{\partial}^* E_j \cap B(x_j,2r)}
|\nu_{E_j}(z) - \xi_j|^2\, d{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(z)\\
&\leq & \frac{(2r)^{1-n}}{2} \int_{{\partial}^* E_j \cap B(e_n,4r)}
|\nu_{E_j}(z) - \xi_j|^2\, d{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}(z)\\
&=& 2^{n-1} \operatorname*{Exc}(E_j,e_n,4r)\\
&<& {\varepsilon}_0\end{aligned}$$ for $\xi_j =
\frac{D{\chi_{E_j}}(B(e_n,4r))}{|D{\chi_{E_j}}|(B(e_n,4r))}$ and for all $j\geq j_0$. Thanks to Lemma \[lemma:Lambda-min\] and Proposition \[prop:psiexc\] (ii), there exists a sequence of functions $f_j\in
C^{1,\frac 12}(B_{\nu_j,r})$, such that $f_j(0) = |\nabla f_j(0)| = 0$ and $({\partial}E_j -x_j) \cap {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_j,r} = {\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(f_j)$. At this point, one can check that, setting $r_1 = r/2$ and taking a larger $j_1$ if needed, the following facts hold:
- ${{\mathcal C}}_{e_n,r_1} \subset {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_j,r}$ for $j\geq j_1$,
- we can find $g_j\in C^{1,\frac 12}(A_{r_1})$ for $j\geq j_1$ such that ${\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(g_j) = (x_j-e_n + {\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(f_j)) \cap {{\mathcal C}}_{e_n,r_1}$,
- $\|g_j - g\|_{L^\infty(A_{r_1})} \to 0$, where $g(x') =
\sqrt{1-|x'|^2} -1$.
Indeed, (d) is a direct consequence of Proposition \[prop:qmin\] (ii). Then, (e) follows on recalling that $x_j \to e_n$ by (c) and that $\nabla f_j$ is $\frac 12$-Hölder continuous (uniformly in $j$), thanks to . Finally, (f) can be proved on using (c) and Proposition \[prop:qmin\] (i).
Owing to (e) above and to the properties of $f_j$, we obtain . Then, thanks to (d), (e) and (f) combined with , we get $$\label{gholder}
|\nabla g_j(v) - \nabla g_j(w)| \leq C |v-w|^{\frac 12}$$ for all $v,w\in A_{r_1}$ and for a constant $C>0$ independent of $j$. By a contradiction argument using (iii), , and Ascoli-Arzelà’s Theorem, we finally conclude that $$\|g_j - g\|_{C^1(A_{r_1})} \to 0$$ as $j\to\infty$, thus proving . This completes the proof of the lemma.
In the following lemma, we show that the (scalar) mean curvature $H_j$ of ${\partial}E_j$ is in $L^\infty({\partial}E_j)$. Then, we compute a first variation inequality of $Q_j$ at $E_j$ that translates into a quantitative estimate of the oscillation of the mean curvature.
\[lemma:firstvar\] Let $j\geq j_1$, with $j_1$ as in Lemma \[lemma:regconv\], and let $E_j$ be a minimizer of $Q_j$. Then
- ${\partial}E_j$ has scalar mean curvature $H_j \in
L^\infty(\partial E_j)$ (with orientation induced by the inner normal to $E_j$). Moreover, for ${{{\mathcal H}}}^{n-1}$-a.e. $x,y\in {\partial}E_j$, one has $$\label{firstvar}
|H_j(x) - H_j(y)| \leq \frac{2n}{n-1} \left( Q(E_j)
{{\alpha}}(E_j) + \frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)^2} |{{\alpha}}(E_j) -
{{\alpha}}(W_j)|\right);$$
- $\lim_j\|H_j-1\|_{L^\infty({\partial}E_j)}=0$.
To prove the theorem we consider a “parametric inflation-deflation”, that will lead to the first variation inequality and, in turn, to (ii).
Let us fix $x_1,\ x_2\in\partial E_j$ such that $x_1\not=x_2$. By Lemma \[lemma:regconv\], for $j\geq j_1$ there exist $r>0$, two unit vectors $\nu_1, \nu_2\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$, and two functions $f_1\in C^1(B_{\nu_1,r})$ and $f_2\in C^1(B_{\nu_2,r})$, such that $(x_1 + {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_1,r})\cap (x_2 + {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_2,r})=\emptyset$ and $$\begin{aligned}
({\partial}E_j - x_m) \cap {{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_m,r} = {\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(f_m),\quad m=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ For $m=1,2$ we take $\varphi_m\in C^1_c(B_{\nu_m,r})$ such that $\varphi_m\geq 0$ and $$\label{eq:fipsi}
\int_{B_{\nu_m,r}} \varphi_m = 1.$$ Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be such that, setting $f_{m,t}(w) = f_m(w) +
t\varphi_m(w)$ for $w\in B_{\nu_m,r}$, one has ${\mathop{\mathrm{gr}}}(f_{m,t}) \subset
{{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_m,r}$ for all $t\in (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$. We use the functions $f_{m,t}$, $m=1,2$, to modify the set $E_j$, i.e. we define $$E_{j,t} = \Big(E_j \setminus \bigcup_{m=1,2} (x_m +
{{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_m,r})\Big) \cup \big(x_1 + {\mathop{\mathrm{sgr}}}(f_{1,t})\big)\cup \big(x_2 + {\mathop{\mathrm{sgr}}}(f_{2,-t})\big),$$ where $${\mathop{\mathrm{sgr}}}(f_{m,s}) = \{(w,l)\in{{\mathcal C}}_{\nu_m,r}:\ l<f_{m,s}(w)\}.$$ By one immediately deduces that $|E_{j,t}| =
|E_j|$. Moreover, by a standard computation one obtains $$\label{teo:firstvar_perimeter}
\frac{1}{n-1}\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t})_{|_{t=0}} =
\int_{B_{\nu_1,r}}h_1 \varphi_1 -
\int_{B_{\nu_2,r}}h_2 \varphi_2,$$ where for $m=1,2$ $$h_m(v) := H_j(v,f_m(v)) = -\frac{1}{n-1}{\mathop{\mathrm{div}}}\left( \frac{\nabla
f_m(v)}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla f_m(v)|^2}}\right).$$ Then, by Theorem 4.7.4 in [@Ambrosio97], the $L^\infty$-norm of $H_j$ over ${\partial}E_j$ turns out to be bounded by the constant $4\Lambda/(n-1)$.
By the definition of $E_{j,t}$ one can verify that, for $t>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{teo:firstvar_asymmetry}
|{{\alpha}}(E_{j,t})-{{\alpha}}(E_j)|\leq \frac{t}{\omega_n}.\end{aligned}$$ By and , and for $t>0$, we also have that $$\begin{aligned}
Q(E_{j,t})&=&\frac{P(E_{j,t})-P(B)}{P(B){{\alpha}}(E_{j,t})^2} \leq
\frac{P(E_{j,t})-P(B)}{P(B)}\cdot\frac{1}{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2\left(
1-\frac{t}{{{\alpha}}(E_j)\omega_n }\right)^2}\\&\leq&
Q(E_j)\cdot\frac{1}{1-\frac{2t}{{{\alpha}}(E_j)\omega_n}} +
\frac{t}{P(B){{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t})_{|t=0} + o(t)\\
&\leq& Q(E_j)+\frac{t}{\omega_n{{\alpha}}(E_j)}\left(2Q(E_j) +
\frac{1}{n{{\alpha}}(E_j)}\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t})_{|t=0}\right) + o(t). \end{aligned}$$ On using again , we get $$\begin{aligned}
Q_j(E_{j,t})&\leq& Q_j(E_j)+\frac{t}{\omega_n{{\alpha}}(E_j)}\left(2Q(E_j)
+ \frac{1}{n{{\alpha}}(E_j)}\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t})_{|t=0}\right)\\
& &\quad +\frac{2t}{\omega_n{{\alpha}}(W_j)^2}|{{\alpha}}(E_j)-{{\alpha}}(W_j)| + o(t).\end{aligned}$$ Exploiting now the minimality hypothesis $Q_j(E_j)\leq Q_j(E_{j,t})$ in the previous inequality, dividing by $t>0$, multiplying by $n\omega_n{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2$, and finally taking the limit as $t$ tends to $0$, we obtain $$\label{ttendeazero}
0\leq 2nQ(E_j){{\alpha}}(E_j) +
\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t})_{|t=0} +
2n\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)^2}|{{\alpha}}(E_j)-{{\alpha}}(W_j)|.$$ Let now $w_m\in B_{\nu_m,r}$ be a Lebesgue point for $h_{f_m}$, $m=1,2$. On choosing a sequence $(\varphi_m^k)_k\subset C^1_c(B_{\nu_m,r})$ of non-negative mollifiers, such that $$\lim_k \int_{B_{\nu_m,r}} h_{f_m} \varphi_m^k = h_{f_m}(w_m)$$ for $m=1,2$, we obtain that for $E_{j,t}^k$ defined as before, but with $\varphi_m^k$ replacing $\varphi_m$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:firstvar_curvature}
\frac{1}{n-1}\lim_{k}\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t}^k)_{|_{t=0}} &=& \lim_k
\int_{B_{\nu_1,r}} h_{f_1}\varphi_1^k - \int_{B_{\nu_1,r}} h_{f_2}\varphi_2^k\\
\nonumber &=& h_{f_1}(w_1) - h_{f_2}(w_2).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, from with $E_{j,t}^k$ in place of $E_{j,t}$ and thanks to , we get $$h_{f_2}(w_2) - h_{f_1}(w_1) = -\frac{1}{n-1}\lim_k
\frac{d}{dt}P(E_{j,t}^k)_{|t=0} \leq
\frac{2n}{n-1}\left(Q(E_j){{\alpha}}(E_j) +
\frac{{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2}{{{\alpha}}(W_j)^2}|{{\alpha}}(E_j)-{{\alpha}}(W_j)|\right).$$ The proof of , and therefore of claim (i), is achieved by exchanging the roles of $x_1$ and $x_2$.
Finally, to prove $(ii)$ we recall that $\sup_j\|H_j\|_{L^\infty({\partial}E_j)}\leq
4\Lambda/(n-1)$. Moreover, by we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:firstvar_osc}
\lim_j\ {\mathop{\mathrm{ess~sup}}}_{x,y\in\partial E_j}|H_j(x)-H_j(y)|= 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to we conclude that, up to subsequences, there exists a constant $H$ such that $\|H_j-H\|_{L^{\infty}({\partial}E_j)}\to 0$ as $j\to
\infty$. By Lemma \[lemma:regconv\], ${\partial}E_j$ converges to ${\partial}B$ in $C^1$ and thus we can consider $U = B_{e_n,\frac 12} \subset
{{\mathbb R}}^{n-1}$ such that, for $j$ large enough, the portion of the boundary of $E_j$ inside the open set $U\times (0,+\infty)e_n
\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is the graph of a function $f_j\in C^{1}(U)$ converging to the function $f(w) = \sqrt{1 - |w|^2}$ in the $C^1$-norm, as $j\to \infty$. As a consequence, adopting the Cartesian notation for the mean curvature as in (i), $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_j\int_{U}h_{f_j}\varphi &=& \lim_j\int_{U}\frac{\langle\nabla
f_j,\nabla\varphi\rangle}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla f_j|^2}}\\
&= & \int_{U}\frac{\langle\nabla
f,\nabla\varphi\rangle}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla f|^2}}\\
&=& \int_{U}h_{f}\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ for any $\varphi\in C^1_c(U)$. This proves that $H$ coincides with the mean curvature of the ball $B$, i.e. $H=h_f =
1$. It is then easy to conclude that the whole sequence $H_j$ must converge to $H=1$, and this completes the proof of (ii).
Statements (i) and (ii) of the thesis follow by Lemma \[lemma:exist-approx\]. The proof of (iii) is an elementary consequence of Lemma \[lemma:regconv\], while (iv) follows by Lemma \[lemma:firstvar\].
Two applications of the Selection Principle {#sect:app}
===========================================
In this section we describe two applications of Theorem \[teo:SP\]. The first one is a new proof of the sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. The second one is a positive answer to a conjecture by Hall [@Hall92], concerning the optimal asymptotic constant for in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, when the asymmetry vanishes.
The Sharp Quantitative Isoperimetric Inequality
-----------------------------------------------
We start by recalling the definition of *nearly spherical set* introduced by Fuglede in [@Fuglede89] (see also [@Fuglede86]). A Borel set $E$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ is nearly spherical if $|E| = |B|$, the barycenter of $E$ is $0$, and ${\partial}E$ is the normal graph of a Lipschitz function $u:{\partial}B \to (-1,+\infty)$ (i.e., ${\partial}E = \{(1+ u(x))x:\ x\in {\partial}B\}$) with $\|u\|_{L^\infty({\partial}B)} \leq \frac{1}{20n}$ and $\|\nabla
u\|_{L^\infty({\partial}B)}\leq \frac 12$. In [@Fuglede89] (see also [@Fuglede86] for a proof in dimension $2$ and $3$) Fuglede proved the following crucial estimate, whence the sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality easily follows:
\[teo:fuglede\] Let $E\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n$ be a nearly spherical set with ${\partial}E = \{(1+ u(x))x:\ x\in {\partial}B\}$ and $u\in
W^{1,\infty}({\partial}B)$ as above, then there exists $C=C(n)>0$ such that $${{\delta P}}(E)\geq C\|u\|^2_{W^{1,2}({\partial}B)}.$$
By appealing to the Selection Principle and to the estimate above, we could directly provide the complete proof of the sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality (see the proof of Theorem \[teo:QII\]). Instead, for the sake of completeness, in Lemma \[lemma:fuglede-weak\] we provide a slightly weaker, but still sufficient for our aims, version of Theorem \[teo:fuglede\]. Note that its proof is obtained by basically repeating the argument exploited by Fuglede in the proof of Theorem \[teo:fuglede\].
Let us first recall the following facts. Let $E\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n$ be such that ${\partial}E=\{(1+u(x)x),\ x\in{\partial}B)\}$ for some $u:{\partial}B\to(-1,+\infty)$ of class $C^1$, then the perimeter ${{P}}(E)$, the Lebesgue measure $|E|$ and the barycenter ${{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E)$ of $E$ can be computed by exploiting the following formulas: $$\label{eq:per}
\frac{{{P}}(E)}{{{P}}(B)} = \int_{{\partial}B} (1+u)^{n-1} \sqrt{1 +
(1+u)^{-2} |\nabla u|^2}\, d\sigma,$$ $$\label{eq:vol}
\frac{|E|}{|B|} = \int_{{\partial}B} (1+u)^n\, d\sigma,$$ and $$\label{eq:bar}
{{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E) = \int_{{\partial}B} (1+u(x))^{n+1}\,x\,\, d\sigma(x),$$ where we have set $\sigma =\frac{1}{{{P}}(B)}{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}$.
\[lemma:fuglede-weak\] Let $E\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $u:{\partial}B\to(-1,+\infty)$ of class $C^1$ be such that ${\partial}E=\{(1+u(x))x,\ x\in{\partial}B)\}$, $|E|=|B|$ and ${{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E)=0$. Then for all $\eta>0$ there exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that, if $\|u\|_{L^\infty({\partial}B)} + \|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty({\partial}B)} <{\varepsilon}$, it holds that $$\label{eq:stimaFuglede}
{{\delta P}}(E) \geq \frac{(1-\eta)}2 \|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} + \frac 14 \|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}.$$
By applying Taylor’s formula in , and thanks to the bound on the sum of the $L^\infty$-norms of $u$ and $\nabla u$, we have that $$\label{eq:taylor1}
\begin{split}
\frac{{{P}}(E)}{{{P}}(B)}= \int_{{\partial}B}\left(1 + \frac{|\nabla
u|^2}{2} \right.& \left.+ (n-1)u + \frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2} u^2\right) \ d\sigma \\
& + O({\varepsilon})(\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}+\|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}).
\end{split}$$ By the hypothesis $|E| = |B|$, which is equivalent to $\int_{{\partial}B} ((1+u)^n - 1)\ d\sigma = 0$, it turns out, again by Taylor’s formula, that $$\label{eq:taylor2}
\int_{{\partial}B} u \ d\sigma=
-\left(\frac{n-1}{2} + O({\varepsilon})\right) \|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}.$$ Combining and we get $$\label{eq:stima1}
\begin{split}
{{\delta P}}(E)
&= \int_{{\partial}B} \left(\frac{|\nabla
u|^2}{2} + (n-1)u + \frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2} u^2\right)\ d\sigma + O({\varepsilon})(\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}+\|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)})\\
&= \frac 12 \int_{{\partial}B} (|\nabla u|^2 - (n-1)u^2)\ d\sigma + O({\varepsilon})(\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}+\|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}).
\end{split}$$ Thanks to the previous estimate, in order to prove the thesis it is only left to prove that, for all $\eta>0$ $$\label{eq:stima2}
\|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} - (n-1)\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} \geq (1-\eta)\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} + \frac 12 \|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}$$ for ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough. To this end, it will be sufficient to consider the Fourier series of $u$ over the orthonormal basis of spherical harmonics $\{Y_k:\ k=0,1,\dots\}$, namely $$u = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k Y_k,$$ and estimate the first two coefficients $a_0$ and $a_1$. We start by recalling that $$\label{eq:Y0Y1}
Y_0 = 1,\qquad Y_1(x) = x\cdot \nu$$ for a suitably chosen $\nu\in {{\mathbb R}}^n$. Thus the first two coefficients $a_0, a_1$ of the Fourier expansion of $u$ are given by $$a_0 = \int_{{\partial}B} u Y_0\, d\sigma= \int_{{\partial}B} u\, d\sigma \quad\text{and}\quad a_1 = \int_{{\partial}B} u Y_1\, d\sigma = \int_{{\partial}B} u(x) x\cdot \nu\, d\sigma.$$ We first estimate $a_0$. Taking into account that $\|u\|_{L^\infty({\partial}B)}<{\varepsilon}$, we have that $$\label{eq:est0}
a_0^2 = O({\varepsilon}^2) \|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}.$$ We now estimate $a_1$. Observing that, by and by the hypothesis ${{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E)=0$ $$\int_{{\partial}B} Y_1\, d\sigma = 0,$$ and that $$\int_{{\partial}B} (1+u)^{n+1} Y_1\, d\sigma = {{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E) \cdot \nu = 0$$ we first obtain that $$\label{eq:stimaY1}
\int_{{\partial}B} ((1+u)^{n+1} - 1)Y_1\, d\sigma = \int_{{\partial}B} \left((n+1)u + \sum_{k=2}^{n+1}
\binom{n+1}{k} u^k\right)Y_1\, d\sigma = 0.$$ Then, from we derive $$a_1 = \int_{{\partial}B} uY_1\, d\sigma = -\sum_{k=2}^{n+1}\binom{n}{k} \int_{{\partial}B} u^k\, d\sigma = O(\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)})$$ and $$\label{eq:est1}
a_1^2 = O({\varepsilon}^2) \|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}.$$ Since $$\label{eq:u2g2}
\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k^2\quad \text{and}\quad \|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} =
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \lambda_k a_k^2,$$ where $$\label{eq:lambdak}
\lambda_k = k(k+n-2)$$ denotes the $k$-th eigenvalue of the Laplace-Beltrami operator on ${\partial}B$ (relative to the $k$-th eigenfunction $Y_k$), on gathering together and we obtain $$\label{eq:est2}
\|u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)} \leq (1+O({\varepsilon}^2))\sum_{k=2}^\infty a_k^2,\qquad \|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)}
\leq (1+O({\varepsilon}^2))\sum_{k=2}^\infty \lambda_k a_k^2.$$ As a consequence of and , the left-hand side of can be estimated as follows: $$\label{eq:stima3}
\begin{split}
\int_{{\partial}B} (|\nabla u|^2 - (n-1)u^2)\, d\sigma &= \sum_{k=2}^\infty (\lambda_k - n+1)
a_k^2 + O({\varepsilon}^2) \|u\|^2_{L^2(_{{\partial}B})}\\
&= \frac 12 \|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2(_{{\partial}B})} + \sum_{k=2}^\infty (\lambda_k/2 - n+1)
a_k^2 + O({\varepsilon}^2) \|u\|^2_{L^2(_{{\partial}B})}\\
&\geq \frac 12 \|\nabla u\|^2_{L^2(_{{\partial}B})} + (1-O({\varepsilon}^2))\|u\|^2_{L^2(_{{\partial}B})},
\end{split}$$ which in turns imply the desired estimate , and hence the thesis of the lemma.
We are now ready to prove the main result of the section:
\[teo:QII\] There exists a positive constant $C$ such that, for any $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ it holds $$\label{QII_3}
{{\delta P}}(E)\geq C{{\alpha}}(E)^2.$$
We claim that $$\label{eq:QBpositive}
Q(B)>0.$$ Suppose the claim proved. Then, by definition of $Q(B)$, there exists $\alpha_0>0$ such that, for all $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ with ${{\alpha}}(E)<\alpha_0$ it holds that $$\label{teo:stima1}
Q(E)\geq \frac{Q(B)}{2}.$$ If otherwise $E$ is such that $\alpha_0\leq{{\alpha}}(E)<2$, then by Lemma \[lemma:smallness\] there exists $\delta_0>0$ such that ${{\delta P}}(E)\geq\delta_0$, which implies $$\label{teo:stima2}
Q(E)=\frac{{{\delta P}}(E)}{{{\alpha}}(E)^2}\geq \frac{\delta_0}{4}.$$ On combining and , we obtain by choosing $C=\min\{\frac{Q(B)}{2},\frac{\delta_0}{4}\}$.
We are thus left with the proof of . To compute $Q(B)$, we will exploit the sequence $(E_j)_j\subset{{\mathcal S}}^n$ provided by the Selection Principle (Theorem \[teo:SP\]). Since ${{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E_j)\to
0$ as $j\to\infty$, without loss of generality (that is, up to replacing $E_j$ by the sequence $E_j-{{\mathop{\mathrm{bar}}}}(E_j)$) we may suppose that $E_j$ fulfills the hypotheses of Lemma \[lemma:fuglede-weak\]. This in particular implies the existence of $j_0>0$ such that, for all $j\geq j_0$ $$\label{eq:stimaFuglede-1}
{{\delta P}}(E_j) \geq \frac{1}4 \|u_j\|^2_{L^{2}({\partial}B)}\ .$$ By applying Bernoulli and Hölder inequalities, we find two positive dimensional constants $c_0$ and $c_1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{{\alpha}}(E_j)^2\leq 4|E_j\setminus B|^2&\leq& c_0\left(\int_{{\partial}B\cap(E\setminus B)}(1+u_j)^n-1\, d{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}\right)^2\\
&\leq& c_0\ n^2\left(\int_{{\partial}B}|u_j|\, d{{\mathcal H}}^{n-1}\right)^2\leq c_1\|u_j\|^2_{L^2({\partial}B)},\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the estimate implies that, for all $j\geq j_0$, $$Q(E_j)\geq C>0$$ with $C=\frac{1}{4c_1}>0$. The claim then follows, on passing to the limit in the left hand side of the previous inequality and on recalling that $Q(E_j)\to Q(B)$ as $j\to\infty$.
It is worth noticing that, by the definition of $Q(B)$, for any $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^n$ the following estimate holds true: $${{\delta P}}(E)\geq Q(B){{\alpha}}(E)^2+o({{\alpha}}(E)^2).$$ In other words, $Q(B)$ is the best (asymptotic) constant in the sharp isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, as the asymmetry converges to zero. Thanks to the Selection Principle, the computation of $Q(B)$ becomes an affordable task, as the class of sets which actually play a role in this computation is quite restricted. In the next subsection it will be shown that in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ it holds $Q(B)=\frac{\pi}{8(4-\pi)}$.
The best constant for the quantitative isoperimetric inequality in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ in the small asymmetry regime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, and more precisely in Theorem \[teo:Hconj\], we positively answer to a conjecture posed by Hall in [@Hall92] asserting that, for any measurable set in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ with positive and finite Lebesgue measure, the following estimate holds true: $$\label{eq:HHWconj-2}
{{\delta P}}(E) \geq C_0 {{\alpha}}(E)^2 + o({{\alpha}}(E))^2,$$ with $C_0=\frac{\pi}{8(4-\pi)}$ optimal.\
We start by recalling a result conjectured in [@HalHayWei91] Section V, and proved in [@HalHay93] Theorem 1:
\[teo:HHW91\] Let $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^2$ be a convex set, then holds true.
As an immediate consequence of the Selection Principle and of the above theorem, we now prove .
\[teo:Hconj\] Let $E\in{{\mathcal S}}^2$. Then holds true.
By (iv) in Theorem \[teo:SP\], there exists a sequence of sets $(E_j)_j\subset{{\mathcal S}}^2$ such that $$\label{eq:ivSP}
Q(E_j)\to Q(B)\quad\text{and}\quad \|H_j-1\|_{L^{\infty}({\partial}E_j)}\to 0,$$ where $H_j$ stands for the curvature of ${\partial}E_j$. This in particular implies the existence of $j_0>0$, such that $E_j$ is a convex set for all $j\geq j_0$ . By Theorem \[teo:HHW91\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q(E_j)\geq C_0+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ Passing to the limit as $j$ tends to $\infty$, and thanks to , we eventually get $Q(B)\geq C_0$ which in turn implies by the definition of $Q(B)$.
[10]{}
, [*Existence and regularity almost everywhere of solutions to elliptic variational problems with constraints*]{}, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 4 (1976), pp. viii+199.
, [*A sharp isoperimetric inequality in the plane*]{}, to appear on JEMS, (2010).
, [*Corso introduttivo alla teoria geometrica della misura ed alle superfici minime*]{}, Appunti dei Corsi Tenuti da Docenti della Scuola. \[Notes of Courses Given by Teachers at the School\], Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 1997.
, [*Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems*]{}, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
, [*Über die isoperimetrische [E]{}igenschaft des [K]{}reises auf der [K]{}ugeloberfl[ä]{}che und in der [E]{}bene*]{}, Math. Ann., 60 (1905), pp. 117–136.
, [*Über eine [V]{}ersch[ä]{}rfung der isoperimetrischen [U]{}ngleichheit des [K]{}reises in der [E]{}bene und auf der [K]{}ugeloberfl[ä]{}che nebst einer [A]{}nwendung auf eine [M]{}inkowskische [U]{}ngleichheit f[ü]{}r konvexe [K]{}[ö]{}rper*]{}, Math. Ann., 84 (1921), pp. 216–227.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Über das isoperimetrische [D]{}efizit ebener [F]{}iguren*]{}, Math. Ann., 91 (1924), pp. 252–268.
, [*On the isoperimetric deficit in the gauss space*]{}, Amer. J. Math., (to appear).
, [*Best asymptotic constants for the quantitative isoperimetric inequality in the plane*]{}, to appear, (2010).
, [*Frontiere orientate di misura minima*]{}, Seminario di Matematica della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 1960-61, Editrice Tecnico Scientifica, Pisa, 1961.
, [*Bemerkung zu einer [V]{}ersch[ä]{}rfung der isoperimetrischen [U]{}ngleichung durch [H]{}. [H]{}adwiger*]{}, Math. Nachr., 1 (1948), pp. 284–286.
, [*Measure theory and fine properties of functions*]{}, Studies in Advanced Mathematics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1992.
, [*A note on [C]{}heeger sets*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 137 (2009), pp. 2057–2062.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*A refined [B]{}runn-[M]{}inkowski inequality for convex sets*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar[é]{} Anal. Non Lin[é]{}aire, 26 (2009), pp. 2511–2519.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*A mass transportation approach to quantitative isoperimetric inequalities*]{}, Invent. Math., (2010).
, [*Stability in the isoperimetric problem*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc., 18 (1986), pp. 599–605.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Stability in the isoperimetric problem for convex or nearly spherical domains in [${\bf
R}^n$]{}*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 314 (1989), pp. 619–638.
, [*The sharp quantitative [S]{}obolev inequality for functions of bounded variation*]{}, J. Funct. Anal., 244 (2007), pp. 315–341.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*The sharp quantitative isoperimetric inequality*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2), 168 (2008), pp. 941–980.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Stability estimates for certain [F]{}aber-[K]{}rahn, isocapacitary and [C]{}heeger inequalities*]{}, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), 8 (2009), pp. 51–71.
, [*Minimal surfaces and functions of bounded variation*]{}, vol. 80 of Monographs in Mathematics, Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 1984.
, [*Die isoperimetrische [U]{}ngleichung im [R]{}aum*]{}, Elemente der Math., 3 (1948), pp. 25–38.
, [*A quantitative isoperimetric inequality in [$n$]{}-dimensional space*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., 428 (1992), pp. 161–176.
, [*A problem in the theory of subordination*]{}, J. Anal. Math., 60 (1993), pp. 99–111.
, [*On asymmetry and capacity*]{}, J. Anal. Math., 56 (1991), pp. 87–123.
, [*Some methods for studying stability in isoperimetric type problems*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 45 (2008), pp. 367–408.
, [*Esistenza e regolarit[à]{} delle ipersuperfici di curvatura media assegnata in [$R^{n}$]{}*]{}, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 55 (1974), pp. 357–382.
, [*Asymptotic theory of finite-dimensional normed spaces*]{}, vol. 1200 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. With an appendix by M. Gromov.
, [*Clusters minimizing area plus length of singular curves*]{}, Math. Ann., 299 (1994), pp. 697–714.
, [*Bonnesen-style isoperimetric inequalities*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly, 86 (1979), pp. 1–29.
, [*Boundaries of [C]{}accioppoli sets with [H]{}[ö]{}lder-continuous normal vector*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., 334 (1982), pp. 27–39.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Regularity results for almost minimal oriented hypersurfaces in ${R}^n$*]{}, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Matematica dell’ Università di Lecce, 1 (1984), pp. 1–92.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We examine Lyman continuum (LyC) leakage through ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions regulated by turbulence and radiative feedback in a giant molecular cloud in the context of fully-coupled radiation hydrodynamics (RHD). The physical relations of the LyC escape with ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction, kinematics, spectral hardness, and the emergent Lyman-$\alpha$ (Ly$\alpha$) line profiles are studied using a series of RHD turbulence simulations performed with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span>. The turbulence-regulated mechanism allows ionizing photons to leak out at early times before the onset of supernova feedback. The LyC photons escape through turbulence-generated low column density channels which are evacuated efficiently by radiative feedback via photoheating-induced shocks across the D-type ionization fronts. Ly$\alpha$ photons funnel through the photoionized channels along the paths of LyC escape, resulting in a diverse Ly$\alpha$ spectral morphology including narrow double-peaked profiles. The Ly$\alpha$ peak separation is controlled by the residual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the channels and the line asymmetry correlates with the porosity and multiphase structure of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. This mechanism through the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions can naturally reproduce the observed Ly$\alpha$ spectral characteristics of some of LyC-leaking galaxies. This RHD turbulence-origin provides an appealing hypothesis to explain high LyC leakage from very young (${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}$3Myr) star-forming galaxies found in the local Universe without need of extreme galactic outflows nor supernova feedback. We discuss the implications of the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions on other nebular emission lines and a possible observational test with the Magellanic System and local blue compact dwarf galaxies as analogs of reionization-era systems.'
author:
- Koki Kakiichi
- Max Gronke
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Lyman Radiation Hydrodynamics of Turbulent [H[**II**]{}]{} Regions in Molecular Clouds:\
A Physical Origin of LyC Leakage and the Associated Ly$\boldsymbol\alpha$ Spectra
---
Introduction
============
Understanding the physical origin of how ionizing radiation escape through the interstellar medium (ISM) of star-forming galaxies is critical to understanding the sources of reionization. For galaxies to drive ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ reionization, the escape fraction of Lyman continuum (LyC) photons, $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}$, must be as large as ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10-20\%$ at $6\lesssim z\lesssim12$ [e.g. @Robertson2015] to be consistent with the UV luminosity function [@Bouwens15; @Oesch18] and the measure of the Thomson optical depth to the cosmic microwave background [@Planck2018]. At the tail end of reionization, galaxies are thought to drive the large-scale UV background fluctuation in the intergalactic medium [@Becker18], and the indirect measure suggests a probable increase of the average escape fraction to $\gtrsim8~\%$ at $z\gtrsim5-6$ [@Kakiichi18; @Meyer19]. However, little is known about the physical origin of ionizing escape or the cause of the required rise in the ionizing power of galaxies towards the reionization epoch.
Recent deep [*Hubble Space Telescope (HST)*]{} imaging campaigns [@Siana15; @Fletcher18; @Oesch18] and ground-based deep spectroscopic searches [@Marchi17; @Steidel18] have revealed a signature of the LyC leakages along the lines-of-sight of Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) and Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs), providing a valuable sample with which the origin of LyC escape can be directly studied. These $z{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}2-3$ LyC leaking LAEs are young and associated with intense $[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]$ emission, which suggests spectrally hard stellar population with low metallicity resembling star-forming systems at $6<z<12$ [@Nakajima16]. Further detail is provided by the Cosmic Origin Spectrograph on board [*HST*]{}, which has revealed LyC detection from low redshift dwarf galaxies with high $[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]/[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle II}}}]$ line ratios [@Izotov2016; @Izotov2018b]. Complementary Ly$\alpha$ and UV-to-optical spectroscopy and spatially-resolved images of low-redshift LAE analogs [@Ostlin14; @Hayes14; @Jaskot14; @Henry15] make it possible to examine the inner working of the LyC-leaking systems.
For triggering the leakage of ionizing radiation, a commonly held view is that stellar feedback such as supernova explosions drive galactic outflows, creating low column density channels in the ISM through which LyC photons escape . Observationally, however, while outflows are ubiquitous in LyC-leaking galaxies and some with an extreme value [@Heckman11; @Borthakur14], their outflow kinematics may not be statistically different from non LyC-leaking systems [@Chisholm17; @Jaskot17]. Also, the presence of prominent stellar winds P-Cygni ${{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle VI}}}$ $\lambda1035$ and ${{\rm N\,{\scriptstyle V}}}$ $\lambda1240$ profiles from massive stars suggests very young ages (${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}2-3$ Myr) for local LyC-leaking galaxies [@Izotov2018b], indicating that there is little time for supernova explosions to expel gas from the birth cloud. The ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ absorption spectra in the gamma-ray burst afterglow, which traces the direct environment of star forming regions and the ISM at the death of a massive star [@Prochaska06; @Vreeswijk13], reveals ubiquitous optically thick gas and a high ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction, indicating the low LyC escape fraction of $<1.5~\%$ [@Chen07; @Fynbo09; @Tanvir19]. These seem to challenge the picture that supernova and galactic outflows solely trigger the LyC leakage. Clearly, the physics is far from simple and the observational diversity requires that any successful theory of escape fraction should be able to explain not only why the escape fraction can be high, but also the diversity of LyC escape fractions.
To this end, we wish to examine other mechanisms of LyC leakage invoking turbulence and ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region feedback that can operate at an early time of the star-forming clouds before supernova explosions occur. The formation and evolution of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region in a turbulent molecular cloud is a natural consequence of the gravoturbulent fragmentation paradigm of star formation [e.g. @Krumholz05; @Federrath12], which has been subject to many theoretical studies [@Mellema06; @Arthur11; @Krumholz2006; @Krumholz2012; @Dale2012; @Kim2016; @Kim2018]. Recent high-resolution, cosmological galaxy formation simulations suggest that the small 10-100 pc scale environment around star-forming regions is likely the key process in regulating the leakage of ionizing radiation . The galaxies experience substantial LyC leakage when the optically thick gas is evacuated from the parsec-scale environment of massive stars during the period when the stars still can provide abundant ionizing photons [@Ma15; @Ma16]. The spatial scale required for understanding LyC leakage is indeed approaching that of giant molecular clouds (GMCs).
For any given scenario of LyC leakage, it is critical to understand the connection between the LyC escape fraction and other spectroscopic features including Ly$\alpha$ and $[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]/[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle II}}}]$ line ratio. This is important as a test of a theory. Also, because the direct LyC leakage from $6<z<12$ galaxies at the heart of reionization era cannot be observed even with [*James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)*]{}, any inference on their ionizing capabilities must rely on an interpretation of other observable rest-UV or optical signatures such as nebular emission [@Inoue11; @Zackrisson13; @Zackrisson17; @Tamura18] and UV absorption lines [@Jones13; @Leethochawalit16; @Gazagnes18; @Chisholm18].
Ly$\alpha$ is particularly important because its unique brightness and omnipresence throughout cosmic time allows us to observe it in a large sample of galaxies [e.g. @Ouchi18; @Wisotzki18]. In addition, Ly$\alpha$ is a resonant line of neutral hydrogen with a cross section at the line center approximately three orders of magnitudes larger than that of LyC photons connecting Ly$\alpha$ escape processes to LyC ones. Furthermore, since each interaction between a ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ atom and a Ly$\alpha$ photon shifts the photon’s frequency, the emergent Ly$\alpha$ spectral shape is indicative of the system’s neutral hydrogen distribution and kinematics. All these factors make Ly$\alpha$ observables important diagnostics to be correlated with LyC escape. This natural ‘Ly$\alpha$-LyC’ connection led to theoretical studies [e.g. @Verhamme15; @Dijkstra16], and recently the correlation between the Ly$\alpha$ and LyC escape fraction as well as other Ly$\alpha$ line properties, e.g. peak separation, has been observationally studied [@Verhamme17; @Izotov2018b; @Marchi18; @Steidel18].
However, thus far, these Ly$\alpha$-LyC studies have relied on either simplified models of gas and kinematics, e.g. a shell or clumpy medium [@Verhamme15; @Dijkstra16], or post-processing of cosmological galaxy formation simulations [@Yajima14]. Although there is a substantial progress both in cosmological [e.g. @Gnedin16; @Pawlik15; @Pawlik17; @Rosdahl18] and zoom-in simulations for understanding the origin of Ly$\alpha$ [@Smith19] as well as nebular and infared lines [@Katz19], resolving the sub-parsec structures in ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions, GMCs, and cold gas phase in general including the circum-galactic medium (CGM) [e.g. @vandeVoort19; @Hummels2018] still remains difficult. A study of the connection between LyC escape and Ly$\alpha$ transfer using the detailed radiation hydrodynamic (RHD) simulations of individual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions and GMCs (@Geen15 [@Geen16; @Howard17; @Howard18]; @Kim2018) has not yet been carried out (except for @Kimm19 upon completion of this work). In this paper, we examine the LyC leakage mechanism and the emergent Ly$\alpha$ line profiles using a series of RHD turbulence simulations representing a patch of a ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region in a GMC. Using the controlled local simulations, we analyze the process responsible for Ly$\alpha$-LyC connection and the relation to turbulence kinematics, radiative feedback, and spectral hardness of ionizing sources. Our goal is to understand the origin of the Ly$\alpha$-LyC connection found in the observed LyC-leaking sample as well as to provide a benchmark for future global simulations of molecular clouds and galaxies.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:theory\] introduces the various regimes of LyC leakage. The numerical simulations and set up are described in Section \[sec:simulation\]. We presents the results on the LyC leakage mechanism through the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions in Section \[sec:result\], followed by the connection with the emergent Ly$\alpha$ line profiles in Section \[sec:Lya-LyC\]. We discuss the the limitation of our simulations and possible observational tests in Section \[sec:discussion\]. The conclusion is summarized in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
![The filled contours show the time required for the I-front to break out of a GMC, $t_{\rm break}$, at a given mass and radius assuming a spherical uniform cloud. The circles and squares denote the observed mass, radius, and velocity dispersion of GMCs in Large Magellanic Cloud [@Wong11] and blue compact dwarf galaxies are overlaid to guide a relevant parameter space. The dashed lines indicate the total gas column density of the shell between the initial Strömgren radius $R_S$ and cloud radius $R_{\rm cl}$ and the dotted lines indicates the ionization parameter at the Strömgren radius. The figure illustrates that I-fronts in the majority of GMCs are likely the D-type.[]{data-label="fig:GMC"}](molecular_cloud_parameter.png){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
LyC Leakage Mechanism {#sec:theory}
=====================
In the simple commonly-held picture [@Zackrisson13; @Reddy16; @Steidel18], LyC leakage is leveraged by ([*i*]{}) ionization-bound with holes or ([*ii*]{}) density-bound nebulae. The escape fractions in the two regimes are as follows.
: In this scenario, the LyC photons escape through holes of low column density channels through the ISM, but in the other directions the ionization front (I-front) is bound within the nebula (i.e ionization-bound). Thus, the escape fraction is determined by the availability of the holes through the ISM, $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}(\mbox{ionization-bound}){\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}1- f_{\rm cov},$$ where $f_{\rm cov}$ is the fraction of lines-of-sight around ionizing sources (e.g. massive stars) covered by the optically thick gas. Such holes can be created by turbulence or stellar feedback including photoionization, radiation pressure, stellar winds, and supernova.
: In this scenario, the intense radiation from massive stars ionizes all the gas in the ISM, thus the I-front is no longer bound inside the system (i.e density-bound). This allows LyC photons to brute-forcefully escape out of the system by ionizing all the gas along the way. Thus, the escape fraction is given by a fraction of photons that have not be absorbed in the ISM , $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}(\mbox{density-bound}){\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}1- \frac{\dot{N}_{\rm rec}}{\dot{N}_{\rm ion}},\label{eq:2}$$ where $\dot{N}_{\rm rec}$ is the recombination rate and $\dot{N}_{\rm ion}$ is the LyC photon production rate of the star-forming regions.
In reality, an individual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region will consist of both ionization-bound and density-bound directions and a galaxy consists of an ensemble of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions. This highlights the two important factors in controlling LyC escape: ([*i*]{}) the modes of creating a low column density channels, e.g. by turbulence, radiative and/or stellar feedback, through which I-fronts can break out of a natal star-forming cloud and ([*ii*]{}) the large LyC production rate of star-forming regions to compensate the recombination rate in the density-bound photoionized channels.
Nature of I-fronts:\
${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ Regions in Turbulent Molecular Clouds
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the gravoturbulent fragmentation paradigm [e.g. @Krumholz05; @Federrath12] stars form in dense clumps generated by the supersonic turbulence in a GMC, providing a low star formation efficiency $\epsilon_\star$ (a few to several per cent, e.g. ) – defined as a fraction of cloud’s gas mass that is converted into stars – and kinetic support against gravitational collapse. In Figure \[fig:GMC\] we show the observed mass, size, and turbulent velocity dispersion of giant molecular clouds in the Large Magellanic Cloud [@Wong11] and blue compact dwarf galaxies (II Zw 40, @Kepley16; NGC 5253, @Miura18; Henize 2-10, ) which share similarity properties to those observed at high redshift [@Izotov11; @Crowther17]. Although the properties of molecular clouds in LyC-leaking systems and high-redshift galaxies are unknown, GMCs in the environments of nearby dwarfs serve as a guideline for the relevant parameter space.
To identify the LyC leakage mechanism, let us consider a spherical homogeneous cloud of gas mass $M_{\rm cl}$ and radius $R_{\rm cl}$ with a central source of stellar mass $M_\star=\epsilon_\star M_{\rm cl}$ with an ionizing photon production rate (in units of $\rm photons~s^{-1}$), $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{N}_{\rm ion}&=\xi_{\rm ion}\epsilon_\star M_{\rm cl} \nonumber \\
&\simeq1.9\times10^{50}\left(\frac{\epsilon_\star}{0.05}\right)\left(\frac{M_{\rm cl}}{10^5\rm M_\odot}\right)\rm~s^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ A single stellar population of $1\rm~Myr$ after starburst with stellar metallicity $Z_\star=0.002$ from binary stellar population code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">bpass</span> (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">bpassv2.1\_imf135\_100</span>, @Eldridge17) yields the ionizing photon production rate per stellar mass of $\xi_{\rm ion}=3.8\times10^{46}\rm~ph~s^{-1}~M_\odot^{-1}$. The corresponding Strömgren radius is $$\begin{aligned}
R_S&=\left(\frac{3\dot{N}_{\rm ion}}{4\pi a_{\rm B}\bar{n}_0^2}\right)^{1/3} \nonumber \\ &\simeq7.4\left(\frac{\epsilon_\star}{0.05}\frac{M_{\rm cl}}{10^5\rm M_\odot}\right)^{1/3}\mspace{-5mu}\left(\frac{R_{\rm cl}}{20\rm pc}\right)^{2}\rm~pc,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{\rm B}\approx2.6\times10^{-13}T_4^{-0.7}\rm cm^3~s^{-1}$ ($T_4=T/10^4\rm~K$) is the case B recombination rate and $\bar{n}_0\simeq120.8\times\left(M_{\rm cl}/10^5\rm~M_\odot \right)\left( R_{\rm cl}/20\rm~pc \right)^{-3}\rm cm^{-3}$ is the mean number density of hydrogen nuclei. The dimensionless ratio of the cloud radius to the Strömgren radius sets whether the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region can break out of the cloud during its early phase of rapid expansion (known as R-type). If $R_{\rm cl}<R_S$, the R-type I-front radius expands as $r_{\rm I}(t)=R_S(1-e^{-t/t_{\rm rec}})^{1/3}$ [e.g. @Shu1992] and approaches rapidly to the Strömgren radius in the order of recombination timescale $t_{\rm rec}=(\alpha_B\bar{n}_0)^{-1}\approx1.2 T_4^{0.7}(\bar{n}_0/100\rm~cm^{-3})^{-1}\rm~kyr$. The R-type I-front therefore breaks out of the parent cloud, $r_{\rm I}(t_{\rm break})=R_{\rm cl}$, after $$t_{\rm break}=t_{\rm rec}\ln\left[1-\left(\frac{R_{\rm cl}}{R_S}\right)^3\right]^{-1} \mbox{for R-type I-front}.$$ The LyC leakage immediately follows the density-bound regime. Using Equation (\[eq:2\]), we find $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}=1-\frac{\alpha_{\rm B}\bar{n}_0}{m_{\rm H}\epsilon_\star\xi_{\rm ion}}~\mbox{after R-type breakout}.$$ The density-bound LyC leakage following the early R-type I-front only occur for a diffuse GMC (in a spherical homogeneous cloud model); for example, a cloud with $M_{\rm cl}=10^5\rm~M_\odot$ and $R_{\rm cl}=60\rm~pc$ gives $\bar{n}_0\approx4.5\rm~cm^{-3}$ and $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\approx0.72$ in the case of the R-type I-front.
In a realistic dynamical ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region where there is a large temperature contrast between the photoheated ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region and the ambient cold neutral gas, this produces a shock front ahead of the I-front which pushes the gas outwards, enabling the I-front (known as D-type) to proceed beyond the Strömgren radius [e.g. @Whalen04; @Krumholz07]. This allows a dynamical transition from the initially ionization-bound nebula to the density-bound regime at later time. The D-type I-front expands as $r_{\rm I}(t)\approx R_S\left[1+7 c_{{\rm\scriptscriptstyle II}}t/(4R_S)\right]^{4/7}$ [see @Shu1992 Chapter 20] with the velocity of the order of sound speed of ionized gas $c_{{\rm II}}=\sqrt{2k_{\rm B}T/m_{\rm H}}=12.8T_4^{1/2}\rm~km~s^{-1}$ and breaks out of the cloud after $$t_{\rm break}=\frac{4R_S}{7c_{{\rm II}}}\left[\left(\frac{R_{\rm cl}}{R_S}\right)^{7/4}-1\right]~\mbox{for D-type I-front}.$$ After the breakout of the D-type I-front, because the gas is evacuated by the thermal pressure, the interior density is lowered to $\bar{n}_{\rm II}=(R_S/r_{\rm I})^{3/2} \bar{n}_0$ [@Shu1992]. Thus, the resulting density-bound LyC leakage is increased as there is less gas in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}=1-\frac{\alpha_{\rm B}\bar{n}_0}{m_{\rm H}\epsilon_\star\xi_{\rm ion}}\left(\frac{\bar{n}_{\rm II}}{\bar{n}_0}\right)^2~\mbox{after D-type breakout}.$$ This gives a high LyC escape fraction for an initially ionization-bound nebula by the action of photoionization heating and the associated I-front shocks.
In Figure \[fig:GMC\] we overlay the estimated I-front breakout time for each parameter space of molecular clouds. For most of the observed molecular clouds, ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions follow the D-type I-front. More luminous and massive GMCs that contribute to the large fraction of the total ionizing photon budget of a galaxy require longer times for the D-type I-front to break out, which must compete with the short ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}$Myr lifetime of massive stars. This means that the LyC leakage from the dynamical ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region in a molecular cloud must be treated with fully-coupled radiation hydrodynamics. Typical ionization parameters at the Strömgren radius and total hydrogen column density between the Strömgren radius and cloud radius are approximately $U_S=\dot{N}_{\rm ion}/(4\pi R_S^2 \bar{n}_0c){\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}0.01$ and $\bar{N}_{\rm H}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^{22}\rm~cm^{-2}$. The turbulent velocities of the massive GMCs of $M_{\rm cl}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^{5-6}\rm~M_{\odot}$ are $\sigma_v{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}1-10\rm~km~s^{-1}$. The turbulent nature of the GMCs clearly introduces anisotropy and inhomogeneity to this simple back-of-envelope view. Thus, having identified the relevant regime of LyC leakage and the approximate parameter space of interest, we present a detailed account of LyC leakage through a patch of a turbulent molecular cloud in Section \[sec:simulation\].
![Schematic illustration of the simulation setup. Our simulation boxes represent a patch of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region in a GMC irradiated by a single stellar population with an ionizing luminosity $\dot{N}_{\rm ion}$. Initially the R-type I-front propagates rapidly to the Strömgren radius $R_S$ and then the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region gradually grows by the D-type I-front. A patch of size $L$ located at a distance $d$ from the stellar source is characterized by the initial mean density $\bar{n}_0$, temperature $T_0$, rms turbulent velocity $\sigma_v$, and the total gas column density $\bar{N}_{\rm H}$. []{data-label="fig:cartoon"}](cartoon.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Physical Formulation and Simulations {#sec:simulation}
====================================
Equations of Radiation Hydrodynamics
------------------------------------
We now turn from a heuristic argument to a physical formulation of LyC leakage and the associated Ly$\alpha$ RT in a full radiation hydrodynamical framework. We consider a plane-parallel atmosphere (slab) of turbulent gas cloud around a star-forming region with an initial number density $\bar{n}_0$ and total hydrogen column density $\bar{N}_{{\rm \tiny H},0}$ (and size $L=\bar{N}_{{\rm \tiny H},0}/\bar{n}_0$) which is continuously irradiated by the ionizing radiation from a star-forming cluster (see Figure \[fig:cartoon\]). For simplicity we have assumed a hydrogen-only gas. The system is constantly perturbed on the large scale to maintain the turbulence to represent a large-scale forcing such as gas accretion or disk instability in a galaxy [@Elmegreen10; @Goldbaum11; @Krumholz16]. This setup was previously employed by @Gritschneder09 [@Gritschneder10].
The fundamental equations of radiation hydrodynamics that govern the distribution and kinematics of the gas and the transport of ionizing radiation are, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mspace{-10mu}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot(\rho \boldsymbol v )=0
\\
&\mspace{-10mu}
\frac{\partial\rho\boldsymbol{v}}{\partial t}
+\boldsymbol\nabla\cdot(\rho\boldsymbol{vv})=-\boldsymbol\nabla P+\rho\boldsymbol{f}_{\rm stir}+\rho \boldsymbol{f}_{\rm rad}
\label{eq:momentum} \\
&\mspace{-10mu}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}+\boldsymbol\nabla\cdot[(E+P)\boldsymbol{v}]= \rho\boldsymbol{v}\cdot\boldsymbol{f}_{\rm stir}+\rho\boldsymbol{v}\cdot\boldsymbol{f}_{\rm rad}+\Lambda
\label{eq:energy} \\
&\mspace{-10mu}
\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial E_\nu}{\partial t}+\boldsymbol\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{F}_\nu=-{n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}{\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}E_\nu+F^{\rm inc}_\nu\delta_D({\boldsymbol r}-{\boldsymbol r}_0)
\\
&\mspace{-10mu}
\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{F}_\nu}{\partial t}+c\boldsymbol\nabla\cdot(\boldsymbol{\mathsf{f}}_{\nu} E_{\nu})=-{n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}{\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\boldsymbol{F}_\nu\end{aligned}$$ which couples to the rate equation, $$\frac{d{n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}}{dt}=\alpha_B n_p n_e-(\Gamma+{\beta_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}n_e){n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}},~\Gamma=\int {\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\frac{F_\nu}{h\nu} d\nu$$ where $\rho$, $\boldsymbol v$, $P$, and $E$ are the density, velocity, thermal pressure, and total (thermal plus kinetic) energy density of the gas, $E_\nu$ and $\boldsymbol{F}_\nu$ ($F_\nu=|\boldsymbol{F}_\nu|$) are the specific energy density and and flux of the ionizing radiation, $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{f}}_\nu$ is the Eddington tensor, ${n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$ is the number density of neutral hydrogen, ${\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}=\sigma_L(\nu/\nu_L)^{-3}$ is the photoionization cross-section of atomic hydrogen ($\sigma_L=6.3\times10^{-18}\rm~cm^2$ and $h\nu_L=13.6\rm~eV$), ${\beta_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}(T)$ is the collisional ionization rate coefficient, and the force exerted by the ionizing radiation pressure is $${\boldsymbol f}_{\rm rad}=\frac{{n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}}{\rho c}\int{\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\boldsymbol{F}_\nu d\nu.$$
The heating and cooling are treated approximately. $\Lambda=\mathcal{H}+\mathcal{L}$ is the sum of the rates of radiative heating $\mathcal{H}$ and cooling $\mathcal{L}$ in units of energy per unit time per unit volume. The heating term includes the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ photoionization heating and the cooling term includes recombination, collisional ionization and excitation, Bremsstrahlung coolings [@Rosdahl13]. We do not explicitly follow any metal line cooling nor other heating/cooling mechanisms. Instead, following @Gritschneder09, we assume an isothermal equation of state (adiabatic index of $\gamma=1$) to approximate complex thermal exchange mechanism such that adiabatic compression and expansion retain the isothermality of the gas.[^1]
The external random force field $\boldsymbol{f}_{\rm stir}$ is applied to excite turbulent flow [e.g. @Kritsuk07; @Federrath10]. We assume a Gaussian random field with a flat power spectrum with power only in the first four largest Fourier modes. We apply a Helmholtz decomposition to the field to produce a different mode (solenoidal or compressive) of large-scale forcing depending on its physical origin, which is parametrized by the forcing parameter $\zeta$ ($\zeta=1$ for purely solenoidal and $\zeta=0$ for purely compressive). The amplitude of the forcing field is chosen to maintain an rms velocity dispersion of a turbulence of interest. The detail is described in Appendix A.
The incident spectrum $F_\nu^{\rm inc}$ from a star-forming region is produced by a starburst based on the binary stellar population synthesis code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">bpass</span> [@Eldridge17]. The important dimensionless number is the ionization parameter at the incident face $$\mathcal{U}=\frac{F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}}{\bar{n}_0 c}=\frac{1}{\bar{n}_0 c}\int_{\nu_L} \frac{F_\nu^{\rm inc} d\nu}{h\nu}$$ For example, at the ionization parameter $\mathcal{U}=1.3\times10^{-2}$ and $\bar{n}_0=500\rm~cm^{-3}$, the incident flux is $F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}=2\times10^{11}\rm~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}$. This corresponds to a slab located at $\simeq 2-10\rm~pc$ away from a single stellar population with the ionizing photon production rate $\simeq10^{50}-10^{51}\rm~s^{-1}$. These values roughly match with those found in global simulations of ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^4-10^6\rm~M_\odot$ GMCs [e.g. @Geen15; @Geen16; @Kim2018].
Using the line-of-sight ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column densities ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$ measured from the outcoming face of the slab, the LyC leakage is defined as the transmitted fraction of ionizing photons with frequency $\nu$, $$\mathcal{T}_{\rm LyC}(\nu)=\int_0^\infty e^{-{\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}} d{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}},\label{eq:leakage}$$ and by integrating over all photons escaping from the slab, the LyC escape fraction is given by $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}=\frac{\displaystyle\int_{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}}^{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny He{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}} \mathcal{T}_{\rm LyC}(\nu)\frac{F_{\nu}^{\rm inc}}{h\nu}d\nu}{\displaystyle\int_{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}}^{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny He{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}} \frac{F_{\nu}^{\rm inc}}{h\nu}d\nu}.\label{eq:escape}$$ Note that the escape fraction can also be measured by directly taking the ratio between incoming and outcoming fluxes. Both ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$-based and flux-based estimators agree well [@Trebitsch17]. We also verified that our frequency-dependent definition gives consistent results with the frequency-integrated RHD simulations. We use Equations (\[eq:leakage\]) and (\[eq:escape\]) to measure the LyC escape fraction throughout this paper.
[lllllllll]{} `V18S_f2e11_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $2\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.013$ & $20$ & $1$ & fiducial RHD run\
`V9S_f2e11_RHD` & $500$ & $9$ & $2\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.013$ & $10$ & $1$ & turbulence series\
`V2S_f2e11_RHD` & $500$ & $2$ & $2\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.013$ & $2$ & $1$ & turbulence series\
`V18S_f2e10_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $2\times10^{10}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.0013$& $20$ & $1$ & spectral hardness series\
`V18S_f8e10_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $8\times10^{10}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.0052$& $20$ & $1$ & spectral hardness series\
`V18S_f1e11_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $1\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.0065$ & $20$ & $1$ & spectral hardness series\
`V18S_f4e11_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $4\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.026$ & $20$ & $1$ & spectral hardness series\
`V18S_f8e11_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $8\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.052$ & $20$ & $1$ & spectral hardness series\
`V18C_f2e11_RHD` & $500$ & $18$ & $2\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.013$ & $20$ & $0$ & compressive forcing\
`V18S_f2e11_RT` & $500$ & $18$ & $2\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.013$ & $20$ & $1$ & post-processed RT\
`V18S_f2e11_RHD-RP` & $500$ & $18$ & $2\times10^{11}$ & $7.7\times10^{21}$ & $0.013$ & $20$ & $1$ & RHD without radiation pressure\
RHD Turbulence Simulations
--------------------------
We simulate the above problem using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> [@Teyssier02; @Rosdahl13]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> employs a second-order Godnouv method to solve an Eulerian fully-coupled radiation hydrodynamics on an adaptive mesh refinement grid, and the radiative transfer is solved by the moment method. We use a static uniform grid with $128^3$ resolution with $L=5\rm~pc$ box on a side. We use the MUSCL scheme with HLLC solver for hydrodynamics with the MinMod slope limiter and the Courant timestep factor 0.1. For the isothermal equation of state, we set the adiabatic index close to unity $\gamma\approx1$ to avoid division by zero. For radiative transport, the HLL solver is used to accurately track the shadowing behind dense gas. We use a single frequency group integrated over $13.6<h\nu<24.6\rm~eV$, the M1 closure for the Eddington tensor, and the on-the-spot approximation. We used the reduced speed of light approximation with $10^{-3}c$ to avoid prohibitively long time integration.
To perform the RHD turbulence simulations, we have first generated initial conditions by running isothermal turbulence simulations without radiative transfer. We set initial density $\bar{n}_0=500\rm~cm^{-3}$ and temperature $T_0=100\rm~K$ with the periodic boundary condition at all faces. In order to drive turbulence, we perturb the flow with a Gaussian random field with power only at the large scales following the method of (see Appendix A) with an appropriate choice of the forcing parameter; we set $\zeta=1$ for a fiducial run. We evolved the system for a few tens of Eddy turnover times ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10T_{\rm eddy}$ where $T_{\rm eddy}=L/(2\sigma_v)$ to ensure the statistical steady state is reached. We then use the snapshot after $2T_{\rm eddy}$ time as an initial condition for the corresponding RHD turbulence simulation.
Using the initial condition, we then restart the simulation with full RHD. Both turbulence driving and radiative transfer are activated. The box is irradiated from the left boundary with an ionizing flux $F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}=1-4\times10^{11}\rm~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}$ (the corresponding ionization parameters are shown in Table \[table:setup\]). We use the spectrum-integrated cross section corresponding to the spectral shape of the incoming ionizing radiation consistent with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">bpass</span> stellar population synthesis code. We set a reflective boundary condition at the left boundary face and outflow boundary condition at the right boundary face, but otherwise periodic boundary condition. We then evolve the system for $2~\rm Myr$. In order to investigate the conditions for LyC leakage, we have varied the simulation setup and parameters which are summarised in Table \[table:setup\].
Monte-Carlo Ly$\alpha$ Radiative Transfer
-----------------------------------------
We employ the Monte Carlo radiative transfer (RT) code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tlac</span> [@Gronke14]. Monte Carlo radiative transfer codes track individual photon packages on their trajectory while simultaneously keeping track of their frequency. This includes the change of direction, and the shift in frequency (mostly) due to Doppler boosting during a scattering event (see, e.g. @Dijkstra17).
As input we used the simulated ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ number density, temperature, and velocities on the Cartesian grid with the spatial resolution equal to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> runs. We inject Ly$\alpha$ photons at the line centre from the left boundary of the box ($x=0$). We employed ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^4$ photon packets with a dynamical core-skipping scheme [@Smith15]. The emergent Ly$\alpha$ line profile is composed of the frequencies of the photons escaping in the positive $x$ direction. To include the back-scatterings we have mirrored the structure around the $x=0$ axis. Thus, in practice the Ly$\alpha$ RT is done on the $256\times128\times128$ grid with a source at the $x=0$ plane. For $y$ and $z$ boundaries, we used a periodic boundary condition. Therefore, our simulated geometry corresponds to that of a semi-inifinite slab [@Neufeld90].
{width="103.00000%"}
{width="103.00000%"}
![The time evolution of the LyC escape fraction (solid, left y-axis) and covering fraction of optically thick gas ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}>7.3\times10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2}$ (dash-dotted, right y-axis) in `V18S_f2e11_RHD` run. The vertical dotted line indicates the I-front breakout time $t_{\rm break}\approx1.1\rm~Myr$. The asymptotic analytic limit of the LyC escape fraction for a fully density-bound nebula, Equation (\[eq:22\]), is indicated by the horizontal dashed line.[]{data-label="fig:fesc_time"}](fesc_TURB_L5V10S_n500_f2e11_RHD.pdf){width="1.08\columnwidth"}
Results {#sec:result}
=======
LyC Escape Fraction
-------------------
Here we present an overview of the LyC leakage from a (patch of) ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region in turbulent molecular clouds. In Figure \[fig:map\] we show the time evolution of the RHD turbulence.
Ionizing radiation propagates anisotropically. The photons race ahead in the directions of low column densities opened up by the turbulent fluctuations. The D-type I-fronts do so by creating shocks by the photoheating across the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region and the ambient neutral medium, which evacuate the gas effectively in the low column density channels. Figure \[fig:NHImap\] confirms the presence of channels of leaking radiation. As supersonic turbulence changes its structure faster than the speed of the D-type I-front of the order of the sound speed of the ionized gas, the low column density channels are not opened sufficiently long enough to sustain the escape of ionizing radiation in the same directions. Instead, the system changes the structure of escaping channels over the Eddy turnover timescale $T_{\rm eddy}\approx245(L/{5\rm~pc})(\sigma_v/10\rm~km~s^{-1})^{-1}\rm~kyr$. The I-fronts drastically slow down or even halt as soon as dense clumps and filaments are created ahead of them by supersonic shocks in turbulence. That is, [*LyC photons in a driven turbulent medium need to propagate through a dynamic, constantly changing ‘maze’ before leaking out of the system.*]{}
These turbulent fluctuations introduce the stochastic variability in the escape fraction on the ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}100\rm~kyr$ timescale. The time evolution of the escape fraction is shown in Figure \[fig:fesc\_time\]. For example the peak at $\simeq0.5\rm~Myr$ corresponds to the timing of the opening of a large channel (cf. Figure \[fig:map\]). Note that this turbulent variability is smaller than the longer ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10\rm~Myr$ timescale variability associated with the supernova feedback that exhibits a large $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}$ variation as the inactive phase of the feedback can completely shut off the leakage.
While the turbulent fluctuations allow LyC photons to leak out at an early time, the timing at which the breakout of the average I-fronts occurs is delayed. In simulations we define the breakout time as a time when more than 95% of the entire medium is ionized. This gives $t_{\rm break}\approx1.1\rm~Myr$ for the fiducial RHD run. For a homogeneous slab, the breakout time of the D-type I-front can be computed analytically, $$t_{\rm break}=\frac{4}{5}\frac{c}{c_{\rm II}}t_{\rm rec}\mathcal{U}\left[\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm B}N_{\rm H}}{c~\mathcal{U}}\right)^{5/4}-1\right]{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}0.6\rm~Myr,$$ for the same parameters used in the fiducial run. Evidently, the average I-front breakout time is delayed for a turbulent medium. There are two reasons for this delay in the breakout time. When the rms turbulent velocity in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region remains supersonic ($\sigma_v>c_{\rm II}\approx12.8T_4^{1/2}\rm~km~s^{-1}$), the density fluctuations can enhance the recombination rate, causing the slow down of the average I-fronts. In addition, the I-front shock-turbulence interaction transports the warm neutral gas ahead of the I-front. This increases the thermal pressure of the ambient gas into which D-type I-front is propagating. This thermal and additional turbulent ram pressure may also contribute to the slow down of the average speed of the D-type I-front [@Tremblin14; @Geen15].
After the breakout $t>t_{\rm break}$, LyC leakage is regulated by the balance between the recombination rate in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region and the incident ionizing flux from the source, approaching to the asymptotic value set by the density-bound regime. The time variability settles down as the medium becomes fully ionized. Since the mechanism of escape is different before and after the breakout that is either dominated by the ionization-bound or density-bound LyC leakage, it is convenient to understand the leaking mechanism in the units of the breakout time. We follow this convention in the rest of the paper.
![The probability distribution function of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column densities, ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$, at $0.01, 0.10,0.25,0.50,1.50~\rm Myr$ in the `V18S_f2e11_RHD` run. The column density at which a channel becomes optically thick with less than 1% LyC leakage at Lyman limit is indicated by the vertical dotted line.[]{data-label="fig:NHI"}](PDF_NHI_TURB_L5V10S_n500_f2e11_RHD.pdf){width="1.05\columnwidth"}
![Correlation between LyC escape fraction and average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density $\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle$ of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions. The results from three runs (squares: `V2S_f2e11_RHD`, triangles: `V9S_f2e11_RHD`, circles: `V18S_f2e11_RHD`) are shown. The colors indicate the time normalized by the I-front breakout time of each simulation, $t/t_{\rm break}$. The dotted line indicates the escape fractions for homogeneous media at each $\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle$, $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}=\frac{\int_{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}}^{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny He{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}} e^{-{\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle}F_\nu^{\rm inc}/(h\nu)d\nu}{\int_{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}}^{{\nu_{\mbox{\tiny He{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}} F_\nu^{\rm inc}/(h\nu)d\nu}$. The shaded region marks the approximate transition between nebulae dominated by density-bound and ionization-bound channels. The figure shows that the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions allow high LyC escape fractions as the photons leak through narrow holes, but retaining high average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column densities over the entire systems.[]{data-label="fig:fesc_NHI"}](fesc_NHI_correlation.pdf){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
Covering Fraction, Kinematics & Spectral Hardness
-------------------------------------------------
The leakage through the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions introduces the correlation of LyC escape fraction with the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction, kinematics and spectral hardness.
The probability distribution functions of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column densities in Figure \[fig:NHI\] show the two clear channels of LyC photons: one corresponding to the photoionized density-bound channels (${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\approx10^{17-18}\rm~cm^{-2}$) where LyC escapes and another corresponding to the neutral ionization-bound channels (${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\approx10^{21-22}\rm~cm^{-2}$) where the I-fronts still reside within the system. As LyC photons escape through narrow photoionized channels, a large fraction of hydrogen can be retained in a neutral phase, allowing high LyC leakage with a high average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density $\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle$ (see Figure \[fig:fesc\_NHI\]). As a result, $\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle$ of a system may not give a clear indicator of LyC leakage.
The quantity which is better correlated with LyC escape fractions is the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction. We define the covering fraction, $f_{\rm cov}(>{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}})$, as the fraction of slightlines with ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column densities greater than ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$. We compute the covering fraction of optically thick sightlines with less than 1% leakage at the Lyman limit[^2] corresponding to a ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density more than ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}^{\rm thick}=-\sigma_L^{-1}\ln0.01\simeq7.3\times10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2}$.
![Correlation between LyC escape fraction and covering fraction of optically thick gas. The results from three runs (squares: `V2S_f2e11_RHD`, triangles: `V9S_f2e11_RHD`, circles: `V18S_f2e11_RHD`) are shown. The colors indicate the time normalized by the I-front breakout time of each simulation, $t/t_{\rm break}$. Linear relations, $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\propto1-f_{\rm cov}$, with different slopes, $0.2,~0.4,~0.6,~0.8$ and $1.0$, are indicated by dotted lines. The shaded region marks the approximate transition between nebulae dominated by ionization-bound and density-bound channels before and after the breakout of average I-front.[]{data-label="fig:fesc_fcov"}](fesc_fcov_correlation.pdf){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:fesc\_fcov\] shows the correlation between the LyC escape fraction and the covering fraction. Before the breakout of the average I-front, LyC escape is directly correlated with the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction, which leads to a linear relation $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\propto1-f_{\rm cov}(>{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}^{\rm thick})$. However, as the photoionized channels are not empty, the escape fraction is lower because photons recombine inside them, causing $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}<1-f_{\rm cov}(>{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}^{\rm thick})$. While a low covering fraction is a necessary condition for a high LyC leakage, a measure of covering fraction places only an upper limit to the escape fraction [@Vasei16].
The turbulent kinematics also influences the properties of the photoionized channels. For increasing turbulent velocities, there is a larger probability for lower densities to occur which leads to less recombination within the channels. This further implies a higher LyC escape faction at a given covering fraction. The resulting relation is therefore the combination of covering fraction and transmitted fraction of LyC photons through the photoionized channels, $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\approx f_{\rm tr}(\sigma_v)[1-f_{\rm cov}(>{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}^{\rm thick})].$$ In our simulations, we find the transmitted fractions are $f_{\rm tr}(\sigma_v)\approx\{0.28,~0.36,~0.55\}$ for $\sigma_v=\{2,~9,~18\}\rm~km~s^{-1}$ by fitting the linear relation to the numerical results.
After the average breakout of the I-fronts, because the system is dominated by density-bound channels, there is little correlation between the escape fraction and the covering fraction. The escape fraction is now regulated by the recombination rate in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. At the density-bound dominated regime, the escape fraction is set by the balance between incident ionizing flux and the recombination rate in the photoionized medium, $$f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\approx 1-\frac{\alpha_{\rm B}L}{F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}}\int n_e^2 P_V(n_e|\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})dn_e,\label{eq:22}$$ where $P_V(n_e|\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})$ is the volume-weighted density probability distribution function of the ionized gas with a Mach number $\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}$.
![Correlation between LyC escape fraction and the incident ionizing flux $F^{\rm inc}_{\rm ion}$ (a proxy for spectral hardness $\xi_{\rm ion}$) at the end of simulations ($2~\rm Myr$). For all the points except for the first two red points, the average I-fronts have broken out already for all the simulations, therefore indicating the LyC escape fractions at the density-bound dominated limit. The first two red points are zero as the I-front does not break out before the end of simulation. The dashed lines indicate the expected scaling of $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}$ with $F^{\rm inc}_{\rm ion}$ in the density-bound leakage, $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}=1-({\rm const.})/F^{\rm inc}_{\rm ion}$. []{data-label="fig:spectral_hardness"}](fesc_spectral_hardness_correlation.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:spectral\_hardness\] we show the relation between the escape fraction and the incident ionizing flux. At the density-bound dominated regime, the escape fraction increases with the incident ionizing flux (spectral hardness) as expected from Equation (\[eq:22\]) (cf. Section \[sec:theory\]). The spectral hardness of the stellar population affects the LyC escape as harder sources induce more photoionization making photons easier to escape. This intrinsic dependence of LyC escape fraction on spectral hardness means that spectrally harder sources, common for higher redshifts and fainter objects [e.g. @Matthee17; @Harikane18], may be able to deposit more ionizing photons into the surroundings because both the LyC escape fraction and ionizing photon production efficiency can increase the total escaping LyC luminosity, $\propto f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}(\xi_{\rm ion})\xi_{\rm ion}\rm SFR$.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
While the escape fraction can consistently be larger than $>10\%$ after the breakout, a higher level of turbulence will somewhat reduce the LyC escape in the density-bound dominated regime (see Figure \[fig:spectral\_hardness\]). When the turbulent fluctuations is supersonic inside the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, the density fluctuations introduce the clumping of gas with an associated clumping factor,[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})=\frac{\langle n_e^2\rangle}{\bar{n}_e^2}&=&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\frac{n_e}{\bar{n}_e}\right)^2P_V(n_e|\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})dn_e, \nonumber \\
&\approx&1+(\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}/3)^2.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to a reduction of the escape fraction due to the enhanced recombination rate. For the $\sigma_v=18\rm~km~s^{-1}$ RHD turbulence simulation, We find $\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}\approx1.1$ and the clumping factor $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})\approx1.2$ in the photoionized gas. The effect becomes only prominent for a very high value of turbulent velocity dispersion $\sigma_v>12.8T_4^{1/2}\rm ~km~s^{-1}$ that can maintain supersonic fluctuations in the photoheated gas $\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}>1$. For a modest velocity dispersion $\sigma_v<12.8T_4^{1/2}\rm ~km~s^{-1}$, e.g. in the Milky-Way like GMCs, the photoionized gas remains subsonic $\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}<1$. Because the thermal gas pressure smooths out the density perturbations within a few sound crossing timescale faster than turbulent mixing, the density clumping is modest [@Konstandin12]. Indeed, in the simulations with $\sigma_v=2,~9\rm~km~s^{-1}$ ($\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}=0.1,~0.6$), the clumping factors of the ionized gas remain as $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})=1$. Subsonic turbulence inside the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region thus has a negligible effect on the density-bound value of LyC escape fraction.
In both the density- and ionization-bound dominated regimes, turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions introduce a diversity in $f^{\rm LyC}_{\rm esc}$ for a given ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction and spectral hardness.
Role of Turbulence and Radiative Feedback {#sec:rad_effect}
-----------------------------------------
The presence of turbulence alone is not a sufficient condition to trigger a high LyC leakage. The radiation-hydrodynamical coupling and the ability to ionize the gas beyond the classical Strömgren radius by the D-type I-front and the radiative feedback are important for regulating LyC leakage through a turbulent GMC.
To illustrate this point, we compare a simulation in which the radiation-hydrodynamical coupling is switched off (i.e. post-processed RT) with the fiducial run with the same initial turbulence. As there is no dynamical response of gas by photoionization nor radiation pressure, the I-front remains as the R-type in the post-processed RT. In this case, if the initial gas column density is larger than, $$N_{\rm H,0}>\frac{F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}}{\alpha_B\bar{n}_0}\approx1.15\times10^{21}T_4^{0.7}\left(\frac{\mathcal{U}}{10^{-2}}\right)\rm cm^{-2},\label{eq:trap}$$ the I-front is kept trapped within a cloud. This is the regime similar to that studied by @Safarzadeh16. Comparison with the fiducial run is shown in Figure \[fig:map\_rad\_effect\]. After several recombination times the R-type I-front reaches a steady state and is effectively frozen in. Although the turbulence density fluctuations create lower column density channels by a few order of magnitudes around the mean [e.g. @Federrath10], there remains a substantial optical depth even along the lowest column density channels. Thus the total increase in LyC escape by turbulent fluctuations remains modest. For example, we find only $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\simeq0.008$ in the R-type I-front simulation by post-processing RT whereas the full RHD simulation of the D-type I-front can reach $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\gtrsim0.10$ after ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}\,$Myr. The photoheating across the I-front and the associated shocks offer an effective means for LyC photons to evacuate efficiently through low column density channels.
The inefficiency of turbulent fluctuations when creating ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}<10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2}$ channels is not surprising as typical surface densities of GMCs are $\Sigma_{\rm cloud}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10-1000\rm~M_\odot~pc^{-2}$ [@Leroy15 for a recent compilation and references therein], corresponding to the total hydrogen column density from the centre of the spherical cloud to the outer radius, ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}=(3/4)(\Sigma_{\rm cloud}/m_{\rm H}){\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^{21}-10^{23}\rm~cm^{-2}$. This means that about $4-7$ orders of magnitude fluctuations in column densities within a cloud are required to produce ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\lesssim10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2}$ channels. In fact, following @Brunt10b [@Brunt10a] and , we can estimate the fraction of the I-fronts being trapped in a turbulence without radiative feedback as $$f_{\rm trap}=\int^{\infty}_{s_{\rm trap}}P_{\rm H{\scriptscriptstyle\,I}}(s|\mathcal{M}_{\rm I})ds =\frac{1}{2}{\rm erfc}\left[\frac{\sigma^2_{\ln{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}}+2s_{\rm trap}}{\sqrt{8\sigma^2_{\ln{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}}}}\right],$$ where $P_{\rm H{\scriptscriptstyle\,I}}(s|\mathcal{M}_{\rm I})$ is the log-normal probability distribution of column density and $s_{\rm trap}=\ln({N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}^{\rm trap}/\bar{{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}})$ with ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}^{\rm trap}\approx1.15\times10^{21}\rm~cm^{-2}$ (see Equation (\[eq:trap\])). The standard deviation is given by $$\sigma^2_{\ln{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}}\approx\ln\left[1+R(\mathcal{M}_{\rm I}/3)^2)\right],$$ and $R=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{3-\alpha}{2-\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{1-\mathcal{M}_{\rm I}^{2(2-\alpha)}}{1-\mathcal{M}_{\rm I}^{2(3-\alpha)}}\right)$ with $\alpha=2.5$ being the power-law index of density power spectrum $P(k)\propto k^{-\alpha}$ [e.g. @Krumholz14 for a review]. The estimate suggests only $1-f_{\rm trap}\approx0.06\%$ of I-fronts in the $\mathcal{M}_{\rm I}\approx10$ gas in a $\bar{{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}}\approx10^{22}\rm~cm^{-2}$ cloud can exit the system. For $\mathcal{M}_{\rm I}\approx20$, the fraction is still $1-f_{\rm trap}\approx1\%$. Although a higher Mach turbulence and the associated increase in intermittency would open up more low column density channels [@Hopkins13; @Federrath13], substantial LyC escape still require a radiative feedback in addition to turbulence (cf. Figure \[fig:map\_rad\_effect\]).
Among the two radiative feedback mechanisms – photoionization heating and radiation pressure – the direct ionizing radiation pressure plays a secondary role in evacuating the gas through the low column density channels, in agreement with previous studies [@Rosdahl15]. The relative importance of photoionization and radiation pressure is easy to understand by taking the thermal-to-radiation pressure ratio [@Lopez14; @McLeod18], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{P_{\rm th}}{P_{\rm rad}}&=\frac{2k_Bn_eT}{\langle h\nu\rangle F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}/c} \\
&\approx 3.8T_4\left(\frac{ n_e}{200\rm~cm^{-3}}\right)\left(\frac{F_{\rm ion}^{\rm inc}}{2\times10^{11}\rm~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}}\right)^{-1}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The impact of ionizing radiation pressure less effective than the thermal pressure by photoionization heating even in the plane-parallel geometry, which will be reduced further in a spherical geometry by the geometric factor of $r^{-2}$. Ly$\alpha$ radiation pressure may be important although the exact degree of the impact is still unclear [@Dijkstra08; @Dijkstra09; @Smith17; @Kimm18]. In the regimes studied, the shocks induced by photoionization heating and turbulent fluctuations are likely the major modes of regulating the opening of low column density channels. In summary, we find that turbulence is not a sole agent to regulate LyC leakage in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions. Radiative feedback [*and*]{} turbulence are what regulate the LyC leakage, in particular, the photoheated I-front shock provides an effective means for evacuating the gas through the openings of turbulence-generated channels.
Ly$\boldsymbol\alpha$-LyC Connection {#sec:Lya-LyC}
====================================
Physics of Ly$\alpha$ Line Formation
------------------------------------
![Comparison of the emergent Ly$\alpha$ line profile from the RHD turbulence simulation (`V18S_f2e11_RHD` at $t=0.5\rm~Myr$) with the observed COS spectrum of a LyC-leaking galaxy, J1154+2443 [@Izotov2018a]. The three simulated spectra correspond to one at the spectral resolution of the simulation (blue dashed), one at the COS resolution ($R=15000$) (red dashed), and one with the CGM attenuation model of at the COS resolution (red solid). Regardless of the additional uncertainty from the CGM, Ly$\alpha$ transfer through the turbulent LyC-leaking ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region can explain the observed spectrum reasonably well.[]{data-label="fig:Lya"}](lyman-alpha_spectrum.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
The Ly$\alpha$ line profiles emerging from the RHD turbulence depend upon to the properties of LyC leakage. The detail of Ly$\alpha$ transfer is described elsewhere [see e.g. @Dijkstra17]. Here we summarise the relevant aspects of Ly$\alpha$ line formation for LyC-leaking turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions.
The LyC leakage through a RHD turbulence produces the two distinctive passages for Ly$\alpha$ photons; one with low column densities ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\approx10^{17-18}\rm~cm^{-2}$ allowing LyC escape (density-bound channels) and another with ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\approx10^{21-22}\rm~cm^{-2}$ that remains optically thick to LyC (ionization-bound channels) (cf. Figure \[fig:NHI\]). This bimodal ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ distribution corresponds to that of the ‘picket-fence’ or ‘Holes’ model often used to interpret observations [@Zackrisson13; @Reddy16; @Steidel18]. Here, such geometry of ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ gas arises naturally as a consequence of the RHD turbulence.
The Ly$\alpha$ optical depth at a frequency, $x=(\nu-\nu_\alpha)/\Delta\nu_D$, is $\tau_\alpha=\tau_{\alpha,0}\phi(x)$ where $\nu_\alpha$ is the resonant frequency, $\Delta\nu_D=\nu_\alpha b/c$ is the Doppler width ($b$ is the Doppler $b$-parameter), $\phi(x)$ is the Voigt profile, $\tau_{\alpha,0}=\sigma_{\alpha,0}{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$ is the optical depth at line center, and $\sigma_{\alpha0}\approx5.9\times10^{-14}T_4^{-1/2}\rm~cm^{2}$ is the line centre Ly$\alpha$ cross section. The gas above the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density, $${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}>1/\sigma_{\alpha,0}\approx1.7\times10^{13}T_4^{1/2}\rm~cm^{-2},$$ is optically thick to the photons emitted at line center. Therefore, Ly$\alpha$ photons are more susceptible to the amount of (residual) neutral hydrogen compared to the column density (${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\lesssim10^{17-18}\rm~cm^{-2}$) required for LyC photons to escape. For example, in the fiducial simulation, the photoionized LyC escaping channels (having the residual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ fractions, ${x_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\approx\alpha_{\rm B} n_{\rm H}/\Gamma{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^{-4}-10^{-5}$, and the gas density, $n_{\rm H}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}200\rm~cm^{-3}$) have an average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of $$\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}\approx 2.4\times10^{17} \rm~cm^{-2},$$ filling up $1-f_{\rm cov}$ fraction of sightlines around ionizing sources. The Ly$\alpha$ photons emitted at the line center therefore cannot freely steam out. Instead, they experience appreciable scattering events before escape. *The resulting Ly$\alpha$ profile is therefore strongly influenced by the availability, the [H[*I*]{}]{} column density, and the kinematics of LyC escape channels.*
The turbulence also introduces both density and velocity fluctuations which would influence the fate of the Ly$\alpha$ photons. @Gronke16 [@Gronke17] detailed the Ly$\alpha$ transfer mechanism through a clumpy medium and found that Ly$\alpha$ photons can escape either ([*i*]{}) via a ‘single flight’ or ‘excursion’ after core or wing scatterings, i.e. similar to through an homogeneous slab [@Osterbrock1962; @Adams72], or ([*ii*]{}) via ‘random walk’ between clumps . These two different modes of Ly$\alpha$ escape subsequently leave an imprint on the emergent Ly$\alpha$ spectrum, most easily identified by the flux at line center. Since the filling factor of the optically thick gas to Ly$\alpha$ photons is high both inside the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region and in the underdense regions of turbulence, there is little room for Ly$\alpha$ photons to freely travel between the clumps in a turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. therefore, for our parameter space studied, the photons escape primarily by the former mechanism, i.e. via single flight or excursion.[^4] If the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of a channel is optically thick to the Doppler core, but optically thin to the Lorentzian wing, Ly$\alpha$ photons escape via a single flight after the frequency is shifted out of the core. Such escape is dominant in low-${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$ channels with $${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\lesssim\frac{1}{\sigma_{\alpha,0}\phi(x_*)}\approx7\times10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2},
\begin{tabular}{c}
\small escape via single flight \\[-0.1cm]
\small after core scatterings
\end{tabular}$$ where $x_*=3.26$ is the core-wing transition frequency at $T=10^4\rm~K$. On the other hand, if the gas remains optically thick far in the wing, Ly$\alpha$ photons primarily escape via diffusion in the frequency space after multiple wing scatterings, that is, via excursion. This escape is dominant in high-${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$ channels with [@Neufeld90; @Dijkstra06] $${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\gtrsim\frac{10^3}{\sigma_{\alpha,0}a_v}\approx4\times10^{19}\rm~cm^{-2},
\begin{tabular}{c}
\small escape via excursion \\[-0.1cm]
\small after wing scatterings
\end{tabular}$$ where $a_v=4.7\times10^{-4}$ is the Voigt parameter at $T=10^4\rm~K$. The resulting Ly$\alpha$ spectrum in the RHD turbulence is therefore controlled by the combination of the above mechanisms.
{width="1.21\columnwidth"} {width="1.13\columnwidth"}
In summary, the above Ly$\alpha$ transfer mechanism in a turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region produces diverse Ly$\alpha$ line profiles, including narrow double peak profiles with high LyC escape fractions. In Figure \[fig:Lya\] we show a case that reproduces the observed Ly$\alpha$ profile of a $z{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}0.3$ LyC-leaking galaxy [J1154+2443, @Izotov2018a]. Although we admittedly chose a simulation that resembles the observation, the match is worth noting given that the required multiphase structure and the subsequent Ly$\alpha$ transfer naturally emerge from a RHD turbulence simulation representing the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region in a GMC.
To understand the formation mechanism of Ly$\alpha$ spectra in detail, in Figure \[fig:spec2d\] we have decomposed three representative Ly$\alpha$ spectra as a function of the integrated ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density seen by each Ly$\alpha$ photon. ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm Ly\alpha}}$ is the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density integrated along a path of a Ly$\alpha$ photon. This allows us to quantify the contributions of Ly$\alpha$ photons escaped through various paths to the total Ly$\alpha$ profiles (top insets). Because a Ly$\alpha$ photon travels in a zigzag path through a medium by scatterings, its integrated path is longer than the length of the simulation box, leading ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm Ly\alpha}}$ to be generally larger than the physical ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}$. Figure \[fig:spec2d\] clearly shows that the two distinct passages of Ly$\alpha$ photons through density- and ionization-bound channels contribute differently to the various components (peaks and broad wings) of the Ly$\alpha$ profile. The origin of each component is detailed below.
Origin of the Peak Separation
-----------------------------
In a LyC-leaking ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, the Ly$\alpha$ peak separation is determined by *the [H[*I*]{}]{} column density and temperature of the photoionized LyC escaping channels*. Figure \[fig:spec2d\] shows that when a system shows a high LyC leakage $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\gtrsim10\%$, the Ly$\alpha$ photons propagating through density-bound channels dominate the location of the Ly$\alpha$ peaks, whereas when there are no or few holes through which LyC photon can escape, the broad peak separation is produced. In the latter case, as the majority of the I-fronts are still bound within a cloud, the most of Ly$\alpha$ photons need to escape by scattering through optically thick, ionization-bound channels of ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}>10^{21}\rm~cm^{-2}$. This inevitably leads to a broad Ly$\alpha$ peak separation and low LyC escape fraction. On the other hand, the formation of a narrow peak separation occurs as soon as the LyC escape channels open up, and Ly$\alpha$ photons can escape through paths of lower column density [@Dijkstra16a; @Eide18]. As this can happen before the breakout of the average I-fronts $t<t_{\rm break}$, the separation remains approximately constant even after the breakout ($\Delta v_{\rm peak}\approx 100-200\rm~km~s^{-1}$). This reflects the fact that the peak separation is controlled by the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the photoionized channels, but not by the total averaged ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ of the entire medium $\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle$ (cf. Figure \[fig:fesc\_NHI\]).
The resulting correlation between the peak separation and LyC escape fraction is shown in Figure \[fig:fesc-lya\]. The simulations show the anti-correlation in agreement with the observed trend [@Verhamme17; @Izotov2018b]. The three representative Ly$\alpha$ spectra (see Figure \[fig:spec2d\]) occupy different regions of the diagram, illustrating how different LyC leakage mechanisms can lead to the Ly$\alpha$ peak separation - LyC escape fraction correlation.
The peak separation of a LyC-leaking ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region can be estimated analytically. Because at the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the density-bound channels ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\approx10^{17-18}\rm~cm^{-2}$, the gas is optically thin to the wing, Ly$\alpha$ photons escape freely once the frequency is shifted out of the Doppler core (i.e. via single flight). Therefore by solving $\tau_\alpha=\tau_{\alpha,0}e^{-x^2}<1$ we find the escape frequency of $x>\sqrt{\ln\tau_{\alpha,0}}$ . The peak separation is then estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta v_{\rm peak}&=2c_{\rm s,II}\sqrt{\ln\sigma_{\alpha,0}\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}}, \nonumber \\
&\simeq25.6T_4^{1/2}\sqrt{\ln\left(\frac{\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}}{1.7\times10^{13}T_4^{1/2}\rm~cm^{-2}}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating at the values found in the simulation $\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}=2.4\times10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2}$ and $T=2\times10^4\rm~K$ we find $$\Delta v_{\rm peak}\approx110\rm~km~s^{-1}$$ in agreement with the simulated peak separation. Note that, in this case, the peak separation depends weakly on the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the channels ranging only ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}90-120\rm~km~s^{-1}$ over $16<\log_{10}{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}/{\rm cm^{-2}}<18$, but more sensitively on the temperature of the channels to nearly $\propto T^{1/2}$ (more precisely, the Doppler $b$-parameter). The peak separation can vary from ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}80$ to $235\rm~km~s^{-1}$ over $T=10^{4-5}\rm~K$ ($b=12.8-40.5\rm~km~s^{-1}$). This is a direct consequence of the Doppler core scattering. As a corollary, it is possible that the leakage of hot gas through the channels in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions [@Lopez11; @Lopez14] to elevate the Ly$\alpha$ peak separation. This contrasts with the estimate $\Delta v_{\rm peak}\simeq300T_4^{1/6}({N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}/10^{20}{\rm cm^{-2}})^{1/3}\rm~km~s^{-1}$ for ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\gtrsim10^{18}\rm~cm^{-2}$ [e.g. @Adams72; @Dijkstra17] where the peak separation depends mostly on the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density. This regime is only valid when Ly$\alpha$ photons escape via excursion, thus only applies to an ionization-bound dominated system with high ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ coverage in nearly all directions. This dichotomy is in accordance with the Monte-Carlo calculation of @Verhamme15 where the peak separation of a homogeneous shell spans these two regimes depending on the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column densities.
The fact that the Ly$\alpha$ peak separation of a high LyC leaking medium reflects the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the escape channels instead of the average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ of the system has an observational implication. 21-cm observation reveals abundant ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ gas of mass $M_{\rm HI}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^{7-9}\rm~M_\sun$ in blue compact dwarf galaxies [@Thuan16; @McKinney19] and in the LARS sample selected to be comparable to high-$z$ LAEs and LBGs [@Pardy14; @Pardy16; @Puschnig17]. This corresponds to the average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of $\langle{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\rangle{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}5\times10^{19}{\rm~cm^{-2}}(M_{\rm HI}/10^7{\rm~M_\sun})(R/5\rm~kpc)^{-2}$. At face value this seems to exceed the value that allows narrow Ly$\alpha$ peak separation and high LyC leakage. This, however, can be explained if a galaxy consists of an ensemble of LyC-leaking ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions that are multiphase, for example, those generated by the RHD turbulence. In such a system, while the Ly$\alpha$ peak separation and LyC leakage are regulated by escape of the photons through low column density channels, the majority of ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ still resides in the neutral phase, keeping the average ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the system high as observed by the 21-cm line. Similar argument may apply for the high ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ coverage found in GRB-host galaxies [@Tanvir19]. However as both the covering fraction and the derived column density depends on the modelling of the absorption lines, we defer the detailed comparison to future work.
Origin of the Peak Asymmetry {#sec:peak_shape}
----------------------------
The Ly$\alpha$ peak asymmetry also reflects the multiphase nature of the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions. When Ly$\alpha$ escapes, some of Ly$\alpha$ photons need to undergo multiple scattering events through optically thick channels before the complete I-front breakout occurs. These photons diffuse more in frequency space and produces a broad wing component ($|v|\gtrsim250\rm~km~s^{-1}$) to the emergent Ly$\alpha$ profile. This component is clearly seen in Figure \[fig:spec2d\] when the optically thick ionization-bound channels exist.
The presence of multiple routes of Ly$\alpha$ escape can be quantified by the asymmetry parameter of the red Ly$\alpha$ peak, $A_f$, defined as the ratio of the blue-to-red flux of the red peak, $$A_f=\frac{\int_{\lambda_{\rm peak}^{\rm red}}^\infty f_\lambda d\lambda}{\int_{\lambda_{\rm valley}}^{\lambda_{\rm peak}^{\rm red}} f_\lambda d\lambda}$$ where $f_\lambda$ is the flux, $\lambda_{\rm peak}^{\rm red}$ is the wavelength at the red peak and $\lambda_{\rm valley}$ is the wavelength at the minimum between red and blue peaks. This is similar to the asymmetry statistics introduced by @Rhoads03. Figure \[fig:fesc-lya\] shows the relation between the red peak asymmetry parameter and LyC escape fraction. The shaded regions in the diagram mark the approximate regions occupied by the different LyC leakage mechanisms (associated with the three representative Ly$\alpha$ spectra shown in Figure \[fig:spec2d\]). The simulations indicate that the Ly$\alpha$ peak asymmetry is high ($A_f\gtrsim3$) when both optically thin and thick channels co-exist whereas the asymmetry is low ($A_f\lesssim3$) when the medium is dominated either by ionization-bound channels or density-bound channels, in which only one type of Ly$\alpha$ escape is possible (either via single flight or excursion). This means that the anisotropic LyC leakage through holes in a turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region and isotropic LyC leakage from a fully density-bound ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region can be distinguishable by the measurement of the peak asymmetry. While the both mechanisms allow a high LyC escape fraction $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\gtrsim10~\%$, the former favors a high asymmetry parameter ($A_f\gtrsim3$) whereas the latter is associated with a low asymmetry parameter ($A_f\lesssim3$).
We have measured the red peak asymmetry parameter using the archival COS Ly$\alpha$ spectra of the $z{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}0.3$ LyC-detected sample of @Izotov2016 [@Izotov2018a; @Izotov2018b] (see Appendix B). Comparison with the simulation suggests that there may be a tentative trend indicating various LyC leakage mechanisms in the observed LyC-detected galaxies. The detailed analysis of the individual objects with the synthetic ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions is needed to confirm the trend.
Role of Outflow and Turbulence on Ly$\alpha$ Line
-------------------------------------------------
In order to examine the effect of kinematics on the Ly$\alpha$ line profile, Figure \[fig:vel\_effect\] compares the two sets of the Monte-Carlo Ly$\alpha$ RT simulations with and without the velocity fields from the RHD turbulence.
The outflow driven by the photoionization heating (and radiation pressure) produces the enhancement of the red peak relative to the blue peak. The effect of outflow on the line profile is well known [e.g. @Dijkstra06; @Verhamme06]. Here, the enhancement is modest as the outflow velocity $\langle v\rangle_{\rm outflow}$ is only a few tens of $\rm~km~s^{-1}$ corresponding to approximately the expansion velocity of the I-front. Note that our RHD turbulence simulations show a double-peaked profile because the outflow velocity of the photoionized channel is $$\langle v\rangle_{\rm outflow}<b\sqrt{\ln\sigma_{\alpha,0}\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}},$$ where $b\sqrt{\ln\sigma_{\alpha,0}\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}}\approx40T_4^{1/2}\rm km~s^{-1}$ at $\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}=2.4\times10^{17}\rm~cm^{-2}$ ($b\approx c_{\rm s,II}$, see below). At this modest outflow velocity, the gas remains optically thick to the Ly$\alpha$ photons emitted at line center. Therefore the photons will be absorbed and undergo core scatterings before escape. On the other hand, if the outflow velocity becomes faster such that $\langle v\rangle_{\rm outflow}>b\sqrt{\ln\sigma_{\alpha,0}\bar{N}_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}},\rm channel}}$, the photoionized channels are no longer optical thick to the photons emitted at line center, which now can freely escape without any interaction. Therefore, we expect if the photoionized gas is accelerated further by other (stellar) feedback the emergent Ly$\alpha$ profile will show a single peak component with a large Ly$\alpha$ flux at line center.
![The influence of the gas kinematics of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region on Ly$\alpha$ line profile. The Ly$\alpha$ spectra from the Monte-Carlo Ly$\alpha$ simulation based on `V18S_f2e11_RHD` including velocity field (solid) and without velocity field (dashed) are shown for the three representative snapshots.[]{data-label="fig:vel_effect"}](lya_velocity_field_effect.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:vel\_effect\] the effect of turbulent velocity on the peak separation appears small. This is somewhat surprising as the naïve inclusion of the turbulence via a simple rescaling of the Dopper $b$-parameter, $\Delta v_{\rm peak}\propto b={c_{\rm s,II}}\sqrt{1+\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}^2}$ suggests nearly ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}50\%$ increase in the peak separation ($\sqrt{1+\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}^2}=1.49$ at $\mathcal{M_{\rm II}}\approx1.1$ for the fiducial run) which is not what we observe in the simulation. To understand correctly we need to note that core scattering of Ly$\alpha$ photons happens at small scale of the order of mean free path $\lambda_{\rm mfp}^{\rm core}=1/(\sigma_{\alpha,0}{n_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}})$, or in the unit of the length of slab $\lambda_{\rm mfp}^{\rm core}/L=1/\tau_{\alpha,0}$. On the other hand, the rms Mach number refers to the turbulent velocity dispersion measured at the driving scale, i.e. at the length scale of slab $L$. The turbulence cascade transfers energy from large to small scale with the velocity dispersion decreasing to smaller scales. The velocity dispersion at the length scale $\ell$ is $$\sigma_v(\ell)=c_{\rm s,II}\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell_s}\right)^{(n-1)/2},$$ where $\ell_s$ is the sonic length and $n$ is the power-law index of the velocity power spectrum $P_v(k)\propto k^{-n}$ ($n=5/3$ for subsonic and $n=2$ for supersonic turbulence, e.g. @Krumholz14 for a review). Therefore the velocity dispersion at the scale of core mean free path is $$\sigma_v(\lambda_{\rm mfp}^{\rm core}){\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}c_{\rm s,II}\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}\tau_{\alpha,0}^{-(n-1)/2}.$$ Thus, we argue that more appropriate inclusion of turbulence on the Doppler $b$-parameter is $$b=c_{\rm s,II}\sqrt{1+\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}^2\tau_{\alpha,0}^{-(n-1)}}\approx c_{\rm s,II},$$ As $\tau_{\alpha,0}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^4$ along the photoionized channels the turbulent velocity dispersion becomes negligibly small due to the turbulence cascade to the small scale of core scattering.[^5] Thus, to the first order, the effect of turbulent on the peak separation remain small. A more precise estimate would defer from this as the turbulent velocity field is spatially correlated. We do not examine the precise influence of turbulence on spectral line [@Mihalas1978; @Silantev06], which may become increasingly important for a highly supersonic ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region ($\mathcal{M_{\rm II}}\gg1$).
Shocked [H[*I*]{}]{} Shell and Fermi Acceleration?
--------------------------------------------------
![The formation and destruction of the shocked ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell in a turbulent medium. Projected maps of gas density $n_{\rm H}$, mass-weighted temperature $T$ and ionized fraction ${x_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 2@}}}}$, $x$-velocity $v_x$, and the Mach number of the local rms velocity dispersion for the three simulations with different turbulent velocities (left: `V2S_f2e11_RHD`, middle: `V9S_f2e11_RHD`, right: `V18S_f2e11_RHD`) are shown. All the snapshots are at 0.10 Myr.[]{data-label="fig:kinematics_map"}](kinematics_map_comparison.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We end by discussing the formation and destruction of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell upon the propagation of the D-type I-front and the influence on the Ly$\alpha$ profile. In a homogeneous medium, the D-type I-front creates a shell of neutral hydrogen by the propagation of the photoheated shock front at the boundary of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region , providing a probable mechanism for the classic shell model of Ly$\alpha$ line. However, in a turbulent medium, this ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell is constantly perturbed by the turbulent flow as the I-front shock propagates the system, making its fate unclear.
Figure \[fig:kinematics\_map\] shows the structure across the I-front for different turbulent velocities, indicating that a ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell-like structure is disturbed for increasing turbulence. As the velocity of the shocked shell is of the order of sound speed $v_{\rm sh}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}c_{s,\rm II}\simeq12.8T_4^{1/2}\rm~km~s^{-1}$, with increasing turbulent velocities, the timescale of the supersonic turbulent mixing becomes comparable to or faster than the speed that I-front shock sweeps up the neutral material $\sigma_v>v_{\rm sh}$. This causes the I-front shock to be constantly destroyed and mixed up with the neutral turbulent gas ahead of the I-front as soon as the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell develops. The simulations indicate this is the case; the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell is not formed for a higher Mach number. For a lower Mach number, the remnant of the shell structure is still visible and would survive of the order of Eddy turnover timescale.
This dispersal of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell and the small shock velocity limit the efficiency of the blue wings and bumps production via Fermi-like acceleration of Ly$\alpha$ photons across shock fronts . In principle, the Fermi-accelerated Ly$\alpha$ contribute to blueshifted components at ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}n v_{\rm sh}$ after $n$ crossings of a shock front [@Chung16]. However, as the shock velocity of the D-type I-front is small, even after several shock crossing the Fermi-accelerated Ly$\alpha$ photons only gain blueshifts of ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}25-80{\rm~km~s^{-1}}$. The gas outside the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region is optically thick to these blueshifted photons with high column densities of ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}>10^{21}\rm~cm^{-2}$. Therefore the substantial frequency-space diffusion of several hundreds of $\rm~km~s^{-1}$ occurs by the subsequent scatterings through the ambient ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ gas, effectively erasing the blueshifted component by the Fermi-acceleration. In fact, estimated that for Fermi-accelerated blue peak to exceed the typical frequency diffusion of a slab, the shock velocity need to exceed $v_{\rm sh}>40T_{4}^{1/2}\rm~km~s^{-1}$. This value is hard to satisfy by the shock generated by the D-type I-front. Indeed, all our simulations show no noticeable effect of Fermi acceleration on the emergent Ly$\alpha$ profile. We expect that, in order for the production of Fermi-accelerated blue wings and bumps to be effective, other form of feedback such as supernova blastwave or stellar winds in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region is required to accelerate the shocked ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ shell to a several hundreds of $\rm km~s^{-1}$ before being destroyed by turbulence.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Missing Physics: Dust
---------------------
We have employed an idealised RHD turbulence simulation in order to study the development of I-front and the associated LyC leakage and the Ly$\alpha$ line. We have ignored the effect of dust, metal line cooling, stellar wind, and gravity as well as the hydrodynamic instabilities associated with these missing physical processes. Here we discuss the limitations of our simulations and caveats.
Following the simple model assuming dust is perfectly mixed with gas, we find that the dust cross section per hydrogen atom is well approximated by $\sigma_{\rm dust}(\lambda)\simeq5.3\times10^{-22}(\lambda/912$Å$)^{-1}(Z/0.25\,Z_\odot)\rm~cm^2~H^{-1}$ over $800$Å$<\lambda<1500$Å [@Gnedin08].[^6] The dust cross section is four order of magnitude lower than photoionization cross section. In photoionized channels, however, as the optical depth at Lyman limit is $\tau_L=\sigma_L{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}\left[1+\sigma_{\rm dust}{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}/(\sigma_L{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}})\right]$ where $\sigma_{\rm dust}{N_{\mbox{\tiny H}}}/(\sigma_L{N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}})=0.84(Z/0.25~Z_\odot)({x_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}/10^{-4})^{-1}$, the dust extinction can become comparable to the absorption by photoionization. For a system with a metallicity higher than $Z\geq0.3({x_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}/10^{-4})Z_\odot$, LyC leakage becomes increasingly suppressed by the absorption by dust. Strictly speaking, our idealised RHD turbulence simulation should therefore be only applicable for a metal-poor system with $Z<0.3({x_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}/10^{-4})Z_\odot$ where dust extinction becomes negligible. Furthermore, there are observational evidence that the dust-to-gas ratio may drop more rapidly than the linear extrapolation $\sigma_{\rm dust}\propto Z$ assumed here below $12+\log\rm O/H\leq8$ [@Remy-Ruyer14]. As we are concerned with metal-poor LyC-leaking systems ($12+\log\rm O/H\lesssim8$, i.e. $Z=0.2Z_\odot$, @Izotov2016 [@Izotov2018b]) and those analogous to reionisation-era galaxies [@Nakajima16; @Senchyna17], this condition is reasonably met. Therefore, our conclusion should be minimally affected by the complication by dust.
However, the effect of dust on the Ly$\alpha$ line properties can be complex. The abundance and distribution of dust controls the Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction [@Neufeld90]. Furthermore, dust can also affect the Ly$\alpha$ line shape as the level of dust attenuation is usually a function of the emergent frequency [@Neufeld90; @Laursen09]. In the case when the dust is perfectly mixed with the neutral hydrogen, for instance, photons with an overall longer trajectory are more prone to destruction by dust. This can lead to an increased global asymmetry of the emergent spectrum, e.g. in the context of a homogeneous shell or slab the dust content can change the ratio of the peak fluxes for a double peaked profile [e.g. @Gronke15]. For similar reasons, an increased dust content will make the individual peaks narrower (as photons further in the wing had a longer path length through neutral hydrogen and are thus more prone to destruction). This implies that the red peak asymmetry defined in § \[sec:peak\_shape\] will be lowered in such a scenario. However, while in Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer studies it is frequently assumed that the dust number density is proportional to the neutral hydrogen, dust creation and destruction mechanisms are lead likely to a (Ly$\alpha$-affecting) dust distribution which is far more complex than this. For instance, dust may survive in ionized regions (given they are not too hot), or it clumps on small-scales due to streaming instabilities. We, therefore, leave the study of the imprint of dust on the Ly$\alpha$-LyC connection for future work.
Missing Physics:\
Metal Cooling, Winds, and Hydrodynamic Instabilities
----------------------------------------------------
The metal line cooling introduces an interesting complication to the problem. If the neutral shocked shell ahead of the D-type I-front can radiatively cool by metal lines, the shocked gas is prone to fragmentation via a so-called [*thin-shell instability*]{} . This facilitates to open cranks in the shell and allows further escape of radiation through the channels. The growth of the thin-shell instability depends the availability of efficient cooling mechanisms beyond primordial hydrogen and helium coolings . Since we have ignored the effect of cooling by metal lines, such mode of instability is inhibited by design.
There are other instabilities and winds that may influence the structure of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. Under a gravitational field, the Rayleigh-Taylor instability can also develop as rarefied ionized gas pushed the dense ambient neutral medium , which, if operate on the relavent timescale, can further contribute to the fluctuation of the I-fronts. The metal-line driven stellar winds of massive stars can inject fast outflow into the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, which can produce a hot X-ray emitting gas of ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^6\rm~K$ by the clumping and shocks in the outflowing gas amplified by the line-deshadowing instability [e.g. @Owocki2015]. The wind-blown bubble can further evacuate the gas through openings of low column density channels, in which both hot gas and radiation can leak out more efficiently . Again this will likely amplify the fluctuation of the I-fronts and the multiphase structure of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions that are initially seeded by turbulence. Inclusion of metal line cooling, stellar winds, and gravity would therefore lead to the amplification of the I-front inhomogeneities, probably allowing more escape of radiation, and alter the emergent Ly$\alpha$ spectra. However, as we have studied the the development of I-front in a [*driven*]{} turbulence medium, the growth of the instabilities is subject to constant destruction by the external turbulent mixing over the Eddy turnover timescale. Thus, it still remains unclear what the exact impacts of the instabilities and winds under an external source of turbulence are and how they ultimately influence the LyC leakage and Ly$\alpha$ spectra.
Influence of Turbulence on Other Nebular Lines
----------------------------------------------
The intense nebular $[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]$+H$\beta$ and ${{\rm He\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ emission lines are often associated characteristics of reionization-era galaxies and LyC-leaking galaxies. As discussed in Section \[sec:result\], supersonic turbulence in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region can induce density fluctuations. Since the nebular recombination lines scale as $\propto n_e^2$, this may lead to the enhanced nebular emission line luminosity, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm neb}&=\gamma_{\rm neb}(T)\bar{n}_e^2 \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{M}_{\rm II})V_{\rm HII}, \nonumber \\
&\approx\gamma_{\rm neb}(T)\bar{n}_e^2\left[1+\left(\frac{\mathcal{M}_{\rm II}}{3}\right)^2\right]V_{\rm HII},\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{\rm neb}(T)$ is the emission coefficient and $V_{\rm HII}$ is the volume of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. For example, a high velocity dispersion medium with $\mathcal{M_{\rm II}}=3$ (i.e. $\sigma_v\approx38\rm~km~s^{-1}$) could lead to a factor of two boost in the emission line luminosity. The equivalent width of the emission line could also be boosted accordingly.
have examined the impact of turbulence on the line ratios in detail by incorporating the non-equilibrium chemistry. They have shown that a high turbulent velocity can generally increase the nebular emission line ratios due to the the associated temperature fluctuations, which mimics the effect of harder stellar sources in the locus of nebular diagnostic diagrams. Because we have neglected metals and assumed the isothermal equation of state, this effect is missing from our simulations. These clumping and thermal fluctuations may complicate the relation between LyC escape fractions and $[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]/[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle II}}}]$ ratios [@Izotov2016; @Faisst16] and may contribute to the observed scatter in the $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}-[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]/[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle II}}}]$ correlation [@Naidu18; @Bassett19].
For Ly$\alpha$ line profiles of Green peas galaxies, when interpreted with homogeneous shell models, the required intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ line width exceed that of observed H$\beta$ line width (${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}130-230\rm~km~s^{-1}$) for successful fit to the data, which causes problematic fits when the consistency with H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and/or $[{{\rm O\,{\scriptstyle III}}}]~\lambda5007$ line widths is required (@Yang16 [@Yang17; @Orlitova18], but see @Gronke18). For a turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, a narrow Ly$\alpha$ injection at line center can produce both narrow peak separation through photoionized channels and broad wing component by multiple scatterings through optically thick channels. As the turbulence line broadening of the ionized gas is of the order of tens of $\rm km~s^{-1}$, the observed H$\beta$ line width can still accommodate the turbulence broadening within individual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions as well as the contributions from thermal broadening and the velocity dispersion of multiple ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions in a galaxy.
Overall, it is important to include the effect of turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions on the nebular emission lines in stellar+${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region population synthesis modelling to understand the observed relations between LyC, Ly$\alpha$, and nebular emission line properties.
Scale of LyC Leakage: Observational Test with the Magellanic Systems and Local Blue Compact Dwarfs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The picture that LyC leakage from the ISM of a galaxy is controlled by the escape fractions through molecular clouds assumes that a major source of opacity in the ISM comes from GMCs rather than diffuse gas in between them, arguing that $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}\approx \langle f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}\rangle$ where $$\langle f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}\rangle\equiv\frac{\displaystyle\int \dot{N}_{\rm ion}(M_{\rm cl})f^{\rm LyC}_{\rm esc}(M_{\rm cl})\frac{d\mathcal{N}}{dM_{\rm cl}}dM_{\rm cl} }{\displaystyle\int \dot{N}_{\rm ion}(M_{\rm cl})\frac{d\mathcal{N}}{dM_{\rm cl}}dM_{\rm cl}},$$ where $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}$ is the galactic escape fraction that is averaged over an entire galaxy, $f^{\rm LyC}_{\rm esc}(M_{\rm cl})$ is the escape fraction from a GMC of mass $M_{\rm cl}$, and $d\mathcal{N}/dM_{\rm cl}$ is the mass distribution of the GMCs. We discuss a way to test the spatial scale responsible for LyC leakage and the associated feedback in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions.
The galactic escape fraction can be inferred from the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission from the CGM of a galaxy . This approach was applied to the two local dwarf galaxies, Small and Large Magellanic Clouds, of the Milky Way by @Barger13. They find that the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission from the Magellanic Bridge – the diffuse gas inbetween the Magellanic Clouds – shows an excess H$\alpha$ surface brightness from the diffuse gas that cannot be explained by the photoinization from the escaping ionizing radiation from the the Milky Way (cf. a few per cent $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}$, ) and the extragalactic UV background . By attributing the H$\alpha$ emission by the photonization due to the LyC photons leaking from the Magellanic Clouds, they placed an upper limits to the escape fraction of $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}<4.0\%$ for LMC and $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}<5.5\%$ for SMC. As this measures the LyC photons arrived at the Magellanic Bridge after escaping out of the Magellanic Clouds, this provides a measure of ‘galactic’ escape fraction.
On the other hand, escape fractions from individual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions in a galaxy can be measured by estimating the direct ionizing photon production rate of the massive stars (by direct stellar spectroscopy or spectral energy distribution fitting) and the recombination rate in each ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. As the nebular H$\alpha$ luminosity of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region is proportional to the amount of ionising photons absorbed (recombined) in the region, each escape fraction can be estimated by $f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}=(\dot{N}_{\rm ion}-\dot{N}_{\rm rec})/\dot{N}_{\rm ion}$. The application of the method to the LMC indicates that the brightest ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, 30 Doradus, has an escape fraction of $f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}6^{+55}_{-6}\%$ [@Doran13]. The individual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region’s escape fractions varies enormously from an object to an object; for example, the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region complexes N44 and N180 show escape fractions as large as $f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}40-80\%$ [@McLeod18]. Each ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region can be classified via line ratios to ionization- or density-bound nebula using the ionization parameter mapping and, when the indirect measure of $f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}$ is averaged over the all ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions, it has been suggested that the population-averaged escape fraction is $\langle f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}\rangle{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}42\%$ for the LMC [@Pellegrini12].
If this value of $\langle f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}\rangle$ is compared to the estimate of $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}$, at face value, it seems that additional ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}90\%$ of LyC absorption by the diffuse ISM between the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions is required to give the observed galactic escape fraction. Unfortunately, the uncertainties including the recently revised extragalactic UV background value [e.g. @Shull15; @Khaire19] and various differing assumptions make it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. The above argument nonetheless should illustrate a way in which the mechanism of LyC leakage could be tested observationally. Given the similarity of the central star-forming region NGC2070 of 30 Doradus to the local LyC-leaking and Green Pea galaxies in their emission line and star formation properties [@Crowther17], the modern integral-field spectroscopic census of ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions of the Magellanic Clouds and the revised homogeneous analysis of $f_{\rm esc,GMC}^{\rm LyC}$ and $f_{\rm esc,gal}^{\rm LyC}$ will be extremely useful to examine the physical mechanism and scale of LyC leakage, with which the system’s LyC leakage can also be correlated with the stellar feedback mechanisms in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions including photoionization heating, radiation pressure, and stellar winds by massive stars [@Lopez11; @Lopez14; @McLeod18].
The similar method should be applicable for nearby blue compact dwarf galaxies for which the individual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions and the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission from the halos may be examined by narrow band imaging and/or deep integral field spectroscopy. The closely related approach was already taken by @Weilbacher18 who examined the LyC leakage from the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions in the Antennae galaxy and @Menacho19 who reported the diffuse H$\alpha$ halo around a LyC-leaking galaxy, Haro 11. Such observational sample should provide a valuable spatially resolved reference sample for reionization-era galaxies to test the role of turbulence and stellar feedback on LyC leakage and to help the interpretation of future observations with [*JWST*]{} and Extremely Large Telescopes (ELT).
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have examined the physical origin of LyC leakage and the associated Ly$\alpha$ spectra through turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions using fully-coupled radiation hydrodynamic simulations, representing the growth of the ionization front in a GMC. Using a series of RHD turbulence simulations with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> in a plane-parallel geometry where the turbulence is constantly driven on the large scale (${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}$ parsec), we have computed LyC escape fractions and calculated the associated Ly$\alpha$ spectra using the Monte-Carlo radiative transfer code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tlac</span>, whereby their correlations with ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction, gas kinematics, and spectral hardness of ionising sources and the roles of turbulence and radiative feedback are examined in detail.
We find that LyC photons escape through turbulence-generated low column density channels in a ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region which are evacuated efficiently by radiative feedback induced by shocks due to the photoionization heating across the D-type I-fronts. Both turbulence [*and*]{} radative feedback are key ingredients for regulating the LyC leakage. Because both processes can operate just after the birth of massive stars, high LyC leakage can be achieved at early times before the onset of supernova feedback. This mechanism generates a time variable LyC escape fraction which anti-correlates with the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction, and correlates with turbulence velocities and spectral hardness of the sources. As the LyC photons recombine through the low column density channels, the resulting escape fraction deviates from the $1-f_{\rm cov}$ expectation. This confirms that while a low ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction is a necessary condition for high LyC leakage, it only provides an upper limit to the actual escape fraction. The turbulent gas kinematics influences the escape fraction by modifying the densities through the photoionized channels, which generally lead to increasing escape fractions with higher turbulence velocities at a given ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ covering fraction and spectral hardness.
The emergent Ly$\alpha$ spectra correlates with the LyC leakage mechanism, reflecting the porosity and multiphase structure of the turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions. Ly$\alpha$ photons funnel through the photoionized channels in which LyC photons escape. Depending on the availability of the ionization- and density-bound channels which are regulated by turbulence and radiative feedback, the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions produce diverse Ly$\alpha$ spectral morphology including narrow double-peaked profiles. For a LyC-leaking ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region, instead of the total ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density of the system, the Ly$\alpha$ peak separation is set by the residual ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density and temperature of the photoionized channels. This means that it is possible to have a system with a narrow Ly$\alpha$ peak separation and high LyC leakage, while retains a relatively high ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ mass on average. The peak asymmetry reflects the porosity of the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. A low asymmetry is often associated with both density- and ionization-bound dominated systems whereas a high asymmetry is associated with a mixed system of the two phases as the multiple routes of Ly$\alpha$ escape are available. It may therefore be possible to distinguish anisotropic LyC leakage through holes and isotropic leakage from a fully density-bound medium using the red peak asymmetry as a diagnostic.
In summary, radiative transfer through LyC-leaking ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions in turbulent molecular clouds provides an appealing picture to interpret the observed Ly$\alpha$ spectra of LyC-leaking galaxies and provide a natural mechanism to explain some of the observed Ly$\alpha$ spectral characteristics. This provides an appealing hypothesis to explain high LyC leakage and Ly$\alpha$ spectra observed in very young star-forming galaxies in the local Universe without need of extreme galactic outflows or supernova feedback. Although the diffuse ISM and CGM will clearly add additional complexities to the observed LyC leakage and Ly$\alpha$ spectral properties, it is worth emphasizing the importance of the physical processes in ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions and GMCs that are poorly resolved components in galaxy formation simulations and often treated only in a simplified manner in stellar population synthesis tools and photoionization modeling used for the analysis of observed galaxies.
The connection between turbulence and stellar feedback in ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions, LyC leakage, Ly$\alpha$ spectra, and nebular emission lines is testable with integral field spectroscopic studies of blue compact dwarf galaxies and the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions in the Magellanic Clouds. These targets are valuable laboratories for reionization-era systems. In order to correctly interpret the upcoming [*JWST*]{} and ELT observation of high-redshift galaxies, it is critical to incorporate the impact of turbulent ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions and the associated LyC, Ly$\alpha$ and rest-frame UV-to-optical line properties self-consistently in the stellar population synthesis modeling. Further theoretical and observational investigations are needed. The future prospects include providing a spectral library of ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions using RHD simulations for population synthesis and the calibration against the spatially resolved studies of ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ regions and nearby dwarfs as analogs of reionization-era galaxies.
We thank Sam Geen, Brant Robertson, Jeremy Blaizot, and Richard Ellis for helpful discussions and comments. Special thanks goes to Joki Rosdahl for discussion and technical questions regarding <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> as well as Romain Teyssier and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses</span> user community for making the code public and actively maintaining it. KK acknowledge financial support from European Research Council Advanced Grant FP7/669253. MG was supported by by NASA through the NASA Hubble Fellowship grant \#HST-HF2-51409 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555. MG thanks the Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Oslo for their hospitality. This work is based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. The simulation was undertaken using the UCL Grace High Performance Computing Facility (Grace@UCL) and we thank the associated support services.
Appendix A\
Turbulence forcing method {#app:A .unnumbered}
=========================
We implemented the turbulence forcing scheme to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> to enable the fully coupled radiation hydrodynamical simulations of a driven turbulence medium. In our implementation we perturb the momentum and the gas energy density ten times per eddy turnover timescale $T=L/(2V_{\rm rms})$ where $V_{\rm rms}$ is a simulation parameter. Every updates are given by $$\begin{aligned}
(\rho\boldsymbol{v})^{n+1}=(\rho\boldsymbol{v})^n+\rho^n\delta\boldsymbol{v} \\
E^{n+1}=E^n+(\rho\boldsymbol{v})^n\cdot\delta\boldsymbol{v}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta\boldsymbol{v}$ is a Gaussian random field. We have chosen this reduced frequency of turbulence forcing update scheme so as to reduce computational cost. We generate the velocity perturbation field using two different methods.
The first method is the one used by , which is in turn based on @Kritsuk07. The random velocity perturbation field is generated by $$\delta\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}(\boldsymbol{k})=\hat{\sigma}_v(\boldsymbol{k})\boldsymbol{\mathsf{P}}_\zeta(\boldsymbol{k})\boldsymbol{n}(\boldsymbol{k})$$ where $\boldsymbol{n}(\boldsymbol{k})$ is the Fourier transform of a white noise field, $\hat{\sigma}_v(\boldsymbol{k})$ is the injection power spectrum, which we chose a flat spectrum over $1<k<k_0$ but otherwise zero. The normalisation of the injection spectrum is chosen such that the rms of the forcing field $\langle\left|\delta\boldsymbol{v}\right|^2\rangle^{1/2}=V_{\rm rms}$. A Helmholz decomposition is done by applying the projection tensor $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{P}}$, for which each component is given by [@Federrath10] $$\mathsf{P}_{ij}(\boldsymbol{k})=\zeta\delta_{ij}+(1-2\zeta)\frac{k_i k_j}{|k|^2},$$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. The white noise field is newly generated at every update times. Thus, this method generates forcing fields that are completely independent in time. Every turbulent perturbations are indepedent from previous timesteps. The resulting velocity dispersion of the turbulent flow is then measured directly from the simulation output.
![The map of ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle I}}}$ column density fluctuations in a driven isothermal turbulence simulation of $\mathcal{M}\approx6$ flow. The $256^3$ simulation with solenoidal forcing and the box size is 5 pc on a side.[]{data-label="fig:test1"}](isothermal_turbulence256_solenoidal_Mach6_Lbox5pc.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![The volume-weighted PDF of gas density contrasts. The average PDF after $>1T$ is indicated by the red line, and the PDF of each snapshot is shown in blue. The log-normal PDF indicated by the black line.[]{data-label="fig:test2"}](PDF_isothermal_turbulence256_solenoidal_Mach6_Lbox5pc.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
To test the forcing algorithm, we run $256^3$ uniform grid hydrodynamical simulation of supersonic isothermal turbulence in a periodic box of size 5 pc on a side. The simulation was run for five turnover time $5T$ and the outputs are recored every $0.1T$ intervals. Figure \[fig:test1\] shows the map of projected column densities, which visually in agreement with the known morphology of turbulent density fluctuations [e.g. @Federrath10]. For a more quantitative test, the volume-weighted density distribution function (PDF) $P_V(s)$ averaged over all snapshots at $t>1T$ (red line) is shown in Figure \[fig:test2\]. The log-normal PDF fits very well to the simulated distribution. Although some deviations are found at the both low- and high-density tails of the distribution, such deviations are known in previous studies. The departure from the log-normal PDF is likely due to the limited spatial resolution at the high-density tail and the intermittency at the low-density tail, which increases for higher Mach numbers.
Overall, our forcing algorithm in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ramses-rt</span> agrees with known results of turbulence properties. We have repeated the test with $128^3$ grid resolution and found an almost identical result. For the RHD turbulence simulation, we therefore adopt the $128^3$ resolution throughout the paper.
Appendix B\
HST/COS sample {#app:COS .unnumbered}
==============
[llll]{} Name & $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}$ & $\Delta v_{\rm peak}$ & $A_f$\
& \[$\%$\] & \[$\rm km~s^{-1}$\] & \[-\]\
J0901+2119 & $2.7{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.7^a$ & $345.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}12.5^a$ & $2.09{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.19$\
J1011+1947 & $11.4{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}1.8^a$ & $276.4{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}5.4^a$ & $2.31{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.30$\
J1243+4646 & $72.6{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}9.7^a$ & $143.4{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}4.0^a$ & $3.31{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.45$\
J1248+4259 & $2.2{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.7^a$ & $283.8{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}15.9^a$ & $4.27{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.65$\
J1256+4509 & $38.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}5.7^a$ & $239.4{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.5^a$ & $1.61{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.24$\
J1154+2443 & $46.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}2.0^b$ & $199.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.0^{b,\!\ast}$ & $2.79{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.31$\
J0925+1403 & $7.20{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.8^c$ & $310.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.0^{d,\!\ast}$ & $3.44{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.46$\
J1152+3400 & $13.2{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}1.1^c$ & $270.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.0^{d,\!\ast}$ & $4.01{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.54$\
J1333+6246 & $5.60{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}1.5^c$ & $390.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.0^{d,\!\ast}$ & $1.51{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.20$\
J1442-0209 & $7.40{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}1.0^c$ & $310.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.0^{d,\!\ast}$ & $2.28{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.10$\
J1503+3644 & $5.80{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.6^c$ & $430.0{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}10.0^{d,\!\ast}$ & $2.36{\ifmmode\oldpm\else{$\oldpm$}\fi}0.34$\
\
\
In order to compare the simulation with the [*HST*]{}/COS observation of low redshift LyC-leaking galaxies, we have retrieved the reduced COS G160M spectra of $z{\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}0.3$ @Izotov2016 [@Izotov2018a; @Izotov2018b] sample from the MAST archive (GO 14635: Izotov, GO 13744: Thuan). For the measurement of LyC escape fractions and Ly$\alpha$ peak separations we have used the reported values from @Izotov2016 [@Izotov2018a; @Izotov2018b] and @Verhamme17, which are tabulated in Table \[table:cos\]. For the red peak asymmetry parameter $A_f$, we have measured the quantity directly from the archival COS spectra after binning to the resolution matched to $R=15000$. We first identified the wavelengths of the red and blue peaks, $\lambda_{\rm peak}^{\rm red}$ and $\lambda_{\rm peak}^{\rm blue}$, from the maximum of each component. The valley is located as the minimum between the two peaks, corresponding to wavelength $\lambda_{\rm valley}$. The red peak asymmetry parameter is then computed as the ratio of right-to-left flux of the red peak, $A_f=\left.\int_{\lambda^{\rm red}_{\rm peak}}^{\lambda_{\rm max}} f_\lambda d\lambda\right/\int_{\lambda_{\rm valley}}^{\lambda^{\rm red}_{\rm peak}} f_\lambda d\lambda$, where $\lambda_{\rm max}$ is the maximum wavelength for the red peak which is chosen to be $\lambda_{\rm max}=1220$ Å. The asymmetry parameters for all the objects are shown in Table \[table:cos\]. We use these tabulated values for our comparison with the simulation.
[^1]: In this way, the neutral gas ahead of I-front remains at the isothermal initial temperature $T_0~(=100\rm~K)$, and the photoionized gas retains an approximate isothermality at ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}10^4\rm~K$.
[^2]: The Lyman limit column density ${N_{\mbox{\tiny H{\expandafter\@slowromancap\romannumeral 1@}}}}^{\rm LL}=1/\sigma_L^{-1}$ is the value that the gas starts to optically thick, but at the column density, the transmission $e^{-1}=0.37$ is still appreciably large.
[^3]: The approximate equality is derived using the log-normal density probability distribution function for solenoidal turbulence (e.g. Federrath et al 2010). In our simulations, assuming the log-normal PDF for the ionized gas gives a clumping factor accurate to ${\ifmmode\oldsim\else{$\oldsim$}\fi}5\%$ to the simulated value.
[^4]: Although we find Ly$\alpha$ escape mostly via single flight or excursion, we expect the contribution from escape via random walk may increase if an extreme turbulence maintains a high level of density fluctuations in the ${{\rm H\,{\scriptstyle II}}}$ region. Ly$\alpha$ escape via random walk through clumpy channels will then contribute to the residual non-zero flux at line center.
[^5]: We have provided a physical argument. Clearly we do not resolve the full cascade down to the scale of mean free path in the simulation. Instead, it is limited to the grid scale of the simulation. However, the velocity dispersion becomes much smaller than the sound speed even after limiting the calculation only to the grid scale.
[^6]: This is based on a fit of @Gnedin08 to for Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) type dust, assuming a linear dust-to-gas ratio $\propto Z$ normalized at the gas phase metallicity of the SMC, $Z=0.25~Z_\odot$ ($12+\log\rm O/H=8.1$, @Pagel03). Note that in reality a fraction of the dust is likely destroyed in the hot, ionized channels, and therefore this estimate overpredicts the impact of dust on the LyC leakage.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We infer the velocity distribution of radio pulsars based on large-scale 0.4 GHz pulsar surveys. We do so by modelling evolution of the locations, velocities, spins, and radio luminosities of pulsars; calculating pulsed flux according to a beaming model and random orientation angles of spin and beam; applying selection effects of pulsar surveys; and comparing model distributions of measurable pulsar properties with survey data using a likelihood function. The surveys analyzed have well-defined characteristics and cover $\sim 95$% of the sky. We maximize the likelihood in a 6-dimensional space of observables $P, \dot P, {\rm DM}, |b|, \mu, F$ (period, period derivative, dispersion measure, Galactic latitude, proper motion, and flux density). The models we test are described by 12 parameters that characterize a population’s birth rate, luminosity, shutoff of radio emission, birth locations, and birth velocities. We infer that the radio beam luminosity [*(i)*]{} is comparable to the energy flux of relativistic particles in models for spin-driven magnetospheres, signifying that radio emission losses reach nearly 100% for the oldest pulsars; and [*(ii)*]{} scales approximately as $\dot E^{1/2}$ which, in magnetosphere models, is proportional to the voltage drop available for acceleration of particles. We find that a two-component velocity distribution with characteristic velocities of 90 km s$^{-1}$ and 500 km s$^{-1}$ is greatly preferred to any one-component distribution; this preference is largely immune to variations in other population parameters, such as the luminosity or distance scale, or the assumed spin-down law. We explore some consequences of the preferred birth velocity distribution: [*(i)*]{} roughly 50% of pulsars in the solar neighborhood will escape the Galaxy, while $\sim 15$% have velocities greater than $1000$ km s$^{-1}$; [*(ii)*]{} observational bias against high velocity pulsars is relatively unimportant for surveys that reach high Galactic $|z|$ distances, but is severe for spatially bounded surveys; [*(iii)*]{} an important low-velocity population exists that increases the fraction of neutron stars retained by globular clusters and is consistent with the number of old objects that accrete from the interstellar medium; [*(iv)*]{} under standard assumptions for supernova remnant expansion and pulsar spin-down, $\sim 10$% of pulsars younger than 20 kyr will appear to lie outside of their host remnants. Finally, we comment on the ramifications of our birth velocity distribution for binary survival and the population of inspiraling binary neutron stars relevant to some GRB models and potential sources for LIGO.'
author:
- 'Z. Arzoumanian'
- 'D. F. Chernoff'
- 'J. M. Cordes'
nocite:
- '[@l+98]'
- '[@hbwv97]'
- '[@hp97]'
- '[@lbh97]'
- '[@gj69]'
- '[@pac90]'
- '[@co81]'
- '[@cr93]'
- '[@lm88; @ran93]'
- '[@cnt96]'
- '[@dtws85]'
- '[@fcwa95]'
- '[@mlt+78]'
- '[@mld+96]'
- '[@nft95]'
- '[@stwd85]'
- '[@tdk+93]'
- '[@gl92]'
- '[@no90]'
- '[@cc98]'
- '[@gj69]'
- '[@rs75; @as79]'
- '[@zhm00]'
- '[@djt+99]'
- '[@ll94]'
- '[@cc98]'
- '[@crl93]'
- '[@pp84]'
- '[@hbwv97]'
- '[@hp97]'
- '[@lbh97]'
- '[@dc87]'
- '[@dv99]'
- '[@wkk00; @atw98]'
- '[@kbm+96]'
- '[@crl93]'
- '[@lcc01]'
- '[@drr99]'
- '[@wkk00]'
- '[@lai99]'
- '[@al99]'
- '[@lt90]'
- '[@ll94]'
- '[@dru96]'
- '[@hbwv97]'
- '[@sd87]'
- '[@shu87]'
- '[@gj95]'
- '[@dc87]'
- '[@wvv92]'
- '[@bp95]'
- '[@ps96]'
- '[@lpp97]'
- '[@bsp99]'
- '[@ps96]'
- '[@bsp99]'
- '[@bb99]'
- '[@acw99]'
- '[@knst01]'
- '[@pac86]'
- '[@goo86]'
- '[@bsp99]'
- '[@wp96]'
- '[@irb+99]'
- '[@nt99]'
- '[@tc91]'
- '[@ttzc00]'
- '[@nt99]'
- '[@mb94]'
- '[@chn00; @pth95]'
- '[@gsgv01]'
- '[@gv99]'
- '[@l+98]'
- '[@hbwv97]'
- '[@bj99]'
- '[@bj99]'
- '[@fgbc99]'
- '[@ccl+01]'
title: The Velocity Distribution of Isolated Radio Pulsars
---
Introduction
============
Only a small fraction of the estimated $10^9$ neutron stars (NS) in the Galaxy are visible to Earth-bound observers as radio pulsars. In addition to source brightness and survey sky coverage, many effects unique to neutron stars determine which objects will be detected: (1) highly beamed emission; (2) turning-off of radio emission as a NS spins down; (3) migration from a thin extreme Population I $z$ distribution at birth to a combined thick disk and unbounded population; (4) interstellar plasma dispersion and scattering that distort pulses, diminishing search sensitivities to distant and rapidly rotating pulsars. Statistical studies that aim to determine the birthrate, total number, and spatial distribution of radio pulsars must contend with these selection effects. Indeed, previous studies (some recent examples are Lyne et al. 1998; Hartman et al. 1997; Hansen & Phinney 1997; Lorimer, Bailes & Harrison 1997) differ from one another significantly in this respect. All analyses have been hampered by our incomplete knowledge of intrinsic properties such as the luminosities and shapes of pulsar beams and their variations with spin rate and magnetic field strength. We report a new effort to derive the maximum useful information about Galactic neutron stars from the subset observable as radio pulsars (excluding millisecond and binary pulsars and those in globular clusters), simultaneously solving for many of the pulsar properties upon which the effects of survey selection depend. We use a new, highly realistic model of NS birth, evolution, and detection in radio surveys, and we implement a rigorous statistical analysis of the joint distribution of observable pulsar properties drawn from real surveys. Monte Carlo simulations of NS populations are tested for detectability and compared, in a 6-dimensional space of observables, to the observed pulsar sample. We vary the model parameters to infer most likely values and credible ranges. To the extent that real-world selection effects are adequately described in the model, the analysis yields results that are independent of selection biases.
The main focus of this paper is a determination of the pulsar velocity distribution function at birth and its implications. Other results, such as the luminosities of pulsar beams and the radio pulsar birthrate, are briefly described here (covariances do exist between these model parameters and the best-fit velocity results), but a detailed exposition of the model, statistical method, and insights into other areas of pulsar phenomenology will be presented elsewhere. We summarize the essential features of our model and method in Sec. 2, present our results in Sec. 3, and discuss some implications of our new determination of the pulsar birth velocity distribution in Sec. 4.
Model and Method
================
Summary of the Model
--------------------
We model the birth properties and rotational, kinematic, and luminosity evolution of a Monte Carlo population of neutron stars. The characteristics of eight real-world surveys are then used to assess the detectability of each simulated NS as a radio pulsar. The model-derived population is compared to the actual survey results using a likelihood analysis.
### Neutron Star Birth {#birth.sec}
We assume that the NS birthrate is constant in time, uniform per unit area for a Galactic disk with 15 kpc radius, and exponentially distributed above and below the disk midplane with parameterized scale $z_0$. The orientations of stellar spin and magnetic axes are independent and uniformly distributed over the sphere. The birth velocity is distributed isotropically in direction about the local standard of rest; it incorporates both an asymmetric “kick” impulse from a supernova explosion and the residual contribution from a disrupted binary, for those objects born in binaries. We do not separately investigate the two phenomena here nor do we attempt to model neutron stars that remain bound in binaries (high-field pulsars in binaries are a negligible population). Two model distributions of the velocity magnitude are considered, consisting of one or two Gaussian components. The two component model is $$\begin{aligned}
f(v) &=& 4\pi v^2 \left[
w_1
\frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma_{v_1}^2)^{3/2}}\exp(-v^2/2\sigma^2_{v_1})
\right.
\nonumber \\
&+& \left.
(1-w_1)
\frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma_{v_2}^2)^{3/2}}\exp(-v^2/2\sigma^2_{v_2})
\right],\end{aligned}$$ parameterized by $\sigma_{v_1}$ and $\sigma_{v_2}$, the dispersions of the low- and high-velocity components, respectively, and by $w_1$, the fraction of neutron stars with parent Gaussian of width $\sigma_{v_1}$. Finally, the initial periods and magnetic field strengths are drawn from log-normal distributions with parameterized means ($\langle \log P_0 \rangle$, for $P_0$ in seconds, and $\langle \log B_0 \rangle$, for $B_0$ in Gauss), widths ($\sigma_{\log P_0}$, $\sigma_{\log B_0}$), and fixed high and low cutoffs.
### Evolution.
Given initial conditions, the evolution of a new-born pulsar to the present epoch is deterministic and described as follows. Most of our analysis assumes spin down according to a constant, magnetic-dipole braking torque[^1] with “braking index” $n=3$. This choice facilitates comparison of our results with previous NS population studies, but we have also investigated an alternate torque model, with $n =
4.5$—effects of different assumptions for $n$ are described in Sec. \[assump.sec\]. We assume that the direction of the magnetic field with respect to the spin axis does not evolve with time. Each star moves in the Galactic potential given by Paczynski (1990) for the disk and bulge, and by Caldwell & Ostriker (1981) for the corona.
Each star’s luminosity is a function of period and spin-down rate, with no intrinsic spread (i.e., pulsars are assumed to be standard candles for fixed values of $P$ and $\dot P$), $$\label{lr.eq}
L_r = \min \left\{ P^\alpha\,\dot P_{15}^\beta\,L_0, \dot E
\right\}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1},$$ where $(\alpha,\,\beta,\,L_0)$ are model parameters, $\dot P = \dot P_{15} 10^{-15}$ s s$^{-1}$, and $\dot E = 4\pi^2 I \dot P/P^3$ is the spin-down energy loss rate for moment of inertia $I = 10^{45}$ g cm$^2$. Previous analyses have assumed intrinsic spreads in the “pseudo-luminosity” (flux $\times$ distance-squared) to account for viewing of the pulsar beam from different orientations as well as possible differences in intrinsic luminosity. We choose instead to explicitly model flux variations due to viewing geometry through a beam model, described below, and a physically meaningful luminosity (in erg s$^{-1}$). We find that the inevitable spread in fluxes due to viewing geometry is substantial. Some implications of this choice are discussed in Sec. \[assump.sec\].
Slowly rotating neutron stars do not emit in the radio because the electric field near the polar cap is too small (e.g., Chen & Ruderman 1993). The cutoff may not be abrupt; we implement a “death band” as the probability that objects with given ${\dot P}/P^3$ are radio quiet. The probability is $$1/2\left\{ \tanh \left[
(\dot P_{15}/P^3 - 10^{\overline{\rm DL}})/\sigma_{\rm DL}
\right] + 1 \right\} ,$$ for $P$ in seconds, so that the position and lateral extent of the death band are parameterized by $\overline{\rm DL}$ and $\sigma_{\rm DL}$.
### Beaming and Pulse profiles. {#beam.sec}
For each simulated neutron star, a pulse profile is generated using a phenomenological radio-beam model. Our beam model was fixed by fitting 0.4 GHz pulse profiles to ten known pulsars with viewing geometries that are well-determined from polarization measurements (e.g., Lyne & Manchester 1988; Rankin 1993), and which span much of the $P$-$\dot P$ region of interest: PSRs B0301+19, B0329+54, B0450$-$18, B0525+21, B1541+09, B1642$-$03, B1821+05, B1933+16, B2002+31, B2111+46. Satisfactory fits were achieved with the following beam description, which (together with our view that pulsars are standard candles for given $P$, $\dot P$) is consistent with preliminary results of a more ambitious analysis of pulse waveforms and luminosities to be presented elsewhere.
In our model, pulsed radio flux from a NS depends on contributions from one “core” and one “conal” beam. Each is Gaussian in form with opening angle $\rho$ (half-width at $1/e$) that scales with period as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm core} & = & 1.5^\circ P^{-0.5} \\
\rho_{\rm cone} & = & 6.0^\circ P^{-0.5}.\end{aligned}$$ The beams subtend solid angles $\Omega = f \pi \rho^2/\ln 2$, where the correction factor $f_{\rm cone} = 0.4$ accounts for the hollowness of the cone beam, and $f_{\rm core} = 1$. The total radio luminosity $L_r$ is apportioned such that the ratio of core to cone peak flux is $$F_{\rm core}/F_{\rm cone} = {\textstyle\frac{20}{3}} P^{-1}.
$$ The core increases in strength with decreasing period and decreasing observing frequency $\nu$; the latter dependence is not relevant to the present analysis of 0.4 GHz surveys. An example of the distribution of core and conal flux is shown in Fig. \[beam.fig\].
Pulse waveforms are constructed for the viewing geometry of each Monte Carlo pulsar, with two oppositely-directed radio beams centered on the star’s magnetic axis. The waveform flux at pulse phase $\phi$ corresponding to polar angle $\theta(\phi)$ to the line of sight is $$F(\phi) =
F_{\rm core}\exp\left\{-\theta^2/\rho_{\rm core}^2\right\} +
F_{\rm cone}\exp\left\{-(\theta-\bar{\theta})^2/w_e^2\right\},$$ where $\bar{\theta}$ and $w_e$ are the centroid and effective width of the Gaussian conal beam. Figure \[pflux.fig\] shows typical differential and cumulative distributions of period-averaged flux density that result from our beam model and radio luminosity inferred from the likelihood analysis (Sec. \[results.sec\]). The highest fluxes correspond to nearly aligned viewing geometries, while the tail at low flux corresponds to lines of sight grazing the skirts of the radio beam. The two peaks in the differential distribution arise from the core (narrower beam, higher average flux) and cone (wider beam, lower average flux) components.
### Detection.
The effects of interstellar dispersion and scattering are applied to the pulse profile of each potentially detectable NS, where the degree of waveform “smearing” depends on the applicable survey instrumentation. The DM and SM values used are based on the Taylor & Cordes (1993) model, dithered to simulate errors in the DM-distance relationship at the 50% level. Pulse profiles are Fourier transformed and tested for detection by each survey with sky coverage in the direction of the simulated pulsar. The minimum detectable flux is computed for the antenna gain, receiver and sky temperature, bandwidth, dwell time, sample interval, and detection threshold (including harmonic summing) applicable to each survey. Detection probabilities were modified by the ratio of successfully searched area to the area contained within the survey boundaries on the sky. We do not model specific telescope pointings, but assume uniform antenna gain across the region surveyed by each telescope. In reality, antenna gain drops off away from the pointing direction, and survey pointings are generically arranged in a close grid with adjacent pointings separated by the half-power width of one, roughly Gaussian, telescope “beam.” The assumption of constant gain results in an enhanced detection rate and, hence, a lower inferred birthrate, which we later correct by the ratio of volumes for beams with constant and Gaussian cross-sections, $f_{\rm gain} = 1.4$.
In summary, we draw neutron stars independently from a parameterized parent population, evolve them according to the simulation model and test for detectability as pulsars in the given surveys. This “forward evolution” from birth to detection yields distributions of simulated pulsar properties that may be compared to those of the observed sample.
Surveys and Data: Selection Criteria
------------------------------------
The surveys modeled, all at or near 0.4 GHz, are those of Camilo, Nice & Taylor (1996), Dewey et al. (1985), Foster et al. (1995), Manchester et al.(1978), Manchester et al. (1996), Nice, Fruchter & Taylor (1995), Stokes et al.(1985), and Thorsett et al.(1993). Together, they cover some 95% of the sky. The data are culled from the May 1995 electronic version of the Taylor et al. (1993; 1995) catalog of 721 pulsars, supplemented with 66 $\dot P$ measurements from D’Amico et al. (1998), including the 8.5 sec pulsar of Young et al. (1999). Of the full set of known pulsars we keep only those that were detected in at least one of these surveys; for example, we exclude objects found in deep searches that targeted supernova remnants or X-ray sources, and pulsars detected only in high-frequency (1.4 GHz or higher) searches. In addition, to avoid contamination from objects with complicated evolutionary histories, we exclude from our analysis: binary pulsars, pulsars in globular clusters, extragalactic (LMC and SMC) pulsars, and all pulsars with spin-down rates less than $10^{-16}$ s s$^{-1}$ because of potential confusion with spun-up objects. The resulting dataset contains ${N_{\rm psr}}= 435$ pulsars, 79 of which have measured proper motions or useful upper bounds. An additional 54 cataloged pulsars meet the criteria above but do not have measured spin-down rates. We account for these objects in our derived birthrate through a correction factor $f_{{\rm no}\,\dot P} = (435+54)/435$, but otherwise neglect them in the likelihood analysis.
Likelihood Function {#like.sec}
-------------------
The distributions of measured quantities that characterize pulsars arise from variations intrinsic to the NS population, bias in survey selection, and measurement errors. We account for measurement errors as reported in the literature, and model intrinsic variations through Monte Carlo (MC) realizations subject to the same detection criteria used to obtain the observed pulsar sample. Measurable quantities (“observables”) are of two types: [*(a)*]{} ${{\cal D}_a}= \left\{ P,\dot P,|b|,{\rm DM}\right\}$, which are known with sufficient precision that their distributions are determined by the biased sampling of the population; and [*(b)*]{} ${{\cal D}_b}= \left\{\mu, F\right\}$, proper motion and flux density, which carry significant measurement uncertainty described by observer-reported or assumed likelihood functions ${\cal L}^{\rm obs}_{\left\{\mu,F\right\}} \equiv {\cal L}^{\rm
obs}_\mu {\cal L}^{\rm obs}_F$. We assume a Gaussian form for ${\cal L}^{\rm obs}_\mu$, and log-normal distributions above a detection threshold for ${\cal L}^{\rm obs}_F$.
We do not know a priori the form of the likelihood function for ${{\cal D}_a}$, and therefore construct it numerically. We first partition the 4-dimensional space for ${{\cal D}_a}$ using the real sample of pulsars to define bins in a heirarchical fashion—each bin corresponds to a small volume element centered on specific values of $P,\dot P, |b|,$ and DM. We then create MC pulsars according to a specific population/evolution/luminosity model, and find the total weight $W_i$ of detected objects with observables that fall within the boundaries of the $i$-th bin. For birthrate $\dot N$, the expected number of such objects is $\langle n_i \rangle = \dot N
({T_{\rm MC}}/W)W_i$. Here, $W$ is the total weight of MC neutron stars born uniformly distributed over time interval ${T_{\rm MC}}$. The likelihood for the ${{\cal D}_a}$ dataset is then formed using products of Poisson probabilities for $0$ or $1$ elements in each bin, $$\label{la.eq}
{\cal L}_a = e^{- \langle n \rangle} \prod_i \langle n_i \rangle,$$ where the product is restricted to occupied bins, and the total expected number of pulsars is $$\langle n \rangle = \sum_i \langle n_i \rangle.$$ For precisely measured quantities, the numerical evaluation of ${\cal L}_a$ is exact in the limit of zero bin size and small occupancy. In practice, we use bins that enclose more than one data pulsar, and we generalize the likelihood function accordingly.
Information from ${{\cal D}_b}$ observables must also be included. The weight of Monte Carlo points in the $i$-th bin is $W_i = \sum_k w_k$ (where $k$ counts individual MC points); the weight of points consistent with the observer-reported uncertainties is $\sum_k w_k {\cal L}^{\rm obs}_{\left\{\mu,F\right\}_k}$ (sum over joint likelihood of proper motion and flux for data in the $i$-th bin), which may be rewritten as $W_i \left( \sum_k w_k {\cal
L}^{\rm obs}_{\left\{\mu,F\right\}_k} / \sum_k w_k \right) = W_i
\langle \langle {\cal L}^{\rm obs}_i \rangle \rangle$. The expected number of pulsars in the $i$-th bin consistent with the flux and proper motion observations is ${\dot N} ({T_{\rm MC}}/W) W_i \langle
\langle {\cal L}^{\rm obs}_i \rangle \rangle$. The likelihood of the whole dataset of precisely and imprecisely measured quantities is then ${\cal L} = e^{- \langle n \rangle} \prod_i
\langle n_i \rangle \langle \langle {\cal L}^{\rm obs}_i \rangle \rangle$.
Maximizing $\Lambda = \ln {\cal L}$ with respect to ${\dot N}$ yields the birthrate $$\label{br.eq}
{\dot N_{\rm ML}} = \left( N_d \over W_d \right) \left( W \over {T_{\rm MC}}\right),$$ where $N_d = 435$ is the number of actual pulsars, $W_d$ is the weight of [*detected*]{} Monte Carlo points, $W$ is the total weight of Monte Carlo points and ${T_{\rm MC}}$ is the timescale of the simulation. In this paper we analyze the model parameters using the likelihood evaluated at the most likely birthrate $\dot N_{\rm ML}$: $$\label{like.eq}
\Lambda|_{\dot N_{\rm ML}} =
\sum_i \ln \left( W_i \over W_d \right) +
\sum_i \ln \langle \langle {\cal L}^{\rm obs}_i \rangle \rangle,$$ where a constant term has been omitted.
Given the likelihood function (eq. \[like.eq\]), we employ the techniques of Bayesian inference to derive plausible ranges for model parameters, and to compare models with different numbers of parameters. (For a review of the essentials of Bayesian inference, see Gregory & Loredo 1992.) Bayes’s theorem states that the posterior probability distribution of a model ${\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}$ given a dataset ${\mbox{\boldmath $\cal D$}}$ is proportional to the probability of the data given the model, $P({\mbox{\boldmath $\cal D$}}| {\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}, I)$—i.e., the likelihood ${\cal L}$—times the prior probability of the model $P({\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}| I)$, where $I$ represents assumptions within the model. We assume flat priors over finite ranges of the model parameters, so that the peak of the posterior is just the maximum of ${\cal L}$. We derive an uncertainty estimate (or “credible region,” in the parlance of Gregory & Loredo) for each model parameter from the marginal probability distribution for that parameter, i.e., from the likelihood function integrated over all other parameters. Similarly, a global likelihood [*for each model*]{} may be derived by integrating over all model parameters—such global likelihoods offer a rigorous means of comparison between models that have different degrees of complexity as reflected in the number of model parameters. Ratios of global likelihoods between models are known as “odds ratios.”
Implementation
--------------
For the ${{\cal D}_a}$ observables, we defined a 4-dimensional space with 4 partitions in each dimension. With this choice, the 435 known pulsars were distributed into 164 distinct bins, filling 64% of the observable phase space. We found that the addition of a fifth dimension, Galactic longitude $l$, to the space of observables, or the use of two orthogonal components of proper motion ($\mu_l$ and $\mu_b$, say) rather than the magnitude, yielded too few MC points in some bins.
We tested our method by generating simulated pulsar data “catalogs” according to a particular luminosity and velocity model and attempting to recover the model parameters. The mock datasets were constructed to resemble our true dataset, both in the number of pulsars and in the number and quality of proper-motion measurements. We found that the resulting maximum likelihood parameter values differed from their expected values by no more than 20%, with the 99% “credible region” of the marginalized posterior probability distribution for each parameter (see Sec. \[like.sec\]) implying uncertainties of 10% for the luminosity parameters $\beta$ and $\log L_0$, 15% for $\alpha$, and 30% for each of the velocity parameters $(\sigma_{v_1},\sigma_{v_2},w_1)$. The model that described the mock dataset was reliably contained, in a half-dozen runs of the simulation, within the volume of the likelihood function that contained at most 90% of the probability. Further details on mock data recovery tests will be presented elsewhere.
For the likelihood analysis, we generated a Monte Carlo dataset of nearly $10^{10}$ pulsars for ${T_{\rm MC}}= 1$ Gyr, drawing the points from a large range of parameter values; the large value of ${T_{\rm MC}}$ was chosen to readily accomodate the oldest (characteristic age $\sim 300$ Myr) cataloged pulsars and a range of braking models. We tested each point for detection in any one of the eight surveys and used the resultant bin occupancies to derive the likelihood function, ${{\cal L}}$, as defined above. We tested the numerical stability of ${{\cal L}}$ for the best models by increasing the number of MC points.
Computations were carried out on the 136-node IBM SP2 supercomputer at the Cornell Theory Center; evaluation of a single set of model parameters typically required 2.5 minutes on 48 nodes running in parallel. Computational limitations precluded a full 12-dimensional grid search. Instead, we evaluated models on 12-dimensional “crosses,” iteratively repositioning the cross in search of a global maximum. We also searched over 3- and 5-dimensional sub-grids of the full parameter space, exploring in particular the velocity $(\sigma_{v_1}, \sigma_{v_2}, w_1)$ and luminosity $(\alpha, \beta, L_0)$ parameters. We have found a well-defined global maximum in the posterior probability function for models given the data.
Results {#results.sec}
=======
Birth Properties
----------------
Table 1 displays the model parameter values that maximize the posterior probability for models given the data (with flat priors) over the indicated ranges. The Galactic birthrate of NSs visible as radio pulsars resulting from eq. \[br.eq\] is $$\label{ndot.eq}
\dot N = f_{\rm gain} \times f_{{\rm no}\,\dot P} \times \dot N_{\rm ML} =
(760\,{\rm yr})^{-1}.$$ The first two factors in eq. \[ndot.eq\] represent the only parts of the analysis that are not explicitly modeled by Monte Carlo, i.e., the corrections for cataloged pulsars with unmeasured spin-down rates and for variations in antenna gain as described above. These should not be confused with the more typical beaming corrections. Because our model incorporates a specific description of the radio beam, no [*post facto*]{} beaming correction is needed (or allowed), as it is in previous studies. Nonetheless, the value of $\dot N$ under-represents the true Galactic radio pulsar birthrate. As shown in Table 1, we impose cutoffs on the birth magnetic field ($B_0$) distribution corresponding to the highest and lowest field strengths in our sample of cataloged pulsars; any unseen pulsars lying outside of this range have not been accounted for by our $\dot N$. The value of $\dot N$ will also depend on details of the radial distribution of NS birthsites in the Galactic disk, which we have fixed in our analysis (Sec. \[birth.sec\]), on our description of the pulsar beam (e.g., the assumption of circularity; Sec. \[beam.sec\]), and on the assumed spin-down law. We compare our birthrate with previous estimates in Sec. \[isol.sec\].
The distribution of spin periods at birth in our model is poorly constrained by the data. It is consistent with birth at rapid rotation rates (as dictated by the presence of the Crab and Vela pulsars in our dataset), but the assumed uni-modal (log-normal) form for the distribution cannot test the hypothesis of “injection” of pulsars born with long rotation periods (Narayan & Ostriker 1990). The birth field-strength distribution, by contrast, is very well constrained, with the mean of the log-normal distribution roughly consistent with the (present-day) mean field-strength for our dataset ($10^{12.1}$ G) as expected, given our assumption of no torque decay. Cut-offs in the $P_0$ and $B_0$ distributions at low and high values were fixed for all models, as shown in Table 1. Finally, the preferred birth scale-height in our model is $z_0 \sim 160$ pc, consistent with the results of Cordes & Chernoff (1998).
Radio Luminosity
----------------
The luminosity law with maximum posterior probability is $$\label{lrresult.eq}
L_r = P^{-1.3} \dot P_{15}^{0.4} 10^{29.3}\;{\rm erg\;s}^{-1},$$ for emissions in the radio band ($\nu > 50$ MHz) with power-law flux spectra. Comparison of our result with earlier statistical analyses is made difficult by the fundamental differences between our model and previous descriptions of pulsar luminosities. Note, however, that for luminosity proportional to magnetic field strength, the exponents would take on the values $(\alpha,\beta) = (0.5,0.5)$, while scaling with the spin-down energy loss rate would imply $(\alpha,\beta) = (-3,1)$. We find instead that the luminosity scaling with spin parameters is similar to that for the vacuum potential drop across the magnetic polar cap of a neutron star (e.g., Goldreich & Julian 1969), $L_r \propto \dot
E^{1/2}$.
$L_r$ is comparable in value to particle energy loss rates $\dot E_p$ calculated in “polar cap” models for the magnetosphere. For example, the energy flux in particles derived by Ruderman & Sutherland (1975; their Eq. 29) may be written as $\dot E_p = P^{-1.71} \dot P_{15}^{0.43} 10^{30.0}$ erg s$^{-1}$, while Arons & Scharlemann (1979) construct a “diode” model which implies $\dot E_p = P^{-1.45}\dot P_{15}^{0.4} 10^{31.2}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Comparison of $L_r$ with $\dot E_p$ suggests that the efficiency of radio emission alone (i.e., not including X- and $\gamma$-ray emission) approaches unity as pulsars age. A more model-independent statement can also be made: it is conceivable that the death band is related to an upper bound in the efficiency with which spin energy is converted to radio emission. If we write $L_r = \epsilon_r \dot E$ $(\epsilon_r \le
1)$, our luminosity law implies an efficiency of at least $\epsilon_r =
2$% for pulsars near the point in the $P$-$\dot P$ diagram where they appear to shut off ($P\sim 1$ s, $\dot P_{15} \sim 0.1$); the largest implied efficiency among the pulsars in our dataset is $\epsilon_r = 30$% for J2144$-$3933, the most slowly-rotating radio pulsar known ($P = 8.5$ s; Young et al. 1999). The requirement that $L_r \leq \dot E$ implies a lower bound $\dot P_{15}\ge 0.10\,\epsilon_{0.02}^{-1.7}\,
P^{2.8}$, a scaling with period not unlike the death band we have assumed in our model.
We have chosen a death-band slope of 3 ($\log\dot P_{15} = 3\log P +
\overline{\rm
DL}$ describes the center of the death-band) in order to constrain the efficiency of radio luminosity. Theoretical expectations for the slope, however, generally lie between 2 and 3 (e.g., Zhang, Harding & Muslimov 2000). To investigate possible dependence of the form of $L_r$ on the assumed death-band slope, we have evaluated luminosity models (maximizing the likelihood over a grid in $(\alpha,\beta,L_0)$ with all other parameters fixed) for a handful of death-band slopes in this range—we find that the maximum-likelihood values of the luminosity parameters remain essentially unchanged. We will parameterize the death-band slope in future work. For the assumed $\dot P/P^3$ line, the maximum likelihood model implies $\overline{\rm DL} = 0.5$, and $\sigma_{\rm DL} = 1.4$.
Finally, we note that the high-energy ($h\nu \gtrsim 1$ eV) luminosities of seven pulsars detected with the EGRET $\gamma$-ray telescope also seem to scale as $\dot E^{1/2}$ (Thompson et al. 1999 and references therein).
Birth Velocities {#vel.sec}
----------------
The maximum likelihood one- and two-component birth velocity distributions are displayed in Fig. \[vdist.fig\], together with contours of log-likelihood evaluated in the vicinity of the peak. For the two-component model, $\sim 50$% of pulsars have 3-dimensional velocities greater than 500 km s$^{-1}$, and about 15% have $v > 1000$ km s$^{-1}$; also, 10% have velocities less than 100 km s$^{-1}$. For the single-component model, only a small fraction of stars have 3-D velocities greater than 1000 km s$^{-1}$ or less than 100 km s$^{-1}$. As is evident in Fig. \[vdist.fig\], the two-component distribution cleanly differentiates fast from slow pulsars, with a deficit of objects at intermediate velocities (300–400 km s$^{-1}$). We compare the one- and two-component model likelihoods using a Bayesian odds ratio, marginalizing the posterior probability over the one and three parameters, respectively, to determine global likelihoods for the models. We find that the two-component model is favored $\sim 10^4$ to one.
Our best one-component velocity model is similar to that of Lyne & Lorimer (1994), but the true distribution is apparently poorly described by a single component. Instead, the two-component distribution preferred by our analysis produces a significantly larger fraction of high-velocity pulsars (and a larger mean velocity, $\sim 540$ km s$^{-1}$) than has been required by any previous study of the radio pulsar population. We believe this is a consequence of (1) the unbiased nature of our analysis, in contrast to previous efforts that have not accounted fully for observational selection effects, and (2) our inclusion of deep, high-latitude surveys such as the Parkes 0.4 GHz survey of the southern sky (Manchester et al. 1996); see Sec. \[comp.sec\] for a detailed discussion of these effects.
We have explored models that include a third, very low velocity ($\leq 50$ km s$^{-1}$) component. We find that such models produce only marginally improved likelihoods, and acceptable models permit at most 5% of NSs in such a low-velocity sub-population. In terms of a Bayesian odds ratio, the small improvements in the overall likelihood are insufficient to support the added complexity of models that include a third velocity component. This result is similar to the finding of Cordes & Chernoff (1998) but is more significant because our detection model accounts for selection against pulsars deep in the dispersing and scattering medium of the Galactic disk, to which low-velocity pulsars would be confined.
As shown in Table 1, we have also evaluated models that assume $n =
4.5$ and no torque decay. The maximum likelihood of such models is smaller than the maximum likelihood for $n = 3$ by three orders of magnitude for the same number of parameters, implying that canonical dipole spin-down is preferred over this one alternative braking model. We note, however, that the luminosity parameters $(\alpha, \beta,
L_0)$ do not change significantly, nor does the mean birth magnetic field strength $\langle \log B_0 \left[{\rm G}\right]\rangle$. The impact of braking-law assumptions is treated in more detail in the following section.
Effects of Model Assumptions {#assump.sec}
----------------------------
The maximum likelihood (ML) parameter values shown in Table 1 are valid in the context of assumptions made in our model—i.e., the quoted uncertainties are purely statistical, reflecting the 68% credible region defined by the likelihood function. Two fundamental assumptions may be particularly relevant to the our birth velocity results: spin-down through magnetic dipole braking, with no field decay, and the standard-candle hypothesis of pulsar luminosities. We discuss the potential effects of these assumptions below.
### Dipole ($n = 3$) braking.
Because our likelihood function matches multiple simulated and observed pulsar properties simultaneously, at least two sources of velocity information are available: (1) the distribution of present-day Galactic scale heights of radio pulsars together with some estimate of their ages, and (2) proper motion measurements. We find that the spatial distribution alone significantly constrains birth velocities: if we ignore proper motion information, the peak of the posterior probability occurs at $\sigma_{v_1} = 80$ km s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{v_2} = 350$ km s$^{-1}$, and $w_1 = 0.40$, consistent with the outcome based on the full likelihood, but with a smaller average velocity. Measured proper motions contribute preferentially to the high-velocity tail of the distribution because some middle-aged or old pulsars at low Galactic $|z|$ can masquerade as low-velocity objects until a proper motion measurement reveals that they are moving rapidly—the Guitar Nebula pulsar is a relevant example (Cordes, Romani & Lundgren 1993).
Because spin-down governs the timescale on which neutron stars leaving the Galactic disk remain active as radio pulsars, the choice of braking index must affect the ML velocity model. We may qualitatively assess the effects of different spin-down laws and field decay as follows. Braking index measurements for the Crab and two other young pulsars yield values $n < 3$; if this holds also for older objects, spin-down proceeds more slowly than we have modeled and, for a given pulsar, a lower characteristic birth velocity would be needed to reach the same Galactic $|z|$-height. Field decay, however, works in the opposite sense: if pulsar luminosities decay with decreasing field strength, as seems likely, field decay shortens the time in which an active pulsar must travel from its birthplace to its present-day vertical distance from the Galactic disk, and larger velocities than those we have derived would be necessary. The formal ML result in the analysis of Cordes & Chernoff (1998) for braking index and field-decay timescale $\tau_B$ suggests $n \simeq 2.5$ and $\tau_B \simeq 6$ Myr, or (with similar likelihood) $n \simeq 4$–5 and no field decay. The values of $n$ and $\tau_B$ in the first case would tend to alter our result in competing directions, while the rapid spin-down implied in the second case further enhances the high-velocity fraction in the derived velocity distribution, as demonstrated by our best model with $n = 4.5$ (the mean velocity increases from 540 km s$^{-1}$ to 660 km s$^{-1}$). Furthermore, the proper motion measurements that boost the high-velocity component are not directly affected by details of the chosen spin-down law. We believe, therefore, that our primary conclusion, namely that a large fraction of Galactic NS are born with high velocity, is robust.
### Pulsars as standard candles.
A unique aspect of our simulation is the description of observed pulsar fluxes as an explicitly modeled consequence of viewing orientation across a well-defined radio beam with intrinsic luminosity that depends only on period and spin-down rate, with no intrinsic spread. Past practice has been to allow for a range of observed fluxes (for fixed distance) from an ad-hoc distribution intended to mimic the combined effects of beaming orientation and any intrinsic spread in luminosity. Our explicit beaming model is a physically well-motivated improvement on past practice, and the standard-candle (for given spin parameters) hypothesis is the simplest allowed by the data. We investigate the possible consequences of such a fundamental change in the treatment of pulsar luminosities as follows.
In the top panel of Fig. \[pflux.fig\], we show the distribution of observed fluxes, for a Vela-like young pulsar, that result from our beam and best-fit luminosity model ([*thick line*]{}) and from the smeared pseudo-luminosity distribution of Prószyński & Przybycień (1984) as modified by Hartman et al.(1997; see their Eqs. 2 and 3) ([*thin solid line*]{}), where a beaming fraction of 3 has been assumed for the latter, i.e., two-thirds of the simulated pulsars are assumed to be beaming away from the line of sight. Several points of comparison between the two flux distributions are noteworthy. First, the explicit beam model produces observed fluxes spanning a wider range than does the Hartman et al. smearing function, a somewhat surprising result that depends, of course, on the chosen shape of the beam (the outer “conal” component falls off as a Gaussian in our model). Second, the proportion of undetectable stars differs between the two models by less than a factor of two, a reflection of their effective beaming fractions. The difference is primarily due to the low-flux tail of the beamed distribution, detectable between 10 and 200 mJy—if the beam skirts were to fall off more rapidly than a Gaussian, the detection efficiency in our simulation would decrease, resulting in a higher birthrate through Eq. \[br.eq\] (see Sec. \[isol.sec\]). Third, when convolved by the Gaussian representing measurement error ([*dotted curve*]{}), the shape of the beamed distribution begins to resemble that of the distribution adopted to represent an intrinsic luminosity spread. Finally, the two distributions are offset in their absolute flux scales by nearly an order of magnitude. Most of this offset is due to different scalings of the luminosity with spin parameters: our best-fit luminosity law scales as $\dot E^{1/2}$, whereas Hartman et al. assume $\dot
E^{1/3}$. If the latter dependence were adopted for our beamed model, the resulting flux distribution would shift to the left, approaching the smeared pseudo-luminosity distribution.
To determine whether our beaming model alone produces a flux distribution sufficiently wide to describe the data, we have evaluated the likelihood for population models in which the relevant flux depends not only on the purely geometrical spread due to viewing orientation, but also on an additional, intrinsic spread in luminosity for objects with a given $P$ and $\dot P$. We modeled the intrinsic luminosity by a log-normal distribution with mean set by the scale parameter $L_0$ and coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as in Eq. \[lr.eq\], and with width equal to $\epsilon$ times the mean, where we treated $\epsilon$ as a parameter to be inferred. We examined the likelihood function as a function of $\epsilon$ and $L_0$, holding the other parameters fixed. We found that the likelihood decreases monotonically for all values $0 \le
\epsilon \le 1$. Although we have not carried out a thorough search of parameter space for a global maximum of the likelihood, we interpret this behavior as evidence that geometric orientation effects are sufficient, without need for “hidden” variables, to account for the full spread in observed fluxes manifested by the radio pulsar population.
To provide a degree of separation between our luminosity model and the results of the likelihood analysis, we may also simply drop flux information from the likelihood function, by ignoring ${{\cal D}_b}$ observables (Sec. \[like.sec\]) and maximizing only the ${\cal
L}_a$ function, Eq. \[la.eq\]. Assumptions inherent in the luminosity model then enter into the simulation only through a given pulsar’s detectability. We find that the velocity and luminosity parameter values at maximum likelihood, and the inferred birthrate, change little (with the exception, as noted in the previous section, of a decreased average velocity) when flux and proper motion are eliminated from the likelihood function.
We conclude that the impact of our luminosity and beam assumptions on birth velocity results is likely confined to the effects of any insufficiency in the empirically-derived radio beam geometry we use, and then only indirectly. Further exploration of the effects of different beam properties is warranted and is underway.
Comparison of Velocity PDF with previous results {#comp.sec}
------------------------------------------------
Several attempts to constrain the birth velocities of NSs have been described in the literature. (See Cordes & Chernoff 1998 for a discussion of the analyses of Hansen & Phinney 1997 and Lorimer et al.1997). As emphasized earlier, our method offers an accounting of selection effects not previously available, rigorous treatment of uncertainties in, e.g., proper motion and distance, and analysis of the [*joint*]{} distribution of observable pulsar characteristics. Here, we compare our result to those of two recent studies. Cordes & Chernoff (1998; hereafter CC98) examined the kinematics of 49 pulsars younger than 10 Myr with measured proper motions. Through a multi-dimensional likelihood analysis, but purposely not accounting for selection effects, they arrived at a birth velocity distribution for these objects described by $\sigma_{v_1} = 175^{+19}_{-24}$ km s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{v_2} = 700^{+300}_{-132} $ km s$^{-1}$, and $w_1 = 0.86$. This distribution, shown in Fig. \[vdist.fig\], significantly under-represents the high-velocity population implied by our analysis. To understand this difference, we have investigated the selection effects inherent in the choice of the 49 pulsars analyzed by CC98: because measurement of proper motion typically requires a time baseline of many years, all of the CC98 pulsars were discovered in some of the earliest pulsar surveys, which were substantially less sensitive than present-day surveys and directed along the Galactic plane. As a result, the CC98 pulsars, in addition to being young, constitute a volume-limited sample. We find that, if pulsars conform to our best-fit luminosity law, the detection efficiency of low-latitude, volume-limited surveys drops steadily with increasing velocity, so that at 1000 km s$^{-1}$ it is roughly one-third of its low-velocity value. In contrast, recent deep high-latitude (e.g., Foster et al. 1995; Thorsett et al. 1993) and all-sky (e.g., Manchester et al. 1996) surveys are sensitive to much of the volume occupied by high-velocity pulsars (away from the disk where propagation effects limit the survey volume). Such surveys combat the velocity-dependent selection effects to which early pulsar catalogs were subject. In this regard, an indirect observational bias against high-velocity pulsars remains unaccounted for in our analysis: by construction, our likelihood function assumes that proper motion measurements are available for an unbiased, representative subset of the pulsar catalog. In reality, such measurements have been attempted predominantly for nearby, bright pulsars that were discovered in early low-latitude surveys. Future proper-motion measurements of pulsars discovered in high-latitude surveys will mitigate this bias and directly probe the high end of the pulsar velocity distribution.
Fryer, Burrows & Benz (1998; hereafter FBB) simulate binary evolution including NS kicks and compare the relative numbers of the resulting evolutionary endstates, LMXBs, HMXBs, and isolated pulsars, with observation. The analysis of FBB complements our own because they separate binary from kick velocities, but they do not account for selection effects associated with pulsar detection. FBB conclude that some 30% of NS are born with essentially zero kick, with the remaining 70% being given large (500–600 km s$^{-1}$) kicks in addition to any orbital velocity retained following binary disruption. Our inferred birth velocity distribution is not inconsistent with this result: the low-velocity ($\sigma_{v_1} \simeq 90$ km s$^{-1}$) component could be produced by binary break-up. This interpretation leads to other difficulties, however, in that the birthrate of binary endstates would be much larger than is observed if a significant fraction of NS (such as our $w_1 = 40$%) received zero kick at birth (Dewey & Cordes 1987). FBB require only that their simulation yield birthrates of binaries [*no smaller than*]{} are observed, without penalizing models that generate too many binaries. The necessity for small kicks in FBB’s analysis is dictated by their adopted 1% minimum retention fraction for globular clusters. Because most cluster pulsars have different evolutionary histories than NSs in the Galactic disk (e.g., as a result of collisional interactions and the higher binary fraction within clusters), birth velocity distributions relevant to disk pulsars may not apply to clusters (see Sec. \[esc.sec\]). We suggest that the zero-kick fraction derived by FBB, 30%, is an upper bound, and that our 90 km s$^{-1}$ component is not due solely to relict orbital velocities. This conclusion is supported by the work of De Donder & Vanbeveren (1999), who model the effects of binary membership of NS progenitors on the ultimate velocity distribution of single NSs, for a variety of binary properties. They find that the distribution of asymmetry-induced kicks dominates the space velocity distribution, with binary effects contributing an unimportant excess at low velocities, for any distribution of kicks with an average velocity $\gtrsim 150$ km s$^{-1}$. If a significant zero-kick component exists (e.g., the distribution suggested by FBB), most binaries survive and few low-velocity single pulsars remain.
Discussion
==========
Asymmetric Kick Mechanisms {#mech.sec}
--------------------------
It is widely believed that the large velocities imparted to neutron stars at birth arise through a combination of orbital disruption and a “kick” reaction to an asymmetric supernova explosion. Observational evidence for a kick impulse is found in a variety of systems: misalignments between the spin and orbital angular momentum axes of the relativistic NS-NS binaries B1913+16 and B1534+12 (Wex, Kalogera & Kramer 2000; Arzoumanian, Taylor & Wolszczan 1998) and the present-day spin-orbit configuration of the binary pulsar J0045$-$7319 (Kaspi et al. 1996). Also, direct measurement of the proper motions of non-binary radio pulsars yield, in extreme cases, velocities far greater than can be provided by orbital motion, $\gtrsim 1000$ km s$^{-1}$. The Guitar Nebula pulsar, e.g., has a projected (two-dimensional) velocity $\sim 1600$ km s$^{-1}$, oriented nearly parallel to the Galactic plane (Cordes et al. 1993). Finally, the survival of binary systems into late evolutionary stages, e.g., NS-NS, NS-white dwarf, or NS-black hole binaries, depends on the magnitude, frequency of occurrence, and preferred orientation (if any) of asymmetric kicks. The rates of survival of such systems have been estimated, without quantitative knowledge of the NS kick velocity distribution, through population synthesis models including orbital evolution (e.g., Dewey & Cordes 1987)—such efforts have affirmed the need for a velocity impulse on timescales shorter than or comparable to the orbital motion.
The kick magnitudes required by observations impose stringent constraints on theoretical models. No single mechanism for producing kicks as large as 1500 km s$^{-1}$ has been conclusively identified; see Lai, Chernoff & Cordes (2001; hereafter LCC) for a recent review of proposed mechanisms. Other clues to the nature of kicks have been scarce—the timescale on which kicks act is not known, and no correlation has been firmly established between the magnitudes or preferred directions of kicks and any other pulsar property (Deshpande, Ramachandran & Radhakrishnan 1999). A possible exception is suggested by recent [*Chandra*]{} results for the Vela and Crab pulsars that show near alignment of the projected proper motion vectors and spin axes for these two young objects (but see Wex et al.2000 for a possible counter-example). LCC explore the implications of such a correlation on proposed kick mechanisms.
For prompt natal kicks, two models have been explored in some detail. Large-scale density asymmetries in a presupernova core, seeded perhaps by energetic convection in inner burning shells driving overstable g-mode oscillations, can produce large kicks as a result of non-isotropic shock propagation and breakout during the explosion (see Lai 1999 for a review). The role of rotational averaging of the momentum impulse, however, is unclear—it may be difficult to produce spin-aligned kicks in this model (LCC)—and the existence of global asymmetries has not been verified numerically, as computational limitations have restricted simulations so far to consideration of two-dimensional models. Asymmetric emission of neutrinos in the presence of a strong magnetic field (due ultimately to CP violation in the weak interaction) can also impart momentum to a proto-NS, but impulses larger than a few hundred km s$^{-1}$ require very large magnetic fields ($10^{15-16}$ Gauss; Arras & Lai 1999).
An alternative to large impulsive kicks at birth is the electromagnetic rocket effect suggested by Harrison & Tademaru (1975), which would accelerate a pulsar with an off-center magnetic dipole gradually over its initial spin-down timescale. This mechanism encounters two difficulties. Gravitational radiation due to unstable r-mode oscillations (e.g., Anderson 1998) may considerably enhance spin-down of a newborn neutron star so that the rocket effect acts on a much shorter timescale, resulting in a lower final velocity. Also, sufficiently large velocities may not be achievable on timescales short compared to the orbital periods of the progenitor systems that produce close NS-NS binaries or systems like PSR J0045$-$7319. The significant fraction of the birth velocity distribution lying above 500 km s$^{-1}$ cannot have its origin in presupernova orbital motion, strong evidence for asymmetric kicks through a mechanism that must be able to produce velocities at least as high as 1500 km s$^{-1}$. On the other hand, our results also suggest that up to 40% of newborn NSs experience only a small, or zero, kick. It seems likely, then, that two mechanisms are needed, or that the mechanism producing large kicks (e.g., global hydrodynamic asymmetry) acts only in a subset of objects, perhaps through a threshold in the explosion energy or the spin rate of the progenitor core. As discussed above, kicks are needed to avoid producing too-many binary systems containing NSs, suggesting that some mechanism (e.g., asymmetric neutrino emission) responsible for small kicks is active in nearly all instances of core collapse. A bimodal birth velocity distribution is, however, difficult to understand as a combination of independent mechanisms that produce large and small kicks (or a large kick and an uncorrelated residual velocity from disruption of an orbit). The convolution of two such independent processes should result in a broad [*uni-modal*]{} birth velocity distribution. Our analysis demonstrates, however, a clear preference for a distribution that can be adequately described (relative to any single-Gaussian distribution) as a combination of two Gaussian components with very different dispersions.
Escape from the Gravitational Potentials of the Galaxy and Globular Clusters {#esc.sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard & Tremaine (1990) derive a lower bound of $V_e =
430$ km s$^{-1}$ for the escape velocity from the Galactic potential in the solar neighborhood; the value of $V_e$ is larger at smaller Galactic radii. Assuming a typical escape velocity of 500 km s$^{-1}$, we find that 50% of pulsars will be born with sufficient velocity to escape from the Galaxy for our two-component velocity model, or nearly 40% for the one-component model. The larger fraction is comparable to that derived by Lyne & Lorimer (1994; hereafter LL94) based on their one-component distribution. CC98 derived an unbound fraction of 25%, but argued that this figure was likely underestimated by a factor of two due to selection against high-velocities in their pulsar sample.
Drukier (1996) estimates the fraction of newborn NSs retained by globular clusters as a function of kick velocity, for both single stars and binaries containing NSs. It is generally believed that clusters must retain at least 10% of the NS born within them, but $V_e$ for a globular cluster is just $\sim 30$ km s$^{-1}$. For the LL94 distribution Drukier finds that at most 4% of NSs are retained for the most massive clusters, with typical fractions much smaller. Comparison of our preferred birth velocity distribution with LL94 suggests that the latter significantly under-represents the low-velocity population of NS (as also suggested, e.g., by Hartman et al. 1997): in our preferred model, the fraction of objects with birth velocity $\lesssim 30$ km s$^{-1}$ is an order of magnitude larger than that for the LL94 distribution. To the extent that our conclusions for pulsars born in the disk are applicable to NSs in globular clusters, the enhanced low-velocity population in our model relative to LL94 should significantly increase the cluster retention rate over Drukier’s findings. If our low-velocity component includes a significant contribution from pre-disruption orbital speeds, i.e., in the limit of zero kick for $w_1 = 40$% of the population, the retention fraction is increased further, perhaps to as large as several tens of percent.
Pulsar-Supernova Remnant Associations {#snr.sec}
-------------------------------------
The supernova blast that accompanies NS birth drives a fast shock wave in the external medium. Our results for the birth velocity distribution of NSs may be used to estimate the fraction of objects that lie within their host supernova remnants (SNR), an important criterion used to assess proposed NS-SNR associations. We assume an explosion energy of $10^{51} E_{51}$ ergs in a medium of hydrogen density $n_0$ cm$^{-3}$. For Sedov-Taylor expansion (Shull & Draine 1987), the remnant scale at time $10^4 t_4$ yrs is $R_s =
12.5\;(E_{51}/n_0)^{1/5} t_4^{2/5}$ pc. A NS with birth velocity $v_3
10^3$ km s$^{-1}$ passes through the edge of the remnant at $t_4 = 1.45\;
(E_{51}/n_0)^{1/3} v_3^{-5/3}$. The shock becomes radiative (Shull 1987) at later times, $t_{\rm sh} \simeq 1.91\;
E_{51}^{3/14} n_0^{-4/7} 10^4$ yr, when the size is $R_{\rm sh} = 16.2\;
E_{51}^{2/7}n_0^{-3/7}$ pc. Thence, $R = R_{\rm sh} (t/t_{\rm
sh})^{2/7}$ until the remnant slows to about 20 km s$^{-1}$ and merges with the interstellar medium. In this regime, $t_4 = 1.51\;E_{51}^{11/35}
n_0^{-13/35} v_3^{-7/5}$.
The CDF for birth velocities less than $v$ is equivalent to the CDF for NSs lying within the remnant at time $t$ when $v$ and $t$ are related as above for both the Sedov-Taylor and radiative regimes. We show these CDFs, modified by the effects of projection for a distant observer, in Fig. \[snr.fig\] for several combinations of explosion energy and ambient density, as a function of NS age for our preferred birth velocity distribution. We find that up to 10% of pulsars younger than 20 kyr will appear to lie outside of their host remnant shells. Such a small fraction is consistent with the set of known and proposed pulsar-SNR associations (e.g., Gaensler & Johnston 1995). Of course, to assess the plausibility of a particular proposed association, age, distance, and especially proper motion measurements must be made.
LIGO Rates and Binary Inspiral Sources of GRBs
----------------------------------------------
Both the number and orbital characteristics of binaries that survive a supernova explosion depend sensitively on the distribution of kick magnitudes. A number of studies (e.g., Dewey & Cordes 1987; Wijers, van Paradijs & van den Heuvel 1992; Brandt & Podsiadlowski 1995; Portegies Zwart & Spreeuw 1996; Lipunov et al. 1997; Bloom, Sigurdsson & Pols 1999) have shown that the birthrates of double neutron star (DNS) and low- and high-mass X-ray binary systems decrease with increasing characteristic kick velocity. For the DNS binaries, the resulting orbital period and eccentricity also determine the rate at which gravitational radiation is emitted; high-eccentricity and short-period systems will typically merge within $10^9$ yr, so that the rate of merger events will be smaller than the birthrate of all DNS binaries. In their final moments, merging systems are expected to produce gravitational radiation detectable by LIGO. Assumed quantities (such as the importance of the high end of the initial mass function or the supernova rates in nearby host galaxies) contribute some uncertainty to DNS birthrate estimates, but the greatest source of uncertainty has been the unknown kick velocity distribution, yielding rates spanning in some cases more than an order of magnitude (e.g., from 9 to 384 Myr$^{-1}$ per galaxy in the work of Portegeis Zwart & Spreeuw 1996). For the highest kick velocities that they model (a Maxwellian distribution with 3-dimensional velocity dispersion of 450 km s$^{-1}$, their Model C), Portegeis Zwart & Yungelson (1998) find a DNS birthrate of 17 Myr$^{-1}$ and a merger rate over 10 Gyr of 12 Myr$^{-1}$. They also find that NS-black hole mergers will occur at a rate of 1 per Myr. Similarly, Bloom, et al. (1999) find a DNS birthrate of 3 Myr$^{-1}$ for their simulations incorporating large kicks (drawn from a Maxwellian distribution with one-dimensional dispersion of 270 km s$^{-1}$). The birth velocity distribution that we have derived should improve such estimates significantly. Belczyński & Bulik (1999) provide an expression linking the rate of DNS mergers to the kick velocity in one or more Gaussian components based on their binary evolution simulation, from which we infer a merger rate of 30 Myr$^{-1}$. A general feature of two-component kick velocity distributions is that the resulting merger rate will be dominated by the small-kick component, but systems that remain bound following larger kicks also contribute through their shorter merger times owing to their high orbital eccentricities (see, e.g., Table 1 of BPS). The inclusion of a significant fraction of large kicks into binary evolution simulations will likely bring their birth and merger rate predictions in line with empirical estimates based on the small sample of known DNS systems (e.g., Arzoumanian, Cordes & Wasserman 1999; Kalogera et al. 2001).
Models linking the coalescence of compact binaries with (at least some) gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have been developed (Pacyński 1986; Goodman 1986), and can account for many properties of GRBs, including their energetics, spatial distribution, and (depending on assumptions about beaming) event rate. In this context, the discussion of DNS merger rates above applies equally well to GRBs—our inferred birth velocity distribution supports published estimates of the merger rate that assume the largest kicks. Bloom et al. (1999) model the effects of momentum impulses on the systemic motion of a compact binary in the gravitational potential of its host galaxy to determine the expected range of offsets on the sky between a GRB and the host galaxy. They find that the details of the distribution of kicks imparted to NSs at birth do not significantly affect these offsets because large kicks tend to disrupt the binary. A system’s survival therefore acts as a velocity filter so that, for an ensemble of systems, our larger average kicks will not necessarily increase the spatial offsets expected of coalescing binaries containing NSs.
Binary systems containing a stellar-mass black hole are also potential sources of gravitational radiation for the LIGO and LISA detectors, and may drive certain gamma-ray bursts. The systemic velocities of low-mass X-ray binaries containing black hole candidates (BHC-LMXBs) appear to be smaller than those of NS-LMXBs (White & van Paradijs 1996). Black holes that form promptly upon the progenitor star’s collapse are not expected to undergo kicks, but some black holes may form after passing through a short lived NS (or proto-NS) phase, e.g., if accretion of fallback material pushes the compact object’s mass over the Chandrasekhar limit (see, e.g., Brandt, Podsiadlowski & Sigurdsson 1995; hereafter BPS). Such “delayed formation” black holes may receive asymmetric kicks just as neutron stars do, with smaller kinematic consequences because of the larger mass of black holes. One BHC-LMXB, X-ray Nova Sco 1994, does have an unusually high peculiar velocity, $\simeq 110$ km s$^{-1}$, as do a few high-mass X-ray binaries. As pointed out by BPS, formation scenarios of Nova Sco are simplified if one invokes an asymmetric kick at birth; moreover, elemental abundances in its companion support a supernova origin for the black hole (Israelian et al. 1999). Extension of our radio-pulsar birth velocity distribution to black-hole systems would of course be speculative, but the properties of Nova Sco suggest that kicks similar to those associated with NSs also occur as part of some (perhaps rare) black-hole formation mechanisms. Any such kick would have implications for the survival rate of binaries containing a delayed-formation black hole. It should be noted that black-hole velocity distributions inferred from objects in binary systems may be prone to selection bias against high-velocity BHCs, the formation of which may have disrupted the host binary.
Populations of Isolated Pulsars {#isol.sec}
-------------------------------
Early expectations that large numbers of old NSs accreting from the interstellar medium would be detectable in the soft X-ray band have not been borne out by observations (Neuhäuser & Trümper 1999). The earliest estimates, however, were based on an assumed NS velocity distribution peaking at $\sim 40$ km s$^{-1}$ (Treves & Colpi 1991). The much larger average velocities inferred by LL94 and CC98 suggested a solution to this discrepancy, as the accretion rate is expected to scale with velocity as $v^{-3}$; magnetic field decay on timescales less than $10^9$ years could also explain why so few ISM-accreting NSs are seen (for a review, see Treves et al. 2000). As described above, however, incomplete accounting for selection effects (those arising from radio-wave propagation in the Galactic disk) likely leads to an underestimated low-velocity proportion in the analyses of LL94, CC98, and others, potentially undermining the conclusion that the deficit of old accreting NSs is due to higher-than-expected characteristic velocities. Our analysis models the effects of signal propagation and survey instrumentation, providing a more robust census of the low-velocity population. We infer a larger low-velocity fraction than do LL94 and CC98, a result which, together with our limit on an additional very low velocity component ($< 5$% with birth velocity $< 50$ km s$^{-1}$), should firmly constrain theoretical expectations for the number of nearby isolated NSs accreting from the ISM. As pointed out by Neuhäuser & Trümper (1999), the number of isolated NS detections in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey is consistent with estimates made by Madau & Blaes (1994) based on a low birth-velocity distribution modified by diffusive heating of the NSs in the Galaxy—the resulting distribution peaks near 90 km s$^{-1}$, similar to the low-velocity component of our preferred birth velocity model.
The observational phenomena known as soft-gamma repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) are believed to be associated with neutron stars. SGRs and AXPs are similar in many ways: high ($\sim
10^{14}$ G “magnetar”) canonical field strengths, slow rotation (periods in the range 6–12 s), and luminosities that are too large to be due to magnetic dipole braking alone; alternate sources of energy are field decay and accretion of either fallback material from the supernova explosion or ejecta in the vicinity of the NS (e.g., Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000; van Paradijs, Taam & van den Heuvel 1995). In addition to their distinct high-energy emission characteristics, a possibly significant observational difference between the two types of objects is that most AXPs are found near the centers of supernova remnants (so that associations are quite certain), while SGRs are found far from SNR centers, making associations less likely and requiring large ($\sim 1000$ km s$^{-1}$) NS velocities if the associations are to be viable (Gaensler et al. 2001). Our results suggest that such high velocities are not rare among radio pulsars, certainly, and possibly among all NSs. Although distinctions between AXPs and SGRs on purely kinematic grounds remain controversial, models that invoke episodic interaction (e.g., accretion or spin-down due to the propeller effect) with fall-back disks or clumpy ejecta will clearly be influenced by the assumed velocities of the young neutron stars. SGRs and AXPs may represent as much as half of the Galactic NS population (Gotthelf & Vasisht 1999), yet they are distinct from radio pulsars in their spin characteristics and energetics, with no apparent overlap between the two populations. Estimates of the NS birthrate based on radio pulsars, including our own, must therefore be revised upward to account for these objects.
Our derived birthrate applies to isolated, rotation-powered, radio emitting pulsars, although the radio beam need not be visible to Earth-bound observers. Requiring non-binarity for our data sample results in the exclusion of just four pulsars that otherwise meet all of our selection criteria, suggesting that our birthrate essentially accounts also for radio pulsars in long-lived, non-interacting binary systems (selection effects that reduce survey sensitivities for binaries are unimportant for long-period pulsars). From analyses of the local pulsar population, Lyne et al. (1998) derive a Galactic pulsar birthrate of one every 60 to 330 yrs, while Hartman et al. (1997) find model-dependent rates that cluster around (300 yr)$^{-1}$. Our birthrate estimate is a factor 2.5 lower still. Much of the discrepancy between our value and that of Hartman et al. (1997), however, can be attributed to the different effective beaming fractions in our analyses, evident in Fig. \[pflux.fig\] (Sec. \[assump.sec\]), suggesting perhaps that the low end of the Lyne et al. (1998) range is more appropriate. As emphasized earlier, our inferred birthrate depends on the assumed beam model and spin-down law (with no field decay), and cutoffs in the distribution of magnetic field strengths at birth. Disagreement between birthrate determinations is also likely due to different assumed radial distributions of birthsites in the Galaxy (Sec. \[birth.sec\]). It is noteworthy that the majority of young cataloged radio pulsars were discovered in high-frequency ($\nu \sim 1.4$ GHz) surveys of the Galactic Plane, and typically not detected, because of propagation effects, by the 0.4 GHz surveys we have simulated. A future extension of our simulation to include high-frequency surveys will more directly probe the population of young pulsars near their birthsites, providing valuable constraints on their spatial distribution.
A number of radio-quiet but apparently rotation-driven (i.e., distinct from SGRs and AXPs) young neutron stars have recently been discovered at X- and $\gamma$-ray wavelengths, often associated with supernova remnants (e.g., see Brazier & Johnston 1999 for a compilation); these are most naturally described as pulsars whose radio beams do not intercept our line of sight, and so such objects would also be included in our birthrate estimate. However, Brazier & Johnston (1999) derive a NS birthrate $\sim (91$ yr$)^{-1}$ by counting such objects and known radio pulsars within a distance of 3.5 kpc and less than 20 kyr old, and assuming a Gaussian radial distribution in the Galaxy. Again, our radio pulsar birthrate is substantially lower, raising the possibility that some young neutron stars may be truly radio quiet, i.e., not emitting radio beams. Such a conclusion, which cannot be ruled out at present, would be strengthened if a significant discrepancy between the birthrates of radio pulsars and young, radio-quiet NSs persists in future analyses of the Galactic neutron star population.
Summary
=======
Together with adjustable models of the birth, evolution, and beaming characteristics of the Galactic radio pulsar population, we have simulated eight large-area surveys, and accounted for observational selection effects, to infer the birth properties (velocity, period, magnetic field strength) of pulsars and their present-day radio luminosities. Our results suggest that the scaling of radio luminosity with spin parameters $P$ and $\dot P$ is similar to the scaling of voltage drop across the magnetic polar cap in pulsar magnetosphere models, and that old pulsars convert most of their spin-down energy into radio emissions. For birth velocities, we find that two-component distributions are preferred over one-component distributions, and we infer maximum likelihood velocities for the two (three-dimensional) Gaussian components of 90 km s$^{-1}$ and 500 km s$^{-1}$, with the population roughly equally divided between the two components. This result strongly supports existing evidence that neutron stars are subject to “kick” impulses at birth, presumably through asymmetric supernova explosions, and that the kick mechanism must be able to produce velocities of at least 1000 km s$^{-1}$. We find that half of all pulsars born near or outside the solar circle will likely escape the Galaxy’s gravitational pull. The large kicks implied by our birth velocity distribution also have important consequences for the survival rates, and final orbital configurations, of binaries in which a neutron star is formed, as well as for the plausibility of proposed pulsar-supernova remnant associations.
The catalog data that we have used to constrain our models provide spin parameters, fluxes, and Galactic locations for the known pulsars, but little in the way of direct velocity measurements through proper motions and accurate distances. Very Long Baseline Interferometry techniques now being perfected (e.g., Fomalont et al. 1999, Chatterjee et al. 2001) will provide high-quality proper-motion and parallax measurements for pulsars within $\sim 1$ kpc, a substantial improvement to the current dataset. Future statistical analyses similar to the one presented here therefore promise important gains in our understanding of the velocity distribution of neutron stars.
We thank J. Arons, R. Bandiera, D. Lai, T. Loredo, D. R. Lorimer, A. G. Lyne, E. S. Phinney, M. Ruderman, and I. Wasserman for many fruitful conversations. C. Dolan and M. Jarvis contributed to the early development of simulation software. This research was conducted using the resources of the Cornell Theory Center, which receives funding from Cornell University, New York State, federal agencies, and corporate partners. Part of this work was performed while ZA held a National Research Council Research Associateship Award at NASA-GSFC. Support from NASA and NSF grants NAG 5-2851, NAG 5-8356, AST 92-18075, AST 95-30397, and AST 98-19931, is gratefully acknowledged.
Arons, J., & Scharlemann, E. T. 1979, ApJ, 231, 854
Arras, P., & Lai, D. 1999, ApJ, 519, 745
Arzoumanian, Z., Cordes, J. M., & Wasserman, I. 1999, ApJ, [520]{}, 696
Arzoumanian, Z., Taylor, J. H., & Wolszczan, A. 1998, in Pulsar Timing, General Relativity, and the Internal Structure of Neutron Stars, eds.Z. Arzoumanian, F. van der Hooft, E. P. J. van den Heuvel (KNAW:Amsterdam)
Bloom, J. S., Sigurdsson, S., & Pols, O. R. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 763 (BPS)
Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, [274]{}, 461
Brandt, N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Sigurdsson, S. 1995, MNRAS, [277]{}, L35
Brazier, K. T. S., & Johnston, S. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 671
Belczyński, K., & Bulik, T. 1999, A&A, 346, 91
Caldwell, J. A. R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1981, ApJ, 251, 61
Camilo, F., Nice, D. J., & Taylor, J. H. 1996, ApJ, 461, 812
Chatterjee, P., Hernquist, L., & Narayan, R. 2000, ApJ, 534, 373
Chatterjee, S., Cordes, J. M., Lazio, T. J. W., Goss, W. M., Fomalont, E. B., & Benson, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 287
Chen, K., & Ruderman, M. 1993, ApJ, [402]{}, 264
Cordes, J. M., & Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315 (CC98)
Cordes, J. M., Romani, R. W., & Lundgren, S. C. 1993, Nature, 362, 133
D’Amico, N., Stappers, B. W., Bailes, M., Martin, C. E., Bell, J. F., Lyne, A. G., & Manchester, R. N. 1998, MNRAS, [297]{}, 28
De Donder, E., & Vanbeveren, D. 1999, New Astr., [3]{}, 167
Deshpande, A. A., Ramachandran, R., & Radhakrishnan, V. 1999, A&A, [351]{}, 195
Dewey, R. J., & Cordes, J. M. 1987, ApJ, [321]{}, 780
Dewey, R. J., Taylor, J. H., Weisberg, J. M., & Stokes, G. H. 1985, ApJ, 29, L25
Drukier, G. A. 1996, MNRAS, [280]{}, 489
Fomalont, E. B., Goss, W. M., Beasley, A. J., & Chatterjee, S. 1999, AJ, [117]{}, 3025
Foster, R. S., Cadwell, B. J., Wolszczan, A., & Anderson, S. B. 1995, ApJ, 454, 826
Fryer, C., Burrows, A., & Benz, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 333 (FBB)
Gaensler, B. M., & Johnston, S. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1243
Gaensler, B. M., Slane, P. O., Gotthelf, E. V., & Vasisht, G. 2001, ApJ, 559, 963
Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869
Goodman, J. 1986, ApJ, 308, L17
Gotthelf, E. V., & Vasisht, G. 1999, in Pulsar Astronomy—2000 and Beyond, eds. M. Kramer, N. Wex, & R. Wielebinski (ASP: San Francisco)
Gregory, P. C., & Loredo, T. J. 1992, ApJ, 398, 146
Hansen, B. M. S., & Phinney, E. S. 1997, MNRAS, [291]{}, 561
Hartman, J. W., Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R. & Verbunt, F. 1997, A&A, 322, 477
Hughes, A., & Bailes, M. 1999, ApJ, 522, 504
Israelian, G., Rebolo, R., Basri, G., Casares, J., & Martin, E. L. 1999, Nature, [401]{}, 142
Kalogera, V., Narayan, R., Spergel, D. N., & Taylor, J. H. 2001, ApJ, 556, 340 Kaspi, V. M., Bailes, M., Manchester, R. N., Stappers, B. W., & Bell, J. F. 1996, Nature, [381]{}, 584
Lai, D. 1999, in Stellar Astrophysics (Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Conference, Hong Kong 1999), ed. K. S. Cheng (Kluwer: Dordrecht) Lai, D., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 549, 1111 (LCC)
Leonard, P. J. T., & Tremaine, S. 1990, ApJ, 353, 486
Lipunov, V. M., Postnov, K. A., & Prokhorov, M. E. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 245
Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., & Harrison, P. A. 1997, MNRAS, [289]{}, 592
Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, [369]{}, 127
Lyne, A. G., & Manchester, R. N. 1988, MNRAS, [234]{}, 477
Lyne, A. G., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 743
Madau, P., & Blaes, O. 1994, ApJ, 423, 748
Manchester, R. N., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1235
Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Taylor, J. H., Durdin, J. M., Large, M. I., & Little, A. G. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 409
Narayan, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 352, 222
Neuhäuser, R., & Trümper, J. E. 1999, A&A 343, 151
Nice, D. J., Fruchter, A. S., & Taylor, J. H. 1995, ApJ, 449, 156
Paczyński, B. 1986, ApJ, 308, L43
Paczyński, B. 1990, ApJ, 348, 485
Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Spreeuw, H. N. 1996, A&A, [312]{}, 670
Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Yungelson, L. R. 1998, A&A, [332]{}, 173
Prószyński, M., & Przybycień, D. 1984, in Millisecond Pulsars, eds. S. Reynolds & D. Stinebring (NRAO: Green Bank), 151
Rankin, J. M. 1993, ApJ, [405]{}, 285
Ruderman, M. A., & Sutherland, P. G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51
Shull, J. M. 1987, in Interstellar Processes, eds. D. J. Hollenbach & H. A. Thronson, Jr. (Boston: Reidel), 225
Shull, J. M., & Draine, B. T. 1987, ibid, 283
Spruit, H. C., & Phinney, E. S. 1998, Nature, 393, 139
Stokes, G. H., Taylor, J. H., Weisberg, J. M., & Dewey, R. J. 1985, Nature, 317, 787
Taylor, J. H., & Cordes, J. M. 1993, ApJ, 411, 674
Taylor, J. H., Manchester, R. N., & Lyne, A. G. 1993, ApJSS, [88]{}, 529
Taylor, J. H., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., & Camilo, F. 1995, Radio Pulsar Catalog, [http://pulsar.princeton.edu]{}
Thompson, D. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 516, 297
Thorsett, S. E., Deich, W. T. S., Kulkarni, S. R., Navarro, J., & Vasisht, G. 1993, ApJ, 416, 182
Treves, A., & Colpi, M. 1991, A&A, 241, 107
Treves, A., Turolla, R., Zane, S., & Colpi, M. 2000, PASP, 112, 297
van Paradijs, J., Taam, R. E., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1995, A&A, 299, L41
Wex, N., Kalogera, V., & Kramer, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 401
White, N. E., & van Paradijs, J. 1996, ApJ, 473, L25
Wijers, R. A. M. J., van Paradijs, J., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1992, A&A, 261, 145
Young, M. D., Manchester, R. N., & Johnston, S. 1999, Nature, 400, 848
Zhang, B., Harding, A., & Muslimov, A. 2000, ApJ, 531, L135
[lcccccc]{} Parameter & & Credible &\
& & $n = 4.5$ & range & Min. & Max.\
$\alpha$ & & $-1.6$& $\pm\phn0.3\phn$ & $-2$& 0.5\
$\beta$ & & 0.5& $\pm\phn0.1\phn$ & 0& 1\
$\log L_0$ & & 29.1& $\pm\phn0.1\phn$ & 27.5& 30.5\
$\overline{\rm DL}$ & & 0.8& $\pm\phn0.3\phn$ & $-1.2$& 1.2\
$\sigma_{\rm DL}$ & & 1.4& $\pm\phn0.2\phn$ & 0& 3.2\
$\langle \log P_0 \left[{\rm s}\right]\rangle$ & & $-1.9$& $\pm\phn0.2\phn$ & $-2.6$& $-1.6$\
$\sigma_{\log P_0}$ & & 0.6& $\pm\phn 0.2\phn$ & 0.1& 0.7\
$\log P_0^{\rm lo}$ (Note b) & & $-$4& – & – & –\
$\log P_0^{\rm hi}$ & & 0& – & – & –\
$\langle \log B_0 \left[{\rm G}\right]\rangle$ & & $12.35$ & $\pm\phn 0.10$ & 12.00 & 12.50\
$\sigma_{\log B_0}$ & & $0.65$ & $\pm\phn0.05$ & 0.25 & 0.50\
$\log B_0^{\rm lo}$ & & 11.2& – & – & –\
$\log B_0^{\rm hi}$ & & 13.8& – & – & –\
$z_0$ (pc) & & 220& $\pm 40\phd\phn\phn$ & 80& 250\
Velocity components & One & Two & Two & & &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_{v_1}$ (km s$^{-1}$)& $290\pm30$ & $90^{+20}_{-15}$ & $120^{+20}_{-15}$ & & 50& 400\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_{v_2}$ (km s$^{-1}$)& – & $500^{+250}_{-150}$ & $650^{+250}_{-150}$ & & 400& 1400\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$w_1$ & – & $0.4\pm0.2$ & $0.45\pm0.2$ & & 0& 1\
$\ln({{\cal L}}/{{\cal L}}_{\rm max})$ & $-25.6$ & 0 & $-8.1$ & & &\
[^1]: We omit from our spin-down expression the $\sin^2\alpha$ dependence of the idealized magnetic dipole braking torque, where $\alpha$ is the angle between the spin and magnetic field axes. In magnetosphere models (e.g., Goldreich & Julian 1969), the torque does not vanish for aligned rotators ($\alpha = 0$).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This note is devoted to exploring Hölder’s quasicontinuity for the Riesz-Morrey potentials, and its application to the corresponding nature of some nonnegative weak solutions of the quasilinear Lane-Emden equations for the $p$-Laplacian.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0027'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL A1C 5S7, Canada'
author:
- 'David R. Adams'
- Jie Xiao
title: |
The Hölder Quasicontinuity for\
Riesz-Morrey Potentials and Lane-Emden Equations
---
[^1]
Introduction {#s1}
============
Let $(\alpha,p,\lambda)\in (0,n)\times [1,\infty)\times (0,n]$ and $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in the $2\le n$-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb R^n$. The main ideas in [@AX04; @AX11b; @AX11a; @AX11c; @AX12a; @Ser] suggest us to deal with two basic concepts in the theory of Morrey spaces and their potentials.
The first one is the so-called Riesz-Morrey potential – the $\alpha$-order Riesz singular integral $$I_\alpha f(x)=\int_{\mathbb R^n} f(y)|y-x|^{\alpha-n}\,dy=\int_{\Omega} f(y)|y-x|^{\alpha-n}\,dy$$ of $f$ (whose value on $\mathbb R^n\setminus\Omega$ is defined to be $0$) in the Morrey space $$L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)=\left\{g\in L^p(\Omega):\ \|g\|_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}=\sup_{x\in\Omega,\ 0<r<\hbox{diam}(\Omega)}
\Big(r^{\lambda-n}\int_{B(x,r)\cap\Omega}|g|^p\Big)^\frac1p<\infty\right\},$$ where $\hbox{diam}(\Omega)$ is the diameter of $\Omega$, $B(x,r)$ is the open ball with center $x$ and radius $r$, and the integral is taken with respect to the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure $dy$.
The second one is the Riesz-Morrey capacity of a set $E\subseteq\Omega$: $$C_\alpha(E;L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega))=\inf_{E\subseteq\ open\ O\subseteq\Omega}
C_\alpha(O;L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega))=\inf_{E\subseteq\ open\ O\subseteq\Omega}\sup_{compact\ K\subseteq\ open\ O}C_\alpha(K;L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)),$$ where $$C_\alpha(K;L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega))=\inf\Big\{\|h\|_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}^p:\
0\le h\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)\ \ \&\ \ I_\alpha h\ge 1_K\Big\}$$ for which $1_K$ stands for the characteristic function of the compact $K\subseteq O$.
In this note, through using the Riesz-Morrey capacity we study the quasicontinuous representative and the Hölder quasicontinuity of each Riesz-Morrey potential – see Theorems \[t31\] & \[t33\]. Certainly, the discovered properties show their worth in connection with investigating Hölderian quasicontinuity of some nonnegative weak solutions $u$ of the quasilinear Lane-Emden equations for $p$-Laplacian: $$-\Delta_p u=-\hbox{div}(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)=u^{q+1}\quad\hbox{or}\quad e^u
\quad\hbox{in}\quad \Omega,$$ where $(p,q)\in (1,n)\times (0,\infty)$ – see Theorems \[p42\] & \[p43\].
[*Notation*]{}. In what follows, $\Omega$ is always assumed to be a bounded domain in $\mathbb R^n$. For $E\subseteq\Omega$ define $\fint_E$ to be the integral mean over $E$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure $dy$. And, $\mathsf{X}\lesssim\mathsf{Y}$ stands for $\mathsf{X}\le c\mathsf{Y}$ for a constant $c>0$. Moreover, $\mathsf{X}\approx\mathsf{Y}$ means both $\mathsf{X}\lesssim\mathsf{Y}$ and $\mathsf{Y}\lesssim \mathsf{X}$.
Riesz-Morrey potentials {#s3}
=======================
Quasicontinuous representation for $I_\alpha L^{p,\lambda}$ {#s31}
-----------------------------------------------------------
A function $g$ on $\Omega$ is said to be $C_\alpha(\cdot;L^{p,\lambda})$-quasicontinuous provided that for any $\epsilon>0$ there is a continuous function $\tilde{g}$ on $\Omega$ such that $$C_\alpha\big(\{x\in\Omega: \tilde{g}(x)\not=g(x)\};L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)\big)<\epsilon.$$ Naturally, $\tilde{g}$ is called a $C_\alpha(\cdot;L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega))$-quasicontinuous representative of $g$. The forthcoming Theorem \[t31\] is an extension of [@AH Theorem 6.2.1] from $L^p$ to $L^{p,\lambda}$.
\[l31\] For $1<p<\infty$ and $0<\gamma\le n$, let $L^{p,\gamma}_0(\Omega)$ be the Zorko space (cf. [@Z1986]) of all $f\in L^{p,\gamma}(\Omega)$ that can be approximated by $C^1$ functions with compact support in $\Omega$ under the norm $\|\cdot\|_{L^{p,\gamma}(\Omega)}$. Then $L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)\subseteq L^{p,\gamma}_0(\Omega)\ \ \forall\ \ \lambda\in (0,\gamma)$.
If $\gamma=n$, then $L^{p,\gamma}_0(\Omega)=L^p(\Omega)$, and hence $$\int_{\Omega\cap B(x,r)}|f|^p\le\|f\|_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}^p \big(\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)^{n-\lambda}\quad\forall\quad (\lambda,x,r)\in (0,n)\times\Omega\times \big(0,\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big),$$ thereby deriving the desired inclusion.
If $\gamma<n$, then the desired inclusion follows from [@AX12a Lemma 3.4].
\[t31\] Let $g=I_\alpha f$, $f\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)$, and $1<p< \lambda/\alpha<\mu/\alpha\le n/\alpha$. Then there is a set $\Sigma\subset\Omega$ such that:
[(i)]{} $C_\alpha(\Sigma;L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))=0$;
[(ii)]{} $
\lim_{r\to 0}\fint_{B(x,r)}g=\tilde{g}(x)\quad\forall\quad x\in \Omega\setminus\Sigma;
$
[(iii)]{} $\lim_{r\to 0}\fint_{B(x,r)}\big|g-\tilde{g}(x)\big|=0\quad\forall\quad x\in \Omega\setminus\Sigma.$
Moreover, one has:
[(iv)]{} For any $\epsilon>0$ there is an open set $O\subset\Omega$ such that $C_\alpha(O; L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))<\epsilon$ and the convergence in (ii)-(iii) is uniform on $\Omega\setminus O$;
[(v)]{} $\tilde{g}$ is a $C_\alpha(\cdot;L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))$-quasicontinuous representative of $g$;
[(vi)]{} $
\tilde{g}(x)=g(x)\quad\forall\quad x\in\Omega\setminus O.
$
Given $r\in (0,\infty)$, let $$\chi(x)={1_{\mathbb B^n}(x)}{\omega_n}^{-1}\quad\&\quad\chi_r(x)=r^{-n}\chi(x/r),$$ where $\omega_n$ is the volume of the unit ball $\mathbb B^n$ of $\mathbb R^n$. For $f\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)$, $\epsilon>0$ and $\mu\in (\lambda,n]$, we use Lemma \[l31\] to find a Schwartz function $f_0$ on $\mathbb R^n$ such that $f_0=0$ in $\mathbb R^n\setminus\Omega$ and $\|f-f_0\|_{L^{p,\mu}(\Omega)}<\epsilon$. Consequently, $g_0=I_\alpha f_0$ is a Schwartz function and $\chi_r\ast g_0$ converges to $g_0$ on $\Omega$ as $r\to 0$. Note that $$\fint_{B(x,r)}g=\chi_r\ast g(x)\quad\&\quad \fint_{B(x,r)}g_0=\chi_r\ast g_0(x).$$ Thus, for $\delta>0$ letting $$\mathsf{J}_\delta g(x)=\sup_{0<r<\delta}(\chi_r\ast g)(x)-\inf_{0<r<\delta}(\chi_r\ast g)(x),$$ we have $$\mathsf{J}_\delta g(x)\le \mathsf{J}_\delta (g-g_0)(x)+\mathsf{J}_\delta g_0(x).$$ By the previously-stated convergence, for any given $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ so small that $\sup_{x\in\Omega}\mathsf{J}_\delta g_0(x)<\epsilon$. If $\mathcal{M}$ stands for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator, then $$|\chi_r\ast(g-g_0)(x)|\le \mathcal{M}(g-g_0)(x)\quad\forall\quad x\in\Omega,$$ and hence $$\mathsf{J}_\delta g(x)\le \mathcal{M}(g-g_0)(x)+\epsilon\quad\forall\quad x\in\Omega.$$ Upon choosing $\omega/2>\epsilon>0$, the last estimate gives $$E_\omega:=\{x\in\Omega: \mathsf{J}_\delta g(x)>\omega\}\subseteq\{x\in\Omega: \mathsf{J}_\delta (g-g_0)(x)>\omega/2\}=:F_\omega.$$ In view of the definition of $C_\alpha(\cdot;L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))$ and the boundedness of $\mathcal{M}$ acting on $L^{p,\mu}(\Omega)$, we find $$C_\alpha(E_\omega;L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))\le C_\alpha(F_\omega;L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))\lesssim \omega^{-p}\|f-f_0\|^p_{L^{p,\mu}(\Omega)}\lesssim({\epsilon}{\omega}^{-1})^p.$$ For each natural number $j$ let $\omega=2^{-j}$, $\epsilon=4^{-j}$, and $\delta_j$ be their induced number. If $$G_j=\{x\in\Omega: \mathsf{J}_{\delta_j}g(x)>2^{-j}\},$$ then $$C_\alpha(G_j; L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))\lesssim 2^{-jp}.$$ Furthermore, $$O_k=\cup_{j=k}^\infty G_j\Rightarrow
C_\alpha(O_k; L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))\lesssim\sum_{j=k}^\infty 2^{-jp}\to 0\quad\hbox{as}\quad k\to\infty.$$ Consequently, under $$\begin{cases}
1<p<\mu/\alpha;\\
\mu-\alpha p<d\le n;\\
0<q<dp/(\mu-\alpha p),
\end{cases}$$ one has $$C_\alpha(\cap_{k=1}^\infty O_k; L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))=0.$$ Note that $$x\notin O_k\Rightarrow\mathsf{J}_\delta g(x)\le 2^{-j}\quad\forall\quad\delta\le\delta_j\quad\&\quad j\ge k.$$ So, $$\lim_{r\to 0}\chi_r\ast g(x)=\tilde{g}(x)\ \ \hbox{exists\ for\ any}\ \ x\notin\cap_{k=1}^\infty O_k.$$ Clearly, this convergence is uniform on $\Omega\setminus O_k$ with sufficiently small $C_\alpha(O_k; L^{p,\mu}(\Omega))$. This proves the results of Theorem \[t31\] with $\Sigma=\cap_{k=1}^\infty O_k$ except the part (iii).
However, the demonstration of the part (iii) follows from a slight modification of the above argument plus defining $$\mathsf{J}_\delta(g-\tilde{g})(x)=\sup_{0<r\le\delta}(\chi_r\ast|g-\tilde{g}(x)|)(x)$$ and so establishing $$\mathsf{J}_\delta(g-\tilde{g})(x)\le \mathcal{M}(g-g_0)(x)+|(\tilde{g}-g_0)(x)|+\epsilon$$ under $$\mathsf{J}_\delta(g-{g}_0(x))(x)<\epsilon.$$
Hölderian quasicontinuity for $I_\alpha L^{p,\lambda}$ {#s32}
------------------------------------------------------
Given $\beta\in (0,1]$. We say that $g\in Lip_\beta(\Omega)$ provided that $g$ satisfies $$\sup\left\{\frac{|g(x)-g(y)|}{|x-y|^\beta}:\quad x,y\in\Omega,\ x\not=y\right\}<\infty.$$ In particular, if $\beta\in (0,1)$ or $\beta=1$ then $g$ is called $\beta$-Hölder continuous or Lipschitz continuous. Moreover, a function $g$ defined on $\Omega$ is called Hölder quasicontinuous if for any $\epsilon>0$ there is a set $E\subset\Omega$ of a given capacity smaller than $\epsilon$ such that $g$ is of the Hölder continuity on $\Omega\setminus E$. The forthcoming Theorem \[t33\] shows that any function in $I_\alpha L^{p,\lambda}$ is of Hölder quasicontinuity. To be more precise, let us recall the Sobolev-Morrey type imbedding (cf. [@ADuke; @ALecture]): $$I_\alpha: L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)\mapsto\begin{cases}
L^{\frac{\lambda p}{\lambda-\alpha
p},\lambda}(\Omega)\cap L^{p,\lambda-\alpha p}(\Omega), & 1<p<\lambda/\alpha; \\
BMO(\Omega), & 1<p=\lambda/\alpha, \\
\end{cases}$$ where $$f\in BMO(\Omega)\Longleftrightarrow\sup_{x\in\Omega,\ 0<r<\hbox{diam}(\Omega)}\fint_{B(x,r)\cap\Omega}\left|f-\fint_{B(x,r)\cap\Omega}f\right|<\infty.$$ Interestingly, the above imbedding can be extended from $p\le\lambda/\alpha$ to $p>\lambda/\alpha$.
\[l32\] Let $g=I_\alpha f$, $f\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)$, and $(\alpha,p,\lambda)\in (0,n)\times(1,\infty)\times(0,n]$.
[(i)]{} If $0<\delta=\alpha-\lambda/p<1$, then $g\in Lip_\delta(\Omega)$.
[(ii)]{} If $$\begin{cases}
1<p<\lambda/\alpha;\\
1<q<\min\{p,\lambda/\alpha\};\\
\mu=n-(n-\lambda)q/p;\\
0<\beta<\min\left\{1,\alpha(1-q/p),{\lambda(1-q/p)}/\big({\lambda+(1-\alpha)q}\big)\right\},
\end{cases}$$ then for any $r\in (0,1)$ there exist $f_r\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)$ and $g_r=I_\alpha f_r$ such that $$\begin{cases}
\|f-f_r\|_{L^{q,\mu}(\Omega)}\lesssim r^{\beta};\\
|g_r(x)-g_r(y)|\lesssim |x-y|^\beta\quad\forall\quad y\in B(x,r)\subseteq\Omega.
\end{cases}$$
\(i) Since $\alpha=\delta+\lambda/p$, an application of [@ADuke Corollary (iii)] and [@Carl page 91] gives $$I_\alpha L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)= I_\delta I_{\lambda/p} L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)\subseteq I_\delta BMO(\Omega)\subseteq Lip_\delta(\Omega),$$ whence implying $g\in Lip_\delta(\Omega)$.
\(ii) Without loss of generality, we may assume $\|f\|_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}\le 1$ and $f|_{\mathbb R^n\setminus\Omega}=0$. Since $\Omega$ is bounded, there is a big ball $B(x,r)$ with center $x\in\Omega$ and radius $r\le\hbox{diam}(\Omega)$ such that $\Omega\subseteq B(x,r)$, and consequently, $$\|f\|_{L^p(\Omega)}^p=\int_\Omega|f|^p\le\big(\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)^{n-\lambda}.$$ For $r\in (0,1)$ let $O_r=\{x\in\Omega: |f(x)|>s_r\}$, $s_r=r^{\beta q/(q-p)}$, and $$f_r=\begin{cases} f\quad\hbox{on}\quad \Omega\setminus O_r;\\
0\quad\hbox{on}\quad O_r.
\end{cases}$$ Evidently, $$\int_{O_r}1_{O_r}\le s_r^{-p}\big(\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)^{n-\lambda}$$ and $g_r=I_\alpha f_r$ is bounded. Moreover, by Hölder’s inequality and the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{L^{q,\mu}(\Omega)}$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\|f-f_r\|_{L^{q,\mu}(\Omega)}^q&\le&\|f\|_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}^{q}\left(\int_{O_r}1_{O_r}\right)^\frac{\mu-\lambda}{n-\lambda}\\
&\le&{(\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)^{\mu-\lambda}}{s_r^{\frac{p(\lambda-\mu)}{n-\lambda}}}\\
&\le& (\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)^{(n-\lambda)(1-q/p)} r^{q\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, thanks to $f_r\le s_r$, we can use (i) above to get that if $$p<\bar{p}=\frac{\lambda(p-q)-\beta pq}{\alpha(p-q)-\beta p}\quad\&\quad 0<\bar{\beta}=\alpha-\lambda/\bar{p}<1,$$ then $$|g_r(x)-g_r(y)|=|I_\alpha f_r(x)-I_\alpha f_r(y)|\lesssim\|f_r\|_{L^{\bar{p},\lambda}(\Omega)}|x-y|^{\bar{\beta}}\quad\forall\quad y\in B(x,r).$$ Another application of the Hölder inequality gives $$\|f_r\|^{\bar{p}}_{L^{\bar{p},\lambda}(\Omega)}\le s_r^{\bar{p}-p}\|f\|^p_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}\le s_{r}^{\bar{p}-p}.$$ Thus, $|g_r(x)-g_r(y)|\lesssim r^\beta$ holds for any $y\in B(x,r)$.
Below is the Hölder quasicontinuity for the Riesz-Morrey potentials which actually gives a nontrivial generalization of [@Mal Theorem 7] (see [@HaK] for a further development of [@Mal]).
\[t33\] Let $g=I_\alpha f$, $f\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)$, and $1<p<\lambda/\alpha\le n/\alpha$. If $$\begin{cases}
1<q<\min\{p,\lambda/\alpha\}=p;\\
\mu=n-(n-\lambda)q/p;\\
0<\gamma<\min\left\{1,\alpha(1-q/p),{\lambda(1-q/p)}/\big({\lambda+(1-\alpha)q}\big)\right\},
\end{cases}$$ then for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists an open set $O\subseteq\Omega$ and a $\gamma$-Hölder continuous function $h$ on $\Omega$ such that $$C_\alpha(O;L^{q,\mu}(\Omega))<\epsilon\ \ \&\ \
g=h\quad\hbox{in}\quad\Omega\setminus O.$$
The notations introduced in Lemma \[l32\] and its proof will be used in the sequel. Given $\gamma\in (0,\beta)$ with $\beta$ as in Lemma \[l32\]. Now, for each natural number $j$ let $r_j$ be chosen so that $$\label{qo}
r_0=1\quad\&\quad \Big({r_{j+1}}/{r_j}\Big)^\gamma\le 1/2.$$ For simplicity, set $h_j=g_{r_j}$ and then $f_j$ be the corresponding $f_{r_j}$ and $$\sum_{j=1}^\infty\|f_{j+1}-f_{j}\|_{L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)}<\infty.$$ Choosing $$\begin{cases}
w_j=\max\big\{-r_j^\gamma,\min\{r_j^\gamma,h_{j+1}-h_j\}\big\};\\
O_j=\{x\in\Omega: |h_{j+1}(x)-h_j(x)|>r_j^\gamma\},
\end{cases}$$ we use the already-established estimate $$\|f-f_r\|_{L^{q,\mu}(\Omega)}\le(\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)^{(n-\lambda)(1/q-1/p)} r^{\beta}$$ and the definition of $C_\alpha(\cdot; L^{q,\mu}(\Omega))$ to obtain $$C_\alpha(O_j; L^{q,\mu}(\Omega))\le r_j^{-\gamma q}\|f_{j+1}-f_j\|_{L^{q,\mu}(\Omega)}^q\lesssim r_j^{(\beta-\gamma) q},$$ Consequently, for any $\epsilon>0$ there is a big integer $J$ such that $$\sum_{j=J}^\infty C_\alpha(O_j; L^{q,\mu}(\Omega))\lesssim \sum_{j=J}^\infty r_j^{q(\beta-\gamma)}<\epsilon.$$ Putting $$O=\cup_{j=J}^\infty E_j\ \ \&\ \ h=h_{J}+\sum_{j=J}^\infty w_j,$$ we find that $O$ is an open subset of $\Omega$ and $$C_\alpha(O; L^{q,\mu}(\Omega))<\epsilon\quad\&\quad h=g\quad\hbox{on}\quad \Omega\setminus O.$$ It remains to check that $h$ is $\beta$-Hölder continuous on $\Omega$. Of course, it is enough to verify $$\label{short3}
|h(x)-h(y)|\lesssim |x-y|^\beta\quad\forall\quad x,y\in\Omega\quad\hbox{with}\quad |x-y|\le r_{J}.$$ Obviously, $h_J$ is $\beta$-Hölder continuous. To show the similar property for $\sum_{j=J}^\infty w_j$, we may assume $$x,y\in\Omega;\quad 0<|x-y|\le r_J;\quad r_{k+1}<|x-y|\le r_k.$$ From (\[qo\]) it follows that $$\label{short4}
k\le\Big(\frac{\gamma}{\ln 2}\Big)\ln\frac1{r_k}\le\Big(\frac{\gamma}{(\beta-\gamma)\ln 2}\Big)r_k^{\gamma-\beta}\le\Big(\frac{\gamma}{(\beta-\gamma)\ln 2}\Big)|x-y|^{\gamma-\beta}$$ When $1\le j\le k$, an application of the last estimate in Lemma \[l32\] gives $$|w_j(x)-w_j(y)|\lesssim|x-y|^{\beta}.$$ When $j>k$, another application of (\[qo\]) yields $$|w_j(x)-w_j(y)|\le 2r_j^\gamma\le 2^{k-j+2}r_{k+1}^\gamma\le 2^{k-j+2}|x-y|^\gamma.$$ This, together with (\[short4\]) and $h=h_{J}+\sum_{j=J}^\infty w_j$, derives $$|h(x)-h(y)|\lesssim |x-y|^\gamma+k|x-y|^{\beta}\lesssim|x-y|^\gamma.$$
Lane-Emden Equations {#s2}
====================
Hölderian quasicontinuity for $-\Delta_p u=u^{q+1}$
---------------------------------------------------
Recall that for $1\le p<\infty$ the Sobolev space $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ consists of all functions $f$ with $$\|f\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}=\left(\int_{\Omega}|f|^p\right)^\frac1p+\left(\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f|^p\right)^\frac1p<\infty$$ and the Sobolev space $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is the completeness of $C^1_0(\Omega)$ (all $C^1$ functions $f$ with compact support in $\Omega$) under $\|\cdot\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}$. According to [@GiTr Lemma 7.14], any $f\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$ can be represented via $$\label{e41}
f(x)=\frac{\Gamma\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)}{2\pi^\frac{n}{2}}\int_{\Omega}|x-y|^{-n}(x-y)\cdot\nabla f(y)\,dy\ \ \&\ \ |f(x)|\le \left(\frac{\Gamma\big(\frac{n}{2}\big)}{2\pi^\frac{n}{2}}\right)\big(I_1|\nabla f|\big)(x)\quad\hbox{a.e.}\quad x\in\Omega,$$ where $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the usual gamma function. As a variant of $C_1(K; L^{p,n}(\Omega))$ the variational $p$-capacity of a compact $K\subseteq\Omega$ is defined by $$C(K;W_0^{1,p}(\Omega))=\inf\left\{\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f|^p:\ f\in
W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\ \&\ f\ge 1_K\right\}.$$ Clearly, this definition is extendable to an arbitrary set $E\subseteq\Omega$ through (cf. [@HKM p.27]) $$C(E;W_0^{1,p}(\Omega))=\inf_{E\subseteq\ open\ O\subseteq\Omega}
C(O;W_0^{1,p}(\Omega))=\inf_{E\subseteq\ open\ O\subseteq\Omega}\sup_{compact\ K\subseteq\ open\ O}C(K;W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)).$$ Importantly, such a capacity can used to establish the following relatively independent Sobolev embedding whose (v) is indeed a sort of motivation to investigate the quasilinear Lane-Emden equations.
\[p23\] Given $1<p<\min\{n,q\}$ and $0<r<q(1-p^{-1})$, let $\nu$ be a nonnegative Radon measure on $\Omega$. Then the following properties are mutually equivalent:
[(i)]{} $I_1$ is a continuous operator from $L^{p}(\Omega)$ into $L^q(\Omega,\nu)$;
[(ii)]{} $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ continuously embeds into $L^q(\Omega,\nu)$.
[(iii)]{} Isocapacitary inequality $\nu(K)\lesssim {C}(K; W^{1,p}_0(\Omega))^\frac{q}{p}$ holds for all compact sets $K\subset\Omega$;
[(iv)]{} Isocapacitary inequality $\nu(B(x,r))\lesssim r^\frac{q(n-p)}{p}$ holds for all $B(x,r)\subseteq\Omega$;
[(v)]{} Faber-Krahn’s inequality $\nu(O)^{\frac{p}{q}-1}\lesssim\lambda_{p,\nu}(O)$ holds for all bounded open sets $O\subseteq\Omega$, where $$\lambda_{p,\nu}(O)=\inf\left\{\frac{\int_O|\nabla f|^p}{\int_O|f|^p\,d\nu}:\ f\in C_0^1(O)\ \&\ f\not\equiv 0\ \hbox{on}\ O\right\}.$$
(ii)$\Leftrightarrow$(iii)$\Leftrightarrow$(iv)$\Leftrightarrow$(i) is essentially known – see, for example, [@Maz0; @Maz0a] and [@AH Theorem 7.2.2].
So, it remains to prove (ii)$\Leftrightarrow$(v). If (ii) is valid, then the Hölder inequality yields that for any open set $O\subseteq\Omega$ and $f\in C_0^1(O)$, $$\int_O|f|^p\,d\nu\le\left(\int_{O}|f|^q\,d\nu\right)^\frac{p}{q}\nu(O)^{1-\frac{p}{q}}\lesssim\Big(\int_O|\nabla f|^p\Big)\nu(O)^{1-\frac{p}{q}}$$ holds, whence giving (v). For the converse, we use the argument methods in [@Cha pp. 159-161] and [@Coh] to proceed. Suppose (v) is true. Then for any $f\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ and any $t>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}|f|^p\,d\nu&\le& \int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ |f(y)|>t\}}|f|^p\,d\nu+ t^{p-1}\int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ |f(y)|\le t\}}|f|\,d\nu\\
&\lesssim&\frac{\int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ |f(y)|>t\}}|\nabla f|^p}{\nu(\{y\in\Omega:\ |f(y)|>t\})^{\frac{p}{q}-1}}
+ t^{p-1}\int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ |f(y)|\le t\}}|f|\,d\nu\\
&\lesssim&\left(t^{-1}{\int_{\Omega}|f|\,d\nu}\right)^{1-\frac{p}{q}}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f|^p+t^{p-1}\int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ |f(y)|\le t\}}|f|\,d\nu.\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $$t=\left(\frac{\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f|^p}{\big(\int_{\Omega}|f|\,d\nu\big)^\frac{p}{q}}\right)^\frac{q}{p(q-1)},$$ we get a constant $c>0$ such that $$\int_{\Omega}|f|^p\,d\nu\le 2c\left(\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f|^p\right)^\frac{q(p-1)}{p(q-1)}\left(\int_{\Omega}|f|\,d\nu\right)^\frac{q-p}{q-1}.$$ Replacing this $f$ by $$f_k=\min\big\{\max\{f-2^k, 0\},2^k\big\},\ k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int_{\Omega}f_k^p\,d\nu\right)^\frac{p(q-1)}{q(p-1)}\le (2c)^\frac{p(q-1)}{q(p-1)}\left(\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f_k|^p\right)\left(\int_{\Omega}f_k\,d\nu\right)^\frac{p(q-p)}{q(p-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(2^{kp}\nu(\{y\in\Omega:\ f(y)\ge 2^{k+1}\})\right)^\frac{p(q-1)}{q(p-1)}\\
&&\le (2c)^\frac{p(q-1)}{q(p-1)}\left(\int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ \ 2^k\le f(y)<2^{k+1}\}}|\nabla f|^p\right)\left(2^{k}\nu(\{y\in\Omega:\ f(y)\ge 2^{k}\})\right)^\frac{p(q-p)}{q(p-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $$\left\{\begin{array} {r@{\quad}l}
a_k & =\ 2^{kq}\nu(\{y\in\Omega:\ f(y)\ge 2^{k}\});\\
b_k &=\ \int_{\{y\in\Omega:\ \ 2^k\le f(y)<2^{k+1}\}}|\nabla f|^p;\\
\theta &=\ \frac{q(p-1)}{p(q-1)},
\end{array}
\right.$$ one has $a_{k+1}\le 2^{1+q}c b_k^\theta a_k^{p(1-\theta)}$. This, together with Hölder’s inequality, derives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k}a_k&\le&2^{1+q}c\sum_{k}b_k^\theta a_k^{p(1-\theta)}\\
&\le&2^{1+q}c\Big(\sum_{k}b_k\Big)^\theta\Big(\sum_{k} a_k\Big)^{p(1-\theta)}\\
&\le&2^{1+q}c\Big(\int_{\Omega}|\nabla f(y)|^p\,dy\Big)^\theta\Big(\sum_{k} a_k\Big)^{p(1-\theta)}.\end{aligned}$$ A simplification of these estimates yields (ii).
\[r22\] The part on Faber-Krahn’s inequality under $(p,q,d\nu)=(2,{2n}/{(n-2)},dy)$ of Proposition \[p23\] appeared in [@Car; @Heb; @Xia1; @Xia2; @Xia3]. In particular, if $$d\nu=\omega dy\ \ \&\ \ 1<p<q<{pn}/{(n-p)},$$ then condition (iv) above says that $0\le\omega$ belongs to the Morrey space $L^{1,n-(n-p)q/p}(\Omega)$ – in other words – the Sobolev imbedding under this circumstance is fully controlled by this Morrey space; see [@MazV] for a similar treatment on the Schrödinger operator $-\Delta +\mathcal{V}$. Furthermore, when the last $\omega$ equals identically $1$, there is a nonnegative function $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ such that the Euler-Lagrange (or Lane-Emden type) equation $$-\Delta_p u=\lambda_{p,\nu}(\Omega)u^{p-1}\quad\hbox{in}\quad \Omega$$ holds in the weak sense: $$\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\phi=\lambda_{p,\nu}(\Omega)\int_{\Omega}u^{p-1}\phi\quad\forall\quad\phi\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega);$$ see e.g. [@KP] and its related references.
In view of Proposition \[p23\], Remark \[r22\], and the research of the Lane-Emden equations in [@Pa; @Pa1; @Pa2; @Pa3; @PoV; @APAMS; @SeZ; @Zou; @GS; @CE], we consider the nonnegative weak solutions of the quasilinear Lane-Emden equation with index $(p,q)\in (1,n)\times (0,\infty)$: $$\label{e47}
-\Delta_p u= u^{q+1}\quad\hbox{in}\quad\Omega,$$ and utilize Theorem \[t33\] to get the following result.
\[p42\] Let $$\begin{cases}
(p,q)\in (1,n)\times(0,\infty);\\
\tilde{q}\ge\max\{p,q+2\};\\
n\ge\lambda\ge\max\left\{\frac{n(q+2)}{\tilde{q}},p\big(\frac{n}{\tilde{q}}+1\big)\right\}.
\end{cases}$$ If $u\in L^{\tilde{q}}(\Omega)$ is a nonnegative weak solution of (\[e47\]), then for any $\epsilon>0$ there is an open set $O\subseteq\Omega$ such that $C_1(O;L^{\hat{q},\hat{\mu}}(\Omega))<\epsilon$ and $I_1|\nabla u|$ is $\hat{\gamma}$-Hölder continuous in $\Omega\setminus O$ where $$\begin{cases}
1<\hat{q}<p\le\lambda<\hat{\mu}=n-(n-\lambda)\hat{q}/p;\\
0<\hat{\gamma}<1-\hat{q}/p.
\end{cases}$$
Suppose $u\in L^{\tilde{q}}(\Omega)$ is a nonnegative weak solution of (\[e47\]). Then $$\label{e47a}
\int_\Omega u^{q+1}\phi=\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\phi\quad\forall\quad \phi\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega).$$ Given $x_0\in\Omega$ and $0<r<\hbox{diam}(\Omega)$. Upon taking a test function $\phi=u\eta^2$ such that $$\label{e31f}
\begin{cases}
\eta(x)=1\quad\hbox{for}\quad x\in B(x_0,r/3);\\
\eta(x)=0\quad\hbox{for}\quad x\in \mathbb R^n\setminus B(x_0,r/2);\\
|\nabla \eta(x)|\lesssim r^{-1}\quad\hbox{for}\quad x\in B(x_0,r),
\end{cases}$$ we utilize (\[e47a\]) to get $$\int_\Omega u^{q+2}\eta^2=\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2\eta^2+2^{-1}\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{p-2}\big(\nabla (u^2)\big)\cdot\big(\nabla(\eta^2)\big).$$ Through the properties of $\eta$, Young’s inequality $$\label{CS}
ab\le \frac{\epsilon a^{\theta}}{\theta}+\frac{\epsilon^{\frac{1}{1-\theta}}b^{\theta'}}
{\theta'}\quad{\forall}\quad a,\ b,\
\epsilon,\ \theta-1>0\ \ \&\ \ \theta'=\frac{\theta}{\theta-1},$$ (applied to the last integral), and Hölder’s inequality, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}|\nabla u|^p&\lesssim&\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}u^{2+q}+r^{-p}\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}u^p\\
&\lesssim& \left(\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}u^{\tilde{q}}\right)^{\frac{2+q}{\tilde{q}}}r^{n(1-\frac{2+q}{\tilde{q}})}
+\left(\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}u^{\tilde{q}}\right)^\frac{p}{\tilde{q}}r^{n(1-\frac{p}{\tilde{q}})-p}\\
&\lesssim&\left(\|u\|^{q+2}_{L^{\tilde{q}}(\Omega)}+\|u\|_{L^{\tilde{q}}(\Omega)}^p\right)r^{n-\lambda}(\hbox{diam}(\Omega))^{\tilde{\lambda}},\end{aligned}$$ where the assumption on $p,q,\tilde{q},\lambda$ and the following definition $$\tilde{\lambda}=\lambda-\max\left\{\frac{n(q+2)}{\tilde{q}},\ \frac{p(n+\tilde{q})}{\tilde{q}}\right\}\ge 0$$ have been used. Therefore, $|\nabla u|\in L^{p,\lambda}(\Omega)$ and desired assertion follows from applying Theorem \[t33\] to the Riesz-Morrey potential $I_1|\nabla u|$.
Hölderian quasicontinuity for $-\Delta_p u=e^u$
-----------------------------------------------
The recent works [@W1; @W2; @D; @F], along with Theorem \[p42\], have driven us to consider the nonnegative weak solutions to the quasilinear Lane equation for the $1<p<n$ Laplacian: $$\label{e477}
-\Delta_p u= e^u\quad\hbox{in}\quad\Omega,$$ thereby discovering the following fact.
\[p43\] Let $1<p<n$. If $u$ with $\int_{\Omega}ue^u<\infty$ is a nonnegative weak solution of (\[e477\]), then for any $\epsilon>0$ there is an open set $O\subseteq\Omega$ such that $C_1(O;L^{\hat{q},n}(\Omega))<\epsilon$ and $I_1|\nabla u|$ is $\hat{\gamma}$-Hölder continuous in $\Omega\setminus O$ where $$\begin{cases}
1<\hat{q}<p;\\
0<\hat{\gamma}<1-\hat{q}/p.
\end{cases}$$
Suppose $u\ge 0$ is a weak solution of (\[e477\]) with the integrability $\int_{\Omega}ue^u<\infty$. Then $$\label{e47ab}
\int_\Omega e^u\phi=\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\phi\quad\forall\quad \phi\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega).$$ Given $(x_0,r)\in\Omega\times \big(0,\hbox{diam}(\Omega)\big)$. Choosing $\phi=u\eta^2$ with (\[e31f\]) we obtain via (\[e47ab\]): $$\int_\Omega ue^u \eta^2=\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2\eta^2+2^{-1}\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{p-2}\big(\nabla (u^2)\big)\cdot\big(\nabla(\eta^2)\big).$$ An application of the Young inequality (\[CS\]), the Hölder inequality and the assumption $p\in (1,n)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}|\nabla u|^p&\lesssim&\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}u e^u+r^{-p}\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega}u^p\\
&\lesssim& \int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega} u e^{u}
+ r^{-p}\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega} u^{1-p/n}u^{p-1+p/n}\\
&\lesssim&\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega} u e^{u}
+ r^{-p}\int_{B(x_0,r/3)\cap\Omega} (ue^u)^{1-p/n}\\
&\lesssim&\int_{\Omega} u e^{u}
+\left(\int_{\Omega} ue^{u}\right)^{1-p/n}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $|\nabla u|\in L^{p,n}(\Omega)$. This, together with Theorem \[t33\] for the Riesz-Morrey potential $I_1|\nabla u|$, derives the desired assertion.
[99]{}
D. R. Adams, [*A note on Riesz potentials*]{}, [Duke Math. J.]{} 42(1975)765-778.
D. R. Adams, [*Lectures on $L^p$-Potential Theory*]{}, Volume 2, Department of Mathematics, University of Ume, 1981.
D. R. Adams, [*On F. Pacard’s regularity for $-\Delta u=u^p$*]{}, Electron. J. Differential Equations 2012, No. 125, 6 pp.
D. R. Adams and L. I. Hedberg, *Function Spaces and Potential Theory*. [Springer-Verlag]{}, Berlin Heidelberg, 1996.
D. R. Adams and J. Xiao, [*Nonlinear analysis on Morrey spaces and their capacities*]{}, [Indiana Univ. Math. J.]{} [53]{}(2004)1629-1663.
D. R. Adams and J. Xiao, [*Morrey potentials and harmonic maps*]{}, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{} 308 (2011)439-456.
D. R. Adams and J. Xiao, [*Morrey spaces in harmonic analysis*]{}, [Ark. Mat.]{} 50(2012)201-230
D. R. Adams and J. Xiao, [*Regularity of Morrey commutators*]{}, [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} 364(2012)4801-4818.
D. R. Adams and J. Xiao, [*Singularities of nonlinear elliptic systems*]{}, Comm. Partial Diff. Equ. 38(2013)1256-1273.
L. Carleson, [*Selected Problems in Exceptional Sets*]{}, Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J., 1967.
G. Carron, *Inégalités isopérimétriques de Faber-Krahn et conséquences*, [Publications de l’Institut Fourier]{}, 220, 1992.
I. Chavel, *Isoperimetric Inequalities*. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
G. Christopher and P. Enea, *On the asymptotics of solutions of the Lane-Emden problem for the $p$-Laplacian*, Arch Math. (Basel) 91(2008)354-365.
T. Coulhon, [*Espaces de Lipschitz et inégalités de Poincáre*]{}, [J. Funct. Anal.]{} [136]{}(1996)81-113.
L. Dupaigne, M. Ghergu, O. Goubet and G. Warnault, [*The Gel’fand problem for the biharmonic operator*]{}, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 208(2013)725-752.
A. Farina, [*Stable solutions of $-\Delta u$ on $\mathbb R^N$*]{}, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 345 (2007)63-66.
B. Gidas and J. Spruck, [*Global and local behavior of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. XXXIV(1981)525-598.
D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger, [*Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2001.
P. Hajlasz and J. Kinnunen, [*Hölder quasicontinuity of Sobolev functions on metric spaces*]{}, Revista Math. Iberoamericana 14(1998)601-622.
E. Hebey, *Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds: Sobolev Spaces and Inequalities*, [Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences]{}, [5]{}, [American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,]{} 1999.
J. Heinonen, T. Kilpeläinen and O. Martio, [*Nonlinear Potential Theory of Degenerate Elliptic Equations*]{}, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, 2006.
B. Kawohl and P. Lindqvist, [*Positive eigenfunctions for the $p$-Laplace operator revisited*]{}, Analysis (Munich) 26(2006)545-550.
J. Malý, [*Hölder type quasicontinuity*]{}, Potential Anal. 2(1993)249-254.
V. G. Maz’ya, [*Sobolev Spaces*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1985.
V. G. Maz’ya, [*Lectures on isoperimetric and isocapacitary inequalities in the theory of Sobolev spaces*]{}, [Contemp. Math.]{} [338]{}(2003)307-340.
V. G. Maz’ya and I. E. Verbitsky, [*Infinitesimal form boundedness and Trudinger’s subordination for the Schrödinger operator*]{}, [Invent. Math.]{} 162(2005)81-136.
F. Pacard, [*A note on the regularity of weak solutions of $-\Delta u=u^\alpha$, $n\ge 3$*]{}, [Houston J. Math.]{} 18(1992)621-632.
F. Pacard, [*A regularity criterion for positive weak solutions of $-\Delta u=u^\alpha$*]{}, [Comment. Math. Helv.]{} 68(1993)73-84.
F. Pacard, [*Partial regularity for weak solutions of a nonlinear elliptic equation criterion*]{}, [Manuscripta Math.]{} 79(1993)161-172.
F. Pacard, [*Existence and convergence of positive weak solutions of $-\Delta u=u^\frac{n}{n-2}$ in bounded domains of $\mathbb R^n, n\ge 3$*]{}, [Cal. Var.]{} 1(1993)243-265.
A. Porretta and L. Véron, [*Separable solutions of quasilinear Lane-Emden equations*]{}, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 15(2013)755-774.
J. Serrin, [*A remark on the Morrey potential*]{}, [Contemp. Math.]{} 426(2007)307-315.
J. Serrin and H. H. Zou, [*Cauchy-Liouville and universal boundedness theorems for quasilinear elliptic equations and inequalities*]{}, [Acta Math.]{} 189(2002)79-142.
K. Wang, [*Partial regularity of stable solutions to the Emden equation*]{}, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 44(2012)601-610.
K. Wang, [*Erratum to: Partial regularity of stable solutions to the Emden equation*]{}, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 47(2013)433-435. J. Xiao, [*The $p$-Faber-Krahn inequality noted*]{}, In: [Around the Research of Vladimir Maz’ya I. Function Spaces]{}, pp. 373-390, Springer, 2010.
J. Xiao, [*$L^p$-Green potential estimates on noncompact Riemannian manifolds*]{}, [J. Math. Phys.]{} 51, 063515(2010)1-17.
J. Xiao, [*Isoperimetry for semilinear torsion problems in Riemannian two-manifolds*]{}, [Adv. Math.]{} 229(2012)2379-2404.
C. T. Zorko, [*Morrey spaces*]{}, [Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} 98(1986)586-592.
H. H. Zou, [*A priori estimates and existence for quasi-linear elliptic equations*]{}, [Calc. Var.]{} 33(2008)417-437.
[^1]: JX is in part supported by NSERC of Canada and URP of Memorial University.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the deep interplay between geometry of quadrics in $d$-dimensional space and the dynamics of related integrable billiard systems. Various generalizations of Poncelet theorem are reviewed. The corresponding analytic conditions of Cayley’s type are derived giving the full description of periodical billiard trajectories; among other cases, we consider billiards in arbitrary dimension $d$ with the boundary consisting of arbitrary number $k$ of confocal quadrics. Several important examples are presented in full details demonstrating the effectiveness of the obtained results. We give a thorough analysis of classical ideas and results of Darboux and methodology of Lebesgue, and prove their natural generalizations, obtaining new interesting properties of pencils of quadrics. At the same time, we show essential connections between these classical ideas and the modern algebro-geometric approach in the integrable systems theory.'
author:
- |
Vladimir Dragović and Milena Radnović [^1]\
[Mathematical Institute SANU, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro]{}\
title: Geometry of Integrable Billiards and Pencils of Quadrics
---
*to be published in:*
*Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées*
Introduction
============
In his [*Traité des propriétés projectives des figures*]{} [@Pon], Poncelet proved one of most beautiful and most important claims of the 19th century geometry. Suppose that two ellipses are given in the plane, together with a closed polygonal line inscribed in one of them and circumscribed about the other one. Then, Poncelet theorem states that infinitely many such closed polygonal lines exist –– every point of the first ellipse is a vertex of such a polygon. Besides, all these polygons have the same number of sides. Poncelet’s proof was purely geometrical, synthetic. Later, using the addition theorem for elliptic functions, Jacobi gave another proof of the theorem [@Jac]. Essentially, Poncelet theorem is equivalent to the addition theorem and Poncelet’s proof represents a synthetic way of deriving the group structure on an elliptic curve. Another proof, in a modern, algebro-geometrical manner, can be found in Griffiths’ and Harris’ paper [@GH1]. There, they also gave an interesting generalization of the Poncelet theorem to the three-dimensional case, considering polyhedral surfaces both inscribed and circumscribed about two quadrics.
A natural question connected with Poncelet theorem is to find an analytical condition determining, for two given conics, if an $n$-polygon inscribed in one and circumscribed about the second conic exists. In a short paper [@Cay], Cayley derived such a condition, using the theory of Abelian integrals. Inspired by this paper, Lebesgue translated Cayley’s proof to the language of geometry. Lebesgue’s proof of Cayley’s condition, derived by methods of projective geometry and algebra, can be found in his book [*Les coniques*]{} [@Leb]. Griffiths and Harris derived Cayley theorem by finding an analytical condition for points of finite order on an elliptic curve [@GH2].
It is worth emphasizing that Poncelet, in fact, proved a statement that is much more general than the famous Poncelet theorem [@Ber; @Pon], then deriving the latter as a corollary. Namely, he considered $n+1$ conics of a pencil in the projective plane. If there exists an $n$-polygon with vertices lying on the first of these conics and each side touching one of the other $n$ conics, then infinitely many such polygons exist. We shall refer to this statement as [*Complete Poncelet theorem*]{} (CPT) and call such polygons [*Poncelet polygons*]{}. We are going to follow here mostly the presentation of Lebesgue from [@Leb], which is, as we learned from M. Berger, quite close to one of two Poncelet’s original proofs.
A nice historical overview of the Poncelet theorem, together with modern proofs and remarks is given in [@BKOR]. Various classical theorems of Poncelet type with short modern proofs reviewed in [@BB], while the algebro-geometrical approach to families of Poncelet polygons via modular curves is given in [@BM; @Jak].
Poncelet theorem has a nice mechanical interpretation. [*Elliptical billiard*]{} [@KT] is a dynamical system where a material point of the unit mass is moving with a constant velocity inside an ellipse and obeying the reflection law at the boundary, i.e. having congruent impact and reflection angles with the tangent line to the ellipse at any bouncing point. It is also assumed that the reflection is absolutely elastic. It is well known that any segment of a given elliptical billiard trajectory is tangent to the same conic, confocal with the boundary [@CCS]. If a trajectory becomes closed after $n$ reflections, then Poncelet theorem implies that any trajectory of the billiard system, which shares the same caustic curve, is also periodic with the period $n$.
Complete Poncelet theorem also has a mechanical meaning. The configuration dual to a pencil of conics in the plane is a family of confocal second order curves [@Ar]. Let us consider the following, a little bit unusual billiard. Suppose $n$ confocal conics are given. A particle is bouncing on each of these $n$ conics respectively. Any segment of such a trajectory is tangent to the same conic confocal with the given $n$ curves. If the motion becomes closed after $n$ reflections, then, by Complete Poncelet theorem, any such a trajectory with the same caustic is also closed.
The statement dual to Complete Poncelet theorem can be generalized to the $d$-dimensional space [@CCS]. Suppose vertices of the polygon $x_1x_2\dots x_n$ are respectively placed on confocal quadric hyper-surfaces $\mathcal Q_1$, $\mathcal Q_2$, …, $\mathcal Q_n$ in the $d$-dimensional Eucledean space, with consecutive sides obeying the reflection law at the corresponding hyper-surface. Then all sides are tangent to some quadrics $\mathcal Q^1$, …, $\mathcal Q^{d-1}$ confocal with $\{\mathcal Q_i\}$; for the hyper-surfaces $\{\mathcal
Q_i,\mathcal Q^j\}$, an infinite family of polygons with the same properties exist.
But, more than one century before these quite recent results, Darboux proved the generalization of Poncelet theorem for a billiard within an ellipsoid in the three-dimensional space [@Dar1]. It seems that his work on this topic is completely forgot nowadays.
It is natural to search for a Cayley-type condition related to some of generalizations of Poncelet theorem. The authors derived such conditions for the billiard system inside an ellipsoid in the Eucledean space of arbitrary finite dimension [@DR1; @DR2]. In our recent note [@DR3], algebro-geometric conditions for existence of periodical billiard trajectories within $k$ quadrics in $d$-dimensional Euclidean space were announced. The aim of the present paper is to give full explanations and proofs of these results together with several important examples and improvements. The second important goal of this paper is to offer a thorough historical overview of the subject with a special attention on the detailed analysis of ideas and contributions of Darboux and Lebesgue. While Lebesgue’s work on this subject has been, although rarely, mentioned by experts, on the other hand, it seems to us that relevant Darboux’s ideas are practically unknown in the contemporary mathematics. We give natural higher dimensional generalizations of the ideas and results of Darboux and Lebesgue, providing the proofs also in the low-dimensional cases if they were omitted in the original works. Beside other results, interesting new properties of pencils of quadrics are established – see Theorems \[th:virt.refl\] and \[uopsten.lebeg\]. The latter gives a nontrivial generalization of the Basic Lemma.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, a short review of Lebesgue’s results from [@Leb] is given, followed by their application to the case of the billiard system between two confocal ellipses. Section \[hyper\] contains algebro-geometric discussions which will be applied in the rest of the paper. In Section \[k.quad\], we give analytic conditions for periodicity of billiard motion inside a domain bounded by several confocal quadrics in the Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension. The complexity of the problem of billiard motion within several quadrics is well known, even in the real case, and it is induced by multivaluedness of the billiard mapping. Thus, to establish a correct setting of the problem, we introduce basic notions of reflections [*from inside*]{} and [*from outside*]{} a quadric hyper-surface, and we define [*the billiard ordered game*]{}. The corresponding closeness conditions are derived, together with examples and discussions. In Section \[discrete\], we consider the elliptical billiard as a discrete-time dynamical system, and, applying the Veselov’s and Moser’s algebro-geometric integration procedure, we derive the periodicity conditions. The obtained results are compared with those from Section \[k.quad\]. In Section \[on.quad\], we give an algebro-geometric description of periodical trajectories of the billiard motion on quadric hyper-surfaces, we study the behaviour of geodesic lines after the reflection at a confocal quadric and derive a new porism of Poncelet type. In Section \[virtual\], we define the virtual reflection configuration, prove Darboux’s statement on virtual billiard trajectories, generalize it to arbitrary dimension and study related geometric questions. In Section \[gen.lebeg\], we formulate and prove highly nontrivial generalization of the Basic Lemma (Lemma \[lebeg.lema\]), giving a new important geometric property of dual pencils of quadrics. In that section, we also introduce and study the [*generalized Cayley curve*]{}, a natural higher-dimensional generalization of [*the Cayley cubic*]{} studied by Lebesgue. In this way, in Section \[gen.lebeg\] the most important tools of Lebesgue’s study are generalized. Further development of this line will be presented in separate publication [@DR4]. In Appendix 1, we review some known classes of integrable potential perturbations of elliptical billiards, emphasizing connections with Appell hypergeometric functions and Liouville surfaces. Finally, in Appendix 2, we present the related Darboux’s results considering a generalization of Poncelet theorem to Liouville surfaces, giving a good basis for a study of the geometry of periodic trajectories appearing in the perturbed systems from Appendix 1.
Planar Case: $d=2$, $k$ – Arbitrary {#planar}
===================================
First of all, we consider the billiard system within $k$ confocal ellipses in the 2-dimensional plane. In such a system, the billiard particle bounces sequentially of these confocal ellipses. We wish to get the analytical description of periodical trajectories of such a system.
Following Lebesgue, let us consider polygons inscribed in a conic $\Gamma$, whose sides are tangent to $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_k$, where $\Gamma, \Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_k$ all belong to a pencil of conics. In the dual plane, such polygons correspond to billiard trajectories having caustic $\Gamma^*$ with bounces on $\Gamma_1^*,\dots,\Gamma_k^*$. The main object of Lebesgue’s analysis is the cubic Cayley curve, which parametrizes contact points of tangents drawn from a given point to all conics of the pencil.
Full Poncelet Theorem
---------------------
[**Basic Lemma.**]{} Next lemma is the main step in the proof of full Poncelet theorem. If one Poncelet polygon is given, this lemma enables us to construct every Poncelet polygon with given initial conditions. Also, the lemma is used in deriving of a geometric condition for the existence of a Poncelet polygon.
[[@Leb]]{}\[lebeg.lema\] Let $\mathcal F$ be a pencil of conics in the projective plane and $\Gamma$ a conic from this pencil. Then there exist quadrangles whose vertices $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ are on $\Gamma$ such that three pairs of its non-adjacent sides $AB$, $CD$; $AC$, $BD$; $AD$, $BC$ are tangent to three conics of $\mathcal F$. Moreover, the six contact points all lie on a line $\Delta$. Any such a quadrangle is determined by two sides and the corresponding contact points.
Let $\Gamma$, $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ be conics of a pencil and $ABC$ a Poncelet triangle corresponding to these conics, such that its vertices lie on $\Gamma$ and sides $AB$, $BC$, $CA$ touch $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ respectively. This lemma gives us a possibility to construct triangle $ABD$ inscribed in $\Gamma$ whose sides $AB$, $BD$, $DA$ touch conics $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_3$, $\Gamma_2$ respectively. In a similar fashion, for a given Poncelet polygon, we can, applying Lemma 1, construct another polygon which corresponds to the same conics, but its sides are tangent to them in different order.
[**Circumscribed and Tangent Polygons.**]{} Let a triangle $ABC$ be inscribed in a conic $\Gamma$ and sides $BC$, $AC$, $AB$ touch conics $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ of the pencil $\mathcal F$ at points $M$, $N$, $P$ respectively. According to the Lemma, there are two possible cases: either points $M$, $N$, $P$ are collinear, when we will say that the triangle is [*tangent*]{} to $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$; or the line $MN$ is intersecting $AB$ at a point $S$ which is a harmonic conjugate to $P$ with respect to the pair $A$, $B$, then we say that the triangle is [*circumscribed*]{} about $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$.
Let $ABCD \dots KL$ be a polygon inscribed in $\Gamma$ whose sides touch conics $\Gamma_1$, …, $\Gamma_n$ of the pencil $\mathcal
F$ respectively. Denote by $(AC)$ a conic such that $\triangle
ABC$ is circumscribed about $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $(AC)$, by $(AD)$ a conic such that $\triangle ACD$ is circumscribed about $(AC)$, $\Gamma_3$, $(AD)$. Similarly, we find conics $(AE)$, …, $(AK)$. The triangle $AKL$ can be tangent to the conics $(AK)$, $\Gamma_{n-1}$, $\Gamma_n$ or circumscribed about them, and we will say that $ABCD \dots KL$ is [*tangent*]{} or, respectively, [*circumscribed*]{} about conics $\Gamma_1$, …, $\Gamma_n$.
Further, we will be interested only in circumscribed polygons. The Poncelet theorem does not hold for tangent triangles nor, hence, for tangent polygons with greater number of vertices.
\[CPT\] [(Complete Poncelet theorem)]{} Let conics $\Gamma$, $\Gamma_1$, …, $\Gamma_n$ belong to a pencil $\mathcal F$. If a polygon inscribed in $\Gamma$ and circumscribed about $\Gamma_1$, …, $\Gamma_n$ exists, then infinitely many such polygons exist.
To determine such a polygon, it is possible to give arbitrarily:
$1)$ the order which its sides touch $\Gamma_1$, …, $\Gamma_n$ in; let the order be: $\Gamma_1'$, …, $\Gamma_n'$;
$2)$ a tangent to $\Gamma_1'$ containing one side of the polygon;
$3)$ the intersecting point of this tangent with $\Gamma$ which will belong to the side tangent to $\Gamma_2'$.
The proof is given in [@Leb].
Cayley’s Condition
------------------
[**Representation of Conics of a Pencil by Points on a Cubic Curve.**]{} Let pencil $\mathcal F$ of conics be determined by the curves $C=0$ and $\Gamma=0$. The equation of an arbitrary conic of the pencil is $C+ \lambda \Gamma =0$.
Let $P + \lambda \Pi =0$ be the equation of the corresponding polar lines from the point $A \in \Gamma$. The geometric place of contact points of tangents from $A$ with conics of the pencil is the cubic $\mathcal C: C \Pi - \Gamma P = 0$. On this cubic, any conic of $\mathcal F$ is represented by two contact points, which we will call [*representative points*]{} of the conic. The line determined by these two points passes through point $Z : P=0,\
\Pi=0$. There exist exactly four conics of the pencil whose representative points coincide: the conic $\Gamma$ and three degenerate conics with representative points $A$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$. Lines $ZA$, $Z \alpha$, $Z \beta$, $Z \gamma$ are tangents to $\mathcal C$ constructed from $Z$. The tangent line to cubic $\mathcal C$ at point $Z$ is a polar of point $A$ with respect to the conic of the pencil which contains $Z$.
[**Condition for Existence of a Poncelet Triangle.**]{} If triangles inscribed in $\Gamma$ and circumscribed about $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ exist, we will say that the conics $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ are [*joined*]{} to $\Gamma$. In this case, CPT states there is six such triangles with the vertex $A \in \Gamma$. Let $ABC$ be one of them. Side $AB$, denote it by [*1*]{}, touches $\Gamma_1$ in point $m_1$. Also, it touches another conic of the pencil, denote it by $(I)$, in point $M$. Side $AC$, denote it by [*2’*]{}, touches $\Gamma_2$ in $m_2'$. Consider the quadrangle $ABCD$ determined by $AB$, $AC$ and contact points $M$, $m_2'$. Line $Mm_2'$ meets $BC$ at $\mu_3$, its point of tangency to $\Gamma_3$, and meets $AD$ (which we will denote by [*3’*]{}) at the point $m_3'$ of tangency to $\Gamma_3$. Triangle $ABD$ is circumscribed about $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$.
Similarly, triangle $ACE$ can be obtained by construction of quadrangle $ABCE$ determined by $AB$, $BC$ and contact points $m_1$, $\mu_3$. Line $AE$ touches $\Gamma_3$ at point $m_3 \in m_1
\mu_3$. Denote this line by [*3*]{}. Triangles with sides [*3’*]{}, [*2*]{} and [*3*]{}, [*1’*]{} are constructed analogously.
There is exactly six tangents from $A$ to conics $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$. We have divided these six lines into two groups: [*1,2,3*]{} i [*1’,2’,3’*]{}. Two tangents enumerated by different numbers and do not belong to the same group, determine a Poncelet triangle.
Cubic $\mathcal C$ and the cubic consisting of lines $m_1 M$, $m_2
m_2'$, $m_3 m_3'$ have simple common points $m_1$, $M$, $m_2$, $m_2'$, $m_3$, $m_3'$, $A$, and point $Z$ as a double one. A pencil determined by these two cubics contains a curve that passes through a given point of line $M m_2'$, different from $M, m_2',
m_3'$. This cubic has four common points with line $M m_2'$, so it decomposes into the line and a conic. Thus, [*$m_1, m_2, m_3$ are intersection points, different from $A$ and $Z$, of a conic which contains $A$ and touches cubic $\mathcal C$ at $Z$.*]{}
Converse also holds.
Let an arbitrary conic that contains point $A$ and touches cubic $\mathcal C$ at $Z$ be given. Denote by $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$ remaining intersection points of the curve $\mathcal C$ with this conic. Each of the lines $m_1Z$, $m_2Z$, $m_3Z$ has another common point with the cubic $\mathcal C$; denote them by $m_1'$, $m_2'$, $m_3'$ respectively. By definition of the curve $\mathcal C$, we have that $m_1,m_1'$; $m_2,m_2'$; $m_3,m_3'$ are pairs of representative points of some conics $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ from the pencil $\mathcal F$. Line $Am_1$, besides being tangent to $\Gamma_1$ at $m_1$, has to touch another conic from the pencil $\mathcal F$. Take that it is tangent to a conic $(I)$ at $M$.
Now, in a similar fashion as before, we can conclude that points $M$, $m_2'$, $m_3'$ are collinear. Applying Lemma 1, it is easily deduced that conics $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ are joined to $\Gamma$.
So, we have shown the following: [*systems of three joined conics are determined by systems of three intersecting points of cubic $\mathcal C$ with conics that contain point $A$ and touch the curve $\mathcal C$ at $Z$*]{}.
[**Cayley’s Cubic.**]{} Let $D(\lambda)$ be the discriminant of conic $C + \lambda \Gamma = 0$. We will call the curve $$\mathcal C_0: Y^2=D(X)$$ [*Cayley’s cubic*]{}. Representative points of conic $C + \lambda
\Gamma = 0$ on Cayley’s cubic are two points that correspond to the value $X=\lambda$.
The polar conic of the point $Z$ with respect to cubic $\mathcal
C$ passes through the contact points of the tangents $ZA$, $Z
\alpha$, $Z \beta$, $Z \gamma$ from $Z$ to $\mathcal C$. Thus, points $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are representative points of three joined conics from the pencil $\mathcal F$. Those three conics are obviously the decomposable ones. Corresponding values $\lambda$ diminish $D(\lambda)$, and these three representative points on Cayley’s cubic $\mathcal C_0$ lie on the line $Y=0$.
Using the Sylvester’s theory of residues, we will show the following:
[*Let three representative points of three conics of pencil $\mathcal F$ be given on the Cayley’s cubic $\mathcal C_0$. Condition for these conics to be joined to the conic $\Gamma$ is that their representative points are collinear.*]{}
[**Sylvester’s Theory of Residues.**]{} When considering algebraic curves of genus 1, like the Cayley’s cubic is here, Abel’s theorem can always be replaced by application of this theory.
Let a given cubic and an algebraic curve of degree $m+n$ meet at $3(m+n)$ points. If there is $3m$ points among them which are placed on a curve of degree $m$, then the remaining $3n$ points are placed on a curve of degree $n$.
If the union of two systems of points is the complete intersection of a given cubic and some algebraic curve, then we will say that these two systems are [*residual*]{} to each other. Now, the following holds:
If systems $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal
A'$ of points on a given cubic curve have a common residual system, then they share all residual systems.
Suppose $\mathcal B$ is a system residual to both $\mathcal A$, $\mathcal A'$ and $\mathcal B'$ is residual to $\mathcal A$. Then $\mathcal A\cup\mathcal A'$ is residual to $\mathcal B\cup \mathcal B'$, i.e. the system $\mathcal
A\cup\mathcal A'\cup\mathcal A\cup\mathcal A'$ is a complete intersection of the cubic with an algebraic curve. Since $\mathcal
A\cup\mathcal B$ is also such an intersection, it follows, by the previous proposition, that $\mathcal A'$ and $\mathcal B'$ are residual to each other.
Let us note that this proposition can be derived as a consequence of Abel’s theorem, for a plane algebraic curve of arbitrary degree. However, if the degree is equal to three, i.e. the curve is elliptic, Proposition 2 is equivalent to Abel’s theorem.
[**Condition for Existence of a Poncelet Polygon.**]{} Let conics $\Gamma, \Gamma_1, \dots, \Gamma_n$ be from a pencil. If there exists a polygon inscribed in $\Gamma$ and circumscribed about $\Gamma_1, \dots, \Gamma_n$, we are going to say that conics $\Gamma_1, \dots, \Gamma_n$ are [*joined*]{} to $\Gamma$. Then, similarly as in the case of the triangle, it can be proved that tangents from the point $A \in \Gamma$ to $\Gamma_1, \dots,
\Gamma_n$ can be divided into two groups such that any Poncelet $n$-polygon with vertex $A$ has exactly one side in each of the groups.
This division of tangents gives a division of characteristic points of conics $\Gamma_1$, …, $\Gamma_n$ into two groups on $\mathcal C$ and, therefore, a division into two groups on Cayley’s cubic $\mathcal C_0$: [*1,2,3,*]{} …and [*1’,2’,3’,*]{} ….
Let $ABCD \dots KL$ be a Poncelet polygon, and let $(AC), (AD),
\dots$ be conics determined like in the definition of a circumscribed polygon. Let $c, \gamma$; $d, \delta$; …be a corresponding characteristic points on $\mathcal C_0$, such that triples [*1, 2*]{}, $c$; $\gamma$, [*3*]{}, $d$; $\delta$, [*4*]{}, $e$ are characteristic points of the same group with respect to corresponding conics.
Points [*1, 2*]{}, $c$ are collinear, as $\gamma$, [*3*]{}, $d$ are. Thus, [*1, 2, 3*]{}, $d$ are residual with $c, \gamma$. Line $c \gamma$ contains point $Z$, so system $c, \gamma$ is residual with $Z$, too. It is possible to show that $Z$ is a triple point of curve $\mathcal C_0$ and it follows that it is residual with system $Z,Z$. This implies that points [*1,2,3*]{}, $d,Z,Z$ are placed on a conic.
If we take a coordinate system such that the tangent line to $\mathcal C_0$ at $Z$ is the infinite line and the axis $Oy$ is line $AZ$, we will have:
four conics are joined to $\Gamma$ if and only if their characteristic points of the same group are on a parabola with the asymptotic direction $Oy$.
Continuing deduction in the same manner, we can conclude: [*$3n
- p$ points of the cubic $\mathcal C_0$ are characteristic points of same group for $3n - p$ conics $(1 \leq p \leq 3)$ joined to $\Gamma$, if and only if these points are placed on a curve of degree $n$ which has $Oy$ as an asymptotic line of the order $p$.*]{}
[**Cayley’s Condition.**]{} Let $\mathcal C_0 : y^2 = D(x)$ be the Cayley’s cubic, where $D(x)$ is the discriminant of the conic $C + x \Gamma = 0$ from pencil $\mathcal F$. A system of $n$ conics joined to $\Gamma$ is determined by $n$ values $x$ if and only if these $n$ values are abscissae of intersecting points of $\mathcal C_0$ and some algebraic curve. Plugging $D(x)$ instead of $y^2$ in the equation of this curve, we obtain: $$P(x)y + Q(x) = 0,$$ that is $$P(x)\sqrt{D(x)} + Q(x) = 0.$$ From there: $$\sqrt{D(x)}(a_0 x^{p-2} + a_1 x^{p-3} + \dots + a_{p-2}) +
(b_0 x^p + b_1 x^{p-1} + \dots + b_p) = 0, \quad n = 2p;$$ $$\sqrt{D(x)}(a_0 x^{p-1} + a_1 x^{p-2} + \dots + a_{p-1}) +
(b_0 x^p + b_1 x^{p-1} + \dots + b_p) = 0, \quad n = 2p+1.$$
If $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k$ denote parameters corresponding to $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_k$ respectively, then existence of a Poncelet polygon inscribed in $\Gamma$ and circumscribed about $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_k$ is equivalent to: $$\left|\begin{array}{ccccccccc} 1 & \lambda_1 & \lambda_1^2 & \dots
& \lambda_1^p & \sqrt{D(\lambda_1)} & \lambda_1\sqrt{D(\lambda_1)}
& \dots &
\lambda_1^{p-2}\sqrt{D(\lambda_1)}\\
\dots\\
\dots\\
1 & \lambda_k & \lambda_k^2 & \dots & \lambda_k^p &
\sqrt{D(\lambda_k)} & \lambda_k\sqrt{D(\lambda_k)} & \dots &
\lambda_k^{p-2}\sqrt{D(\lambda_k)}
\end{array}\right|=0,$$ for $k=2p$; $$\left|\begin{array}{ccccccccc} 1 & \lambda_1 & \lambda_1^2 & \dots
& \lambda_1^p & \sqrt{D(\lambda_1)} & \lambda_1\sqrt{D(\lambda_1)}
& \dots &
\lambda_1^{p-1}\sqrt{D(\lambda_1)}\\
\dots\\
\dots\\
1 & \lambda_k & \lambda_k^2 & \dots & \lambda_k^p &
\sqrt{D(\lambda_k)} & \lambda_k\sqrt{D(\lambda_k)} & \dots &
\lambda_k^{p-1}\sqrt{D(\lambda_k)}
\end{array}\right|=0,$$ for $k=2p+1$.
There exists an $n$-polygon inscribed in $\Gamma$ and circumscribed about $C$ if and only if it is possible to find coefficients $a_0$, $a_1$, …; $b_0$, $b_1$, …such that function $P(x) \sqrt{D(x)} + Q(x)$ has $x=0$ as a root of the multiplicity $n$.
For $n=2p$, this is equivalent to the existence of a non-trivial solution of the following system: $$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
a_0 C_3 & + & a_1 C_4 & + & \dots & + & a_{p-2} C_{ p+1} & = & 0 \\
a_0 C_4 & + & a_1 C_5 & + & \dots & + & a_{p-2} C_{ p+2} & = & 0 \\
\dots \\
a_0 C_{p+1} & + & a_1 C_{p+2} & + & \dots & + & a_{p-2} C_{2p-1} & = & 0,
\end{array}$$ where $$\sqrt{D(x)} = A + Bx + C_2 x^2 + C_3 x^3 + \dots.$$ Finally, for $n=2p$, we obtain the Cayley’s condition $$\left | \begin{array}{llll}
C_3 & C_4 & \dots & C_{p+1} \\
C_4 & C_5 & \dots & C_{p+2} \\
& & \dots \\
C_{p+1} & C_{p+2} & \dots & C_{2p-1}
\end{array} \right |=0.$$ Similarly, for $n = 2p+1$, we obtain: $$\left | \begin{array}{llll}
C_2 & C_3 & \dots & C_{p+1} \\
C_3 & C_4 & \dots & C_{p+2} \\
& & \dots \\
C_{p+1} & C_{p+2} & \dots & C_{2p}
\end{array} \right |=0.$$
These results can be directly applied to the billiard system within an ellipse: to determine whether a billiard trajectory with a given confocal caustic is periodic, we need to consider the pencil determined by the boundary and the caustic curve.
Some Applications of Lebesgue’s Results
---------------------------------------
Now, we are going to apply the Lebesgue’s results to billiards systems within several confocal conics in the plane.
Consider the dual plane. The case with two ellipses, when the billiard trajectory is placed between them and particle bounces to one and another of them alternately, is of special interest.
The condition for the existence of $2m$-periodic billiard trajectory which bounces exactly $m$ times to the ellipse $\Gamma_1^*=C^*$ and $m$ times to $\Gamma_2^*=(C+\gamma\Gamma)^*$, having $\Gamma^*$ for the caustic, is: $$\det\left(\begin{array}{llll}
f_0(0) & f_1(0) &\dots & f_{2m-1}(0)\\
f_0'(0) & f_1'(0) &\dots & f_{2m-1}'(0)\\
& & \dots\\
f_0^{(m-1)}(0) & f_1^{(m-1)}(0) &\dots & f_{2m-1}^{(m-1)}(0)\\
f_0(\gamma) & f_1(\gamma) &\dots & f_{2m-1}(\gamma)\\
f_0'(\gamma) & f_1'(\gamma) &\dots & f_{2m-1}'(\gamma)\\
& & \dots\\
f_0^{(m-1)}(\gamma) & f_1^{(m-1)}(\gamma)&\dots &
f_{2m-1}^{(m-1)}(\gamma)
\end{array}\right)=0,$$ where $f_j=x^j$, $(0\le j\le m)$, $f_{m+i}=x^{i-1}\sqrt{D(x)}$, $(1\le i\le m-1)$.
We consider a simple example with four bounces on each of the two conics.
\[ex:4alt\]
The condition on a billiard trajectory placed between ellipses $\Gamma_1^*$ and $\Gamma_2^*$, to be closed after 4 alternate bounces to each of them is: $$\det X = 0,$$ where the elements of the $3\times 3$ matrix $X$ are: $$\aligned
X_{11}&= -4B_0+B_1\gamma+4C_0+3C_1\gamma+2C_2\gamma^2+C_3\gamma^3 \\
X_{12}&=-3B_0+B_1\gamma+3C_0+2C_1\gamma+C_2\gamma^2\\
X_{13}&=-2B_0+B_1\gamma+2C_0+C_1\gamma \\
X_{21}&=-6B_0+B_2\gamma^2+6C_0+6C_1\gamma+4C_2\gamma^2+3C_3\gamma^3\\
X_{22}&=-6B_0+B_1\gamma+B_2\gamma^2+6C_0+4C_1\gamma+3C_2\gamma^2 \\
X_{23}&=-5B_0+2B_1\gamma+B_2\gamma^2+5C_0+3C_1\gamma \\
X_{31}&=-4B_0+B_3\gamma^3+4C_0+4C_1\gamma+4C_2\gamma^2+3C_3\gamma^3\\
X_{32}&=-4B_0+B_2\gamma^2+B_3\gamma^3+4C_0+4C_1\gamma+3C_2\gamma^2\\
X_{33}&=-4B_0+B_1\gamma+B_2\gamma^2+B_3\gamma^3+4C_0+3C_1\gamma,
\endaligned$$ with $C_i, B_i$ being coefficients in the Taylor expansions around $x=0$ and $x=\gamma$ respectively: $$\aligned
\sqrt{D(x)}&=C_0+C_1x+C_2x^2+\dots,\\
\sqrt{D(x)}&=B_0+B_1(x-\gamma)+B_2(x-\gamma)^2+\dots.
\endaligned$$
On Figure \[fig:4alt\], we see a Poncelet octagon inscribed in $\Gamma$ and circumscribed about $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$. In the dual plane, the billiard trajectory that corresponds to this octagon, has the dual conic $\Gamma^*$ as the caustic (see Figure \[fig:4alt.dual\]).
{width="5cm" height="4cm"}
{width="5cm" height="4cm"}
Points of Finite Order on the Jacobian of a Hyperelliptic Curve {#hyper}
===============================================================
In order to prepare the algebro-geometric background for the rest of the article, in this section we are going to give the analytical characterization of some classes of finite order divisors on a hyperelliptic curve.
Let the curve $\mathcal C$ be given by $$y^2=(x-x_1)\dots(x-x_{2g+1}), \quad x_i\neq x_j \ \ \text{when}\ \
i\neq j.$$ It is a regular hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$, embedded in $P^2$. Let $\mathcal J(\mathcal C)$ be its Jacobian variety and $$\mathcal A\ :\ \mathcal C \rightarrow \mathcal J(\mathcal C)$$ the Abel-Jacobi map.
Take $E$ to be the point which corresponds to the value $x=\infty$, and choose $\mathcal A(E)$ to be the neutral in $\mathcal J(\mathcal C)$. According to the Abel’s theorem [@Gun], $\mathcal A(P_1)+\dots+\mathcal A(P_n)=0$ if and only if there exists a meromorphic function $f$ with zeroes $P_1,\dots,P_n$ and a pole of order $n$ at the point $E$. Let $\mathcal L(nE)$ be the vector space of meromorphic functions on $\mathcal C$ with a unique pole $E$ of order at most $n$, and $f_1,\dots,f_k$ a basis of $\mathcal L(nE)$. The mapping $$F:\mathcal C\to P^{k-1}, \quad X\mapsto[f_1(X),\dots,f_k(X)]$$ is a projective embedding whose image is a smooth algebraic curve of degree $n$. Hyperplane sections of this curve are zeroes of functions from $\mathcal L(nE)$. Thus, the equality $n\mathcal
A(P)=0$ is equivalent to: $$\label{rank.f}
\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll}
f_1(P) & f_2(P) & \dots & f_k(P) \\
f_1'(P) & f_2'(P) & \dots & f_k'(P) \\
& & \dots \\
f_1^{(n-1)}(P) & f_2^{(n-1)}(P) & \dots & f_k^{(n-1)}(P)
\end{array}\right)<k.$$
For $n\le2g$, there does not exist a point $P$ on the curve $\mathcal C$, such that $n\mathcal A(P)=0$ and $P\neq
E$.
Let $P$ be a point on $\mathcal C$, $P\neq
E$, and $x=x_0$ its corresponding value. Consider the case of $n$ even. Since $E$ is a branch point of a hyperelliptic curve, its Weierstrass gap sequence is $1,3,5,\dots,2g-1$ [@Gun]. Now, applying the Riemann-Roch theorem, we obtain $\dim \mathcal
L(nE)=n/2+1$. Choosing a basis $1,x,\dots,x^{n/2}$ for $\mathcal
L(nE)$, and substituting in (\[rank.f\]), we come to a contradiction.
\[nP=0\] Let $P(x_0,y_0)$ be a non-branching point on the curve $\mathcal C$. For $n>2g$, equality $n\mathcal A(P)=0$ is equivalent to: $$\label{rank.B}
\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll}
B_{m+1} & B_m & \dots & B_{g+2}\\
B_{m+2} & B_{m+1} & \dots & B_{g+3}\\
& & \dots\\
B_{2m-1} & B_{2m-2} & \dots & B_{m+g}
\end{array}\right)<m-g,
\quad \text{when} \ \ n=2m,$$ $$\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll}
B_{m+1} & B_m & \dots & B_{g+1}\\
B_{m+2} & B_{m+1} & \dots & B_{g+2}\\
& & \dots\\
B_{2m} & B_{2m-1} & \dots & B_{m+g}
\end{array}\right)<m-g+1,
\quad \text{when} \ \ n=2m+1,$$ and $\sqrt{(x-x_1)\dots(x-x_{2g+1})}=B_0+B_1(x-x_0)+B_2(x-x_0)^2+B_3(x-x_0)^3+\cdots$.
This claim follows from previous results by choosing a basis for $\mathcal L(nE)$: $$\displaylines{ 1,x,\dots,x^m,y,xy,\dots,x^{m-g-1}y\ \text{if}\
n=2m,\cr 1,x,\dots,x^m,y,xy,\dots,x^{m-g}y\ \text{if}\ n=2m+1, }$$ similarly as in [@GH2].
In the next lemma, we are going to consider the case when the curve $\mathcal C$ is singular, i.e. when some of the values $x_1$, $x_2$, …, $x_{2g+1}$ coincide.
\[sing.kriva\] Let the curve $\mathcal C$ be given by $$y^2=(x-x_1)\dots(x-x_{2g+1}),\quad x_1\cdot x_2\cdot\dots\cdot
x_{2g+1}\neq0,$$ $P_0$ one of the points corresponding to the value $x=0$ and $E$ the infinite point on $\mathcal C$. Then $2n P_0\sim 2nE$ is equivalent to [(\[rank.B\])]{}, where $$y=\sqrt{(x-x_1)\dots(x-x_{2g+1})}=B_0+B_1x+B_2x^2+\dots$$ is the Taylor expansion around the point $P_0$.
Suppose that, among $x_1, \dots, x_{2g+1}$, only $x_{2g}$ and $x_{2g+1}$ have same values. Then $(x_{2g},0)$ is an ordinary double point on $\mathcal C$. The normalization of the curve $\mathcal C$ is the pair $(\tilde{\mathcal{C}},\pi)$, where $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$ is the curve given by: $$\tilde{\mathcal{C}}: \tilde y^2=(\tilde x-x_1)\dots(\tilde
x-x_{2g-1}),$$ and $\pi:\tilde{\mathcal{C}}\to\mathcal C$ is the projection: $$(\tilde x,\tilde y) \buildrel\pi\over\longmapsto (x=\tilde x,\
y=(\tilde x-x_{2g})\tilde y).$$ The genus of $\tilde{\mathcal C}$ is $g-1$.
Denote by $A$ and $B$ points on $\tilde{\mathcal C}$ which are mapped to the singular point $(x_{2g},0)\in\mathcal C$ by the projection $\pi$. Any other point on $\mathcal C$ is the image of a unique point of the curve $\tilde{\mathcal C}$. Let $$\pi(\tilde E)=E,\quad \pi(\tilde P_0)=P_0.$$
The relation $2nP_0\sim 2nE$ holds if and only if there exists a meromorphic function $f$ on $\tilde{\mathcal C}$, $f\in \mathcal
L(2n\tilde E)$, having a zero of order $2n$ at $\tilde P_0$ and satisfying $f(A)=f(B)$.
For $n\le g-1$, according to Lemma \[nP=0\], $2n\tilde E \sim
2n\tilde P_0$ cannot hold. For $n\ge g$, choose the following basis of the space $\mathcal L(2n\tilde E)$: $$1,\ \tilde y,\ f_1 \circ \pi,\ \dots,\ f_{n-g-1}\circ\pi,$$ where $1, f_1, \dots, f_{n-g-1}$ is a basis of $\mathcal L(2nE)$ as in the proof of Lemma \[nP=0\].
Since $\tilde y$ is the only function in the basis which has different values at points $A$ and $B$, we obtain that the condition $$2n\tilde E\sim 2n\tilde P_0$$ is equivalent to (\[rank.B\]).
Cases when $\mathcal C$ has more singular points or singularities of higher order, can be discussed in the same way.
Let the curve $\mathcal C$ be given by $$y^2=(x-x_1)\dots(x-x_{2g+2}),$$ with all $x_i$ distinct from $0$, and $Q_+$, $Q_-$ the two points on $\mathcal C$ over the point $x=0$. Then $nQ_+\sim nQ_-$ is equivalent to: $$\label{rank.B2}
\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll}
B_{g+2} & B_{g+3} & \dots & B_{n+1} \\
B_{g+3} & B_{g+4} & \dots & B_{n+2} \\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\
\\
B_{g+n} & \dots & \dots & B_{2n-1}
\end{array}\right)<n-g
\quad \text{and} \quad n>g,$$ where $y=\sqrt{(x-x_1)\dots(x-x_{2g+2})}=B_0+B_1x+B_2x^2+\dots$ is the Taylor expansion around the point $Q_-$.
$\mathcal C$ is a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$. The relation $nQ_+\equiv nQ_-$ means that there exists a meromorphic function on $\mathcal C$ with a pole of order $n$ at the point $Q_+$, a zero of the same order at $Q_-$ and neither other zeros nor poles. Denote by $L(nQ_+)$ the vector space of meromorphic functions on $\mathcal C$ with a unique pole $Q_+$ of order at most $n$. Since $Q_+$ is not a branching point on the curve, $\dim L(nQ_+)=1$ for $n\le g$, and $\dim L(nQ_+)=n-g+1$, for $n>g$. In the case $n\le g$, the space $L(nQ_+)$ contains only constant functions, and the divisors $nQ_+$ and $nQ_-$ can not be equivalent. If $n\ge g+1$, we choose the following basis for $L(nQ_+)$: $$1, f_1, \dots, f_{n-g},$$ where $$f_k=\frac{y-B_0-B_1x-\dots-B_{g+k-1}x^{g+k-1}}{x^{g+k}}.$$
Thus, $nQ_+\equiv nQ_-$ if there is a function $f\in L(nQ_+)$ with a zero of order $n$ at $Q_-$, i.e., if there exist constants $\alpha_0, \dots, \alpha_{n-g}$, not all equal to 0, such that: $$\begin{array}{ccccccccl}
\alpha_0 & + & \alpha_1 f_1(Q_-) & + & \dots & + & \alpha_{n-g}f_{n-g}(Q_-) & = & 0 \\
& & \alpha_1 f_1'(Q_-) & + & \dots & + & \alpha_{n-g}f_{n-g}'(Q_-) & = & 0 \\
& \dots \\
& \dots \\
\\
& & \alpha_1 f_1^{(n-1)}(Q_-) & + & \dots & + & \alpha_{n-g}f_{n-g}^{(n-1)}(Q_-) & = & 0.
\end{array}$$ Existence of a non-trivial solution to this system of linear equations is equivalent to the condition (\[rank.B2\]).
When some of the values $x_1,\dots,x_{2g+2}$ coincide, the curve $\mathcal C$ is singular. This case can be considered by the procedure of normalization of the curve, as in Lemma 4. The condition for the equivalence of the divisors $nQ_+$ i $nQ_-$, in the case when $\mathcal C$ is singular, is again (\[rank.B2\]).
Periodic Billiard Trajectories inside $k$ Confocal Quadrics in $\mathbf R^{\mathbf d}$ {#k.quad}
======================================================================================
Darboux was the first who considered a higher-dimensional generalization of Poncelet theorem. Namely, he investigated light-rays in the three-dimensional case ($d=3$) and announced the corresponding complete Poncelet theorem in [@Dar1] in 1870.
Higher-dimensional generalizations of CPT ($d\ge3$) were obtained quite recently in [@CCS], and the related Cayley-type conditions were derived by the authors [@DR3].
The main goal of this section is to present detailed proof of Cayley-type condition for generalized CPT, together with discussions and examples.
Consider an ellipsoid in ${\mathbb R}^d$: $$\frac {x_1^2}{a_1}+\dots + \frac {x_d^2}{a_d}=1,\quad
a_1>\dotsb>a_d>0,$$ and the related system of Jacobian elliptic coordinates $(\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_d)$ ordered by the condition $$\lambda_1>\lambda_2>\dotsb> \lambda_d.$$ If we denote: $$Q_{\lambda}(x)=\frac {x_1^2}{a_1-\lambda}+\dots + \frac
{x_d^2}{a_d-\lambda},$$ then any quadric from the corresponding confocal family is given by the equation of the form: $$\label{konfokalna.familija}
\mathcal Q_{\lambda}:\ Q_{\lambda}(x) = 1.$$
The famous Chasles theorem states that any line in the space $\mathbb R^d$ is tangent to exactly $d-1$ quadrics from a given confocal family. Next lemma gives an important condition on these quadrics.
Suppose a line $\ell$ is tangent to quadrics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1},\dots,\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$ from the family [(\[konfokalna.familija\])]{}. Then Jacobian coordinates $(\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_d)$ of any point on $\ell$ satisfy the inequalities $\mathcal P(\lambda_s)\ge 0$, $s=1,\dots,d$, where $$\mathcal
P(x)=(a_1-x)\dots(a_d-x)(\alpha_1-x)\dots(\alpha_{d-1}-x).$$
Let $x$ be a point of $\ell$, $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_d)$ its Jacobian coordinates, and $y$ a vector parallel to $\ell$. The equation $Q_{\lambda}(x+ty)=1$ is quadratic with respect to $t$. Its discriminant is: $$\Phi_{\lambda}(x,y) =
Q_{\lambda}(x,y)^2-Q_{\lambda}(y)\bigl(Q_{\lambda}(x)-1\bigr),$$ where $$Q_{\lambda}(x,y) = \frac{x_1y_1}{a_1-\lambda}+\dots +
\frac{x_dy_d}{a_d-\lambda}.$$ By [@Mo], $$\Phi_{\lambda}(x,y)=\frac
{(\alpha_1-\lambda)\dots(\alpha_{d-1}-\lambda)}
{(a_1-\lambda)\dots(a_d-\lambda)}.$$ For each of the coordinates $\lambda=\lambda_s$, ($1\le s\le d$), the quadratic equation has a solution $t=0$; thus, the corresponding discriminants are non-negative. This is obviously equivalent to $\mathcal P(\lambda_s)\ge0$.
Billiard inside a Domain Bounded by Confocal Quadrics
-----------------------------------------------------
Suppose that a bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb R^d$ is given such that its boundary $\partial\Omega$ lies in the union of several quadrics from the family (\[konfokalna.familija\]). Then, in elliptic coordinates, $\Omega$ is given by: $$\beta_1'\le\lambda_1\le\beta_1'', \quad\dots,\quad
\beta_d'\le\lambda_d\le\beta_d'',$$ where $a_{s+1}\le\beta_s'<\beta_s''\le a_s$ for $1\le s\le d-1$ and $-\infty<\beta_d'<\beta_d''\le a_d$.
Consider a billiard system within $\Omega$ and let $\mathcal
Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$ be caustics of one of its trajectories. For any $s=1,\dots, d$, the set $\Lambda_s$ of all values taken by the coordinate $\lambda_s$ on the trajectory is, according to Lemma 6, included in $\Lambda_s'=\{\, \lambda\in[\beta_s',\beta_s'']\, :\, \mathcal
P(\lambda)\ge0\,\}$. By [@Kn], each of the intervals $(a_{s+1}, a_s)$, $(2\le s\le d)$ contains at most two of the values $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{d-1}$, the interval $(-\infty,a_d)$ contains at most one of them, while none is included in $(a_1,+\infty)$. Thus, for each $s$, the following three cases are possible:
[*First case:*]{} $\alpha_i,\alpha_j\in[\beta_s',\beta_s'']$, $\alpha_i<\alpha_j$. Since any line which contains a segment of the trajectory touches $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_i}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_j}$, the whole trajectory is placed between these two quadrics. The elliptic coordinate $\lambda_s$ has critical values at points where the trajectory touches one them, and remains monotonous elsewhere. Hence, meeting points with with $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_i}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_j}$ are placed alternately along the trajectory and $\Lambda_s=\Lambda_s'=[\alpha_i,\alpha_j]$.
[*Second case:*]{} Among $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{d-1}$, only $\alpha_i$ is in $[\beta_s', \beta_s'']$. $\mathcal P$ is non-negative in exactly one of the intervals: $[a_{s+1},
\alpha_i]$, $[\alpha_i,a_s]$, let us take in the first one. Then the trajectory has bounces only on $\mathcal Q_{\beta_s'}$. If $\alpha_i\neq\beta_s''$, the billiard particle never reaches the boundary $\mathcal Q_{\beta_s''}$. The coordinate $\lambda_s$ has critical values at meeting points with $\mathcal Q_{\beta_s'}$ and the caustic $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_i}$, and remains monotonous elsewhere. Hence, $\Lambda_s=\Lambda_s'=[\beta_s',\alpha_i]$. If $\mathcal P$ is non-negative in $[\alpha_i,a_s]$, then we obtain $\Lambda_s=\Lambda_s'=[\alpha_i,\beta_s'']$.
[*Third case:*]{} The segment $[\beta_s',\beta_s'']$ does not contain any of values $\alpha_1$, …, $\alpha_{d-1}$. Then $\mathcal P$ is non-negative in $[\beta_s',\beta_s'']$. The coordinate $\lambda_s$ has critical values only at meeting points with boundary quadrics $\mathcal Q_{\beta_s'}$ and $\mathcal
Q_{\beta_s''}$, and changes monotonously between them. This implies that the billiard particle bounces of them alternately. Obviously, $\Lambda_s=\Lambda_s'=[\beta_s',\beta_s'']$.
Denote $[\gamma_s',\gamma_s'']:=\Lambda_s=\Lambda_s'$. Notice that the trajectory meets quadrics of any pair $\mathcal
Q_{\gamma_s'}$, $\mathcal Q_{\gamma_s''}$ alternately. Thus, any periodic trajectory has the same number of intersection points with each of them.
Let us make a few remarks on the case when $\gamma_s'=a_{s+1}$ or $\gamma_s''=a_s$. This means that either a part of $\partial\Omega$ is a degenerate quadric from the confocal family or $\Omega$ is not bounded, from one side at least, by a quadric of the corresponding type. Discussion of the case when $\Omega$ is bounded by a coordinate hyperplane does not differ from the one we have just made. On the other hand, non-existence of a part of the boundary means that the coordinate $\lambda_s$ will have extreme values at the points of intersection of the trajectory with the corresponding hyperplane. Since a closed trajectory intersects any hyperplane even number of times, it follows that the coordinate $\lambda_s$ is taking each of its extreme values even number of times during the period.
\[uslov.k\] A trajectory of the billiard system within $\Omega$ with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$ is periodic with exactly $n_s$ points at $\mathcal Q_{\gamma_s'}$ and $n_s$ points at $\mathcal
Q_{\gamma_s''}$ $(1\le s\le d)$ if and only if $$\label{uslov}
\sum_{s=1}^d n_s\left(\mathcal A(P_{\gamma_s'}) -\mathcal
A(P_{\gamma_s''})\right)=0$$ on the Jacobian of the curve $$\Gamma \ :\ y^2=\mathcal P(x):=
(a_1-x)\cdots(a_d-x)(\alpha_1-x)\cdots(\alpha_{d-1}-x).$$ Here, $\mathcal A$ denotes the Abel-Jacobi map, where $P_{\gamma_s'}$, $P_{\gamma_s''}$ are points on $\Gamma$ with coordinates $P_{\gamma_s'}=\left(\gamma_s', (-1)^s \sqrt {\mathcal
P(\gamma_s')}\right)$, $P_{\gamma_s''}=\left(\gamma_s'', (-1)^s
\sqrt {\mathcal P(\gamma_s'')}\right)$.
Following Jacobi [@Jac] and Darboux [@Dar3], let us consider the equations: $$\label{sistem}
\sum_{s=1}^d\frac{d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_s)}}=0,
\quad \sum_{s=1}^d\frac{\lambda_s d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}=0, \quad \dots, \quad
\sum_{s=1}^d\frac{\lambda_s^{d-2}d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}=0,$$ where, for any fixed $s$, the square root $\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}$ is taken with the same sign in all of the expressions. Then (\[sistem\]) represents a system of differential equations of a line tangent to $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$. Besides that, $$\label{duzina}
\sum_{s=1}^d\frac{\lambda_s^{d-1} d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}=2d\ell,$$ where $d\ell$ is the element of the line length.
Attributing all possible combinations of signs to $\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_1)}$, …, $\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_d)}$, we can obtain $2^{d-1}$ non-equivalent systems (\[sistem\]), which correspond to $2^{d-1}$ different tangent lines to $\mathcal
Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$ from a generic point of the space. Moreover, the systems corresponding to a line and its reflection to a given hyper-surface $\lambda_s=\const$ differ from each other only in signs of the roots $\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}$.
Solving (\[sistem\]) and (\[duzina\]) as a system of linear equations with respect to $\dfrac{d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}$, we obtain: $$\dfrac{d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_s)}}=
\frac{2d\ell}{\prod_{i\neq s} (\lambda_s-\lambda_i)}.$$ Thus, along a billiard trajectory, the differentials $(-1)^{s-1}\dfrac{d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_s)}}$ stay always positive, if we assume that the signs of the square roots are chosen appropriately on each segment.
From these remarks and the discussion preceding this theorem, it follows that the value of the integral $\int\dfrac{\lambda_s^id\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_s)}}$ between two consecutive common points of the trajectory and the quadric $\mathcal Q_{\gamma_s'}$ (or $\mathcal Q_{\gamma_s''}$) is equal to: $$2(-1)^{s-1} \int_{\gamma_s'}^{\gamma_s''}
\dfrac{\lambda_s^id\lambda_s}{+\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_s)}}.$$
Now, if $\mathbf p$ is a finite polygon representing a billiard trajectory and having exactly $n_s$ points at $\mathcal
Q_{\gamma_s'}$ and $n_s$ at $\mathcal Q_{\gamma_s''}\ (1\le s\le
d)$, then $$\sum \int^{\mathbf p} \dfrac{\lambda_s^id\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}= 2\sum(-1)^{s-1}n_s
\int_{\gamma_s'}^{\gamma_s''}\dfrac{\lambda_s^id\lambda_s}{+\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}, \quad (1\le i\le d).$$ Finally, the polygonal line is closed if and only if $$\sum (-1)^s
n_s\int_{\gamma_s'}^{\gamma_s''}\dfrac{\lambda_s^id\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P(\lambda_s)}}=0, \quad (1\le i\le d-1),$$ which was needed.
Consider two domains $\Omega'$ and $\Omega''$ in $\mathbb
R^3$. Let $\Omega'$ be bounded by the ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_0$ and the two-folded hyperboloid $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$, $a_2<\beta<a_1$, in such a way that $\Omega'$ is placed between the branches of $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$. On the other hand, suppose $\Omega''$ is bounded by $\mathcal Q_0$, the righthand branch of $\mathcal
Q_{\beta}$ (this one which is placed in the half-space $x_1>0$) and the plane $x_1=0$. Elliptic coordinates of points inside both $\Omega'$ and $\Omega''$ satisfy: $$0\le\lambda_3\le a_3,\ \ \beta\le\lambda_1\le a_1.$$ Consider billiard trajectories within these two domains, with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\mu_1}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\mu_2}$, $a_3<\mu_1<a_2$, $a_2<\mu_2<a_1$. Since $\mu_2\le\beta$, the segments $\Lambda_s$ ($s\in\{1,2,3\}$) of all possible values of elliptic coordinates along a trajectory are, for both domains: $$\Lambda_1=[\beta,a_1],\ \Lambda_2=[\mu_1,a_2],\ \Lambda_3=[0,a_3].$$ In $\Omega''$, existence of a periodic trajectory with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\mu_1}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\mu_2}$, which becomes closed after $n$ bounces at $\mathcal Q_0$ and $2m$ bounces at $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$ is equivalent to the equality: $$n\bigl(\mathcal A(P_0) - \mathcal A(P_{a_3})\bigr)+
2m\bigl(\mathcal A(P_{\beta}) - \mathcal A(P_{\mu_1})\bigr)=0,$$ on the Jacobian of the corresponding hyperelliptic curve. In $\Omega'$, existence of a trajectory with same properties is equivalent to: $$n\bigl(\mathcal A(P_0) - \mathcal A(P_{a_3})\bigr)+
2m\bigl(\mathcal A(P_{\beta}) - \mathcal A(P_{\mu_1})\bigr)=0 \ \
\text{and}\ \ n \ \ \text{is even}.$$
![A trajectory inside $\Omega''$[]{data-label="fig:omega2"}](omegaI.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
![A trajectory inside $\Omega''$[]{data-label="fig:omega2"}](omegaII.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
The fact that the second equality implies the first one is due to the following geometrical fact: any billiard trajectory in $\Omega'$ can be transformed to a trajectory in $\Omega''$ applying the symmetry with respect to the $x_2x_3$-plane to all its points placed under this plane. Notice that this correspondence of trajectories is 2 to 1 – in such a way, a generic billiard trajectory in $\Omega''$ corresponds to exactly two trajectories in $\Omega'$. An example of such corresponding billiard trajectories is shown on Figures \[fig:omega1\] and \[fig:omega2\].
Billiard Ordered Game
---------------------
Our next step is to introduce a notion of bounces “from outside” and “from inside”. More precisely, let us consider an ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_{\lambda}$ from the confocal family (\[konfokalna.familija\]) such that $\lambda \in (a_{s+1}, a_s)$ for some $s\in \{1,\dots, d\}$, where $a_{d+1}=-\infty$.
Observe that along a billiard ray which reflects at $\mathcal
Q_{\lambda}$, the elliptic coordinate $\lambda_i$ has a local extremum at the point of reflection.
![Reflection from inside[]{data-label="fig:odbijanje.iznutra"}](odbijanje_spolja.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
![Reflection from inside[]{data-label="fig:odbijanje.iznutra"}](odbijanje_iznutra.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
[A ray reflects [*from outside*]{} at the quadric $\mathcal
Q_{\lambda}$ if the reflection point is a local maximum of the Jacobian coordinate $\lambda_s$, and it reflects [*from inside*]{} if the reflection point is a local minimum of the coordinate $\lambda_s$.]{}
On Figures \[fig:odbijanje.spolja\] and \[fig:odbijanje.iznutra\] reflections from inside and outside an ellipse and a hyperbola are sketched.
Let us remark that in the case when $\mathcal Q_{\lambda}$ is an ellipsoid, the notions introduced in Definition 1 coincide with the usual ones.
Assume now a $k$-tuple of confocal quadrics $\mathcal
Q_{\beta_1},\dots, \mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ from the confocal pencil (\[konfokalna.familija\]) is given, and $(i_1,\dots,i_k)\in\{-1,1\}^k$.
[[*The billiard ordered game*]{} joined to quadrics $\mathcal
Q_{\beta_1},\dots,\mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$, with the [*signature*]{} $(i_1,\dots,i_k)$ is the billiard system with trajectories having bounces at $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1},\dots,\mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ respectively, such that $$\displaylines{ \text {the reflection at}\; \mathcal Q_{\beta_s}\;
\text {is from inside if}\; i_s=+1;\cr
\text {the reflection at}\;
\mathcal Q_{\beta_s}\; \text{is from outside if}\; i_s=-1. }$$ ]{}
Note that any trajectory of a billiard ordered game has $d-1$ caustics from the same family (\[konfokalna.familija\]).
Suppose $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ are ellipsoids and consider a billiard ordered game with the signature $(i_1,\dots,i_k)$. In order that trajectories of such a game stay bounded, the following condition has to be satisfied: $$i_s=-1\ \Rightarrow\ i_{s+1}=i_{s-1}=1 \; \text{and}\;
\beta_{s+1}<\beta_s,\ \beta_{s-1}<\beta_s.$$ (Here, we identify indices 0 and $k+1$ with $k$ and 1 respectively.)
On Figure \[fig:billiard.game\], a trajectory corresponding to the $7$-tuple $$(\mathcal Q_1, \mathcal Q_2, \mathcal Q_1,
\mathcal Q_3, \mathcal Q_2, \mathcal Q_3, \mathcal Q_1),$$ with the signature $(1,-1,1,-1,1,1,1)$, is shown.
![Billiard ordered game[]{data-label="fig:billiard.game"}](billiard_game.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
\[uslov.igra\] Given a billiard ordered game within $k$ ellipsoids $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1},\dots, \mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ with the signature $(i_1,\dots,i_k)$. Its trajectory with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1},\dots, \mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$ is $k$-periodic if and only if $$\sum_{s=1}^k i_s\bigl(\mathcal A(P_{\beta_s})-\mathcal
A(P_{\alpha})\bigr)$$ is equal to a sum of several expressions of the form: $\left(\mathcal A(P_{\alpha_p})-\mathcal
A(P_{\alpha_{p'}})\right)$ on the Jacobian of the curve $\Gamma\,
:\, y^2=\mathcal P(x),$ where $P_{\beta_s}=\left(\beta_s,+\sqrt
{\mathcal P(\beta_s)}\right)$, $\alpha =\min\{a_d,
\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{d-1}\}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_p}$, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{p'}}$ are pairs of caustics of the same type.
When $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1}=\dotsb=\mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ and $i_1=\dotsb=i_k=1$ we obtain the Cayley-type condition for the billiard motion inside an ellipsoid in $\mathbb R^d$.
We are going to treat in more detail the case of the billiard motion between two ellipsoids.
The condition that there exists a closed billiard trajectory between two ellipsoids $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\beta_2}$, which bounces exactly $m$ times to each of them, with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}, \dots,
\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-1}}$, is: $$\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll} f_1'(P_{\beta_2}) &
f_2'(P_{\beta_2}) & \dots &
f_{m-d+1}'(P_{\beta_2}) \\
f_1''(P_{\beta_2}) & f_2''(P_{\beta_2}) & \dots &
f_{m-d+1}''(P_{\beta_2}) \\
& & \dots\\
& & \dots\\
f_1^{(m-1)}(P_{\beta_2}) & f_2^{(m-1)}(P_{\beta_2}) & \dots &
f_{m-d+1}^{(m-1)}(P_{\beta_2})
\end{array}\right)<m-d+1.$$ Here $$f_j=
\frac{y-B_0-B_1(x-\beta_1)-\dots-B_{d+j-2}(x-\beta_1)^{d+j-2}}{x^{d+j-1}},
\quad 1\le j\le m-d+1,$$ and $y=B_0+B_1(x-\beta_1)+\dots$ is the Taylor expansion around the point symmetric to $P_{\beta_1}$ with respect to the hyperelliptic involution of the curve $\Gamma$. [(All notations are as in Theorem \[uslov.igra\].)]{}
[Consider a billiard motion in the three-dimensional space, with ellipsoids $\mathcal Q_0$ and $\mathcal Q_{\gamma}$ as boundaries ($0<\gamma<a_3$) and caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$ and $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_2}$. Such a motion closes after 4 bounces from inside to $\mathcal Q_0$ and 4 bounces from outside to $\mathcal Q_{\gamma}$ if and only if: $$\rank X< 2.$$ The matrix $X$ is given by: $$\aligned
X_{11} &=-3C_0+C_1\gamma+3B_0+2B_1\gamma+B_2\gamma^2 \\
X_{12} &= -4C_0+C_1\gamma+4B_0+3B_1\gamma+2B_2\gamma^2+B_3\gamma^3\\
X_{21} &= 6C_0-3C_1\gamma+C_2\gamma^2-6B_0-3B_1\gamma-B_2\gamma^2\\
X_{22} &= 10C_0-4C_1\gamma-10B_0-6B_1\gamma-3B_2\gamma^2-B_3\gamma^3\\
X_{31} &= -10C_0+6C_1\gamma-3C_2\gamma^2+C_3\gamma^3+10B_0+4B_1\gamma+B_2\gamma^2\\
X_{32} &=
-20C_0-10C_1\gamma-4C_2\gamma^2+C_3\gamma^3+20B_0+10B_1\gamma+4B_2\gamma^2+B_3\gamma^3,
\endaligned$$ and the expressions $$\aligned -\sqrt{(a_1-x)(a_2-x)(a_3-x)(\alpha_1-x)(\alpha_2-x)}
&= B_0+B_1x+B_2x^2+\dots,\\
+\sqrt{(a_1-x)(a_2-x)(a_3-x)(\alpha_1-x)(\alpha_2-x)} &=
C_0+C_1(x-\gamma)+\dots
\endaligned$$ are Taylor expansions around points $x=0$ and $x=\gamma$ respectively.]{}
\[ex:4iznutra\]
Using the same notations as in the previous example, let us consider trajectories with 4 bounces from inside to each of $\mathcal Q_0$ and $\mathcal Q_{\gamma}$, as shown on Figure \[fig:4iznutra\].
{width="5cm" height="4cm"}
The explicit condition for periodicity of such a trajectory is: $$\rank X<2,$$ with $$\aligned
X_{11} &= -4C_0+C_1\gamma+3B_1\gamma+2B_2\gamma^2+B_3\gamma^3 \\
X_{12} &= -3C_0+C_1\gamma+3B_0+2B_1\gamma+B_2\gamma^2\\
X_{21} &= -6C_0+C_2\gamma^2+6B_0+6B_1\gamma+5B_2\gamma^2+3B_3\gamma^3\\
X_{22} &= -6C_0+C_1\gamma+C_2\gamma^2+6B_0+5B_1\gamma+3B_2\gamma^2\\
X_{31} &= -4C_0+C_3\gamma^3+4B_0+4B_1\gamma+4B_2\gamma^2+3B_3\gamma^3\\
X_{32} &=
-4C_0+C_2\gamma^2+C_3\gamma^3+4B_0+4B_1\gamma+3B_2\gamma^2.
\endaligned$$
Elliptical Billiard as a Discrete Time System: $d$ – Arbitrary, $k=1$ {#discrete}
=====================================================================
Another approach to the description of periodic billiard trajectories is based on the technique of discrete Lax representation.
In this section, first, we are going to list the main steps of algebro-geometric integration of the elliptic billiard, following [@MV]. Then, the connection between periodic billiard trajectories and points of finite order on the corresponding hyperelliptic curve will be established, and, using results from Section \[hyper\], the Cayley-type conditions will be derived, as they were obtained by the authors in [@DR1; @DR2]. In addition, here we provide a more detailed discussion concerning trajectories with the period not greater than $d$ and the cases of the singular isospectral curve.
Following [@MV], the billiard system will be considered as a system with the discrete time. Using its integration procedure, the connection between periodic billiard trajectories and points of finite order on the corresponding hyperelliptic curve will be established.
XYZ Model and Isospectral Curves
--------------------------------
[**Elliptical Billiard as a Mechanical System with the Discrete Time.**]{} Let the ellipsoid in ${\mathbb R}^d$ be given by $$\label{elipsoid}
(Ax,x)=1.$$ We can assume that $A$ is a diagonal matrix, with different eigenvalues. The billiard motion within the ellipsoid is determined by the following equations: $$x_{k+1} - x_k = \mu_k y_{k+1}$$ $$y_{k+1} - y_k = \nu_k A x_k,$$ where $$\mu_k = - \frac{2(A y_{k+1},x_k)}{(A y_{k+1},y_{k+1})}, \quad
\nu_k = - \frac{2(A x_k, y_k)}{(A x_k, A x_k)}.$$
Here, $x_k$ is a sequence of points of billiard bounces, while $y_k = \dfrac{x_k - x_{k-1}}{|x_k - x_{k-1}|}$ are the momenta.
[**Connection between Billiard and XYZ Model.**]{} To the billiard system with the discrete time, Heisenberg $XYZ$ model can be joined, in the way described by Veselov and Moser in [@MV] and which is going to be presented here.
Consider the mapping $\varphi: (x,y) \mapsto (x',y')$ given by $$x_k' = J y_{k+1} = J(y_k + \nu_k A x_k), \quad y_k' = - J^{-1}x_k,
\quad J = A^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Notice that the dynamics of $\varphi$ contains the billiard dynamics: $$x_k'' = J y_{k+1}' = -x_{k+1}, \quad y_k'' = - J^{-1}x_k' =
-y_{k+1},$$ and define the sequence $(\bar x_k, \bar y_k)$: $$(\bar x_0, \bar y_0) := (x_0, y_0), \quad (\bar x_{k+1}, \bar
y_{k+1}) := \varphi(\bar x_k, \bar y_k),$$ which obeys the following relations: $$\bar x_{k+1} = J \bar y_k + \nu_k J^{-1} \bar x_k, \quad \bar
y_{k+1} = - J^{-1} \bar x_k,$$ where the parameter $\nu_k$ is such that $|\bar{y}_k|=1$, $(A\bar{x}_k, \bar{x}_x)=1$. This can be rewritten in the following way: $$\bar{x}_{k+1} + \bar x_{k-1} = \nu_k J^{-1} \bar x_k.$$ Now, for the sequence $q_k := J^{-1} \bar x_k$, we have: $$q_{k+1} + q_{k-1} = \nu_k J^{-1}q_k, \quad |q_k|=1.$$ These equations represent the equations of the discrete Heisenberg $XYZ$ system.
[[@MV]]{} Let $(\bar x_k, \bar y_k)$ be the sequence connected with elliptical billiard in the described way. Then $q_k = J^{-1} \bar x_k$ is a solution of the discrete Heisenberg system.
Conversely, if $q_k$ is a solution to the Heisenberg system, then the sequence $x_k= (-1)^k J q_{2k}$ is a trajectory of the discrete billiard within an ellipsoid.
[**Integration of the Discrete Heisenberg XYZ System.**]{} Usual scheme of algebro-geometric integration contains the following [@MV]. First, the sequence $L_k(\lambda)$ of matrix polynomials has to be determined, together with a factorization $$L(\lambda) = B(\lambda)C(\lambda) \mapsto C(\lambda)B(\lambda)
= B'(\lambda)C'(\lambda) = L'(\lambda),$$ such that the dynamics $L \mapsto L'$ corresponds to the dynamics of the system $q_k$. For each problem, finding this sequence of matrices requires a separate search and a mathematician with the excellent intuition. All matrices $L_k$ are mutually similar, and they determine the same [*isospectral curve*]{} $$\Gamma \ : \ \det (L(\lambda) - \mu I) = 0.$$ The factorization $L_k = B_k C_k$ gives splitting of spectrum of $L_k$. Denote by $\psi_k$ the corresponding eigenvectors. Consider these vectors as meromorphic functions on $\Gamma$ and denote their pole divisors by $D_k$.
The sequence of divisors is linear on the Jacobian of the isospectral curve, and this enables us to find, conversely, eigenfunctions $\psi_k$, then matrices $L_k$, and, finally, the sequence $(q_k)$.
Now, integration of the discrete $XYZ$ system by this method will be shortly presented. Details of the procedure can be found in [@MV].
The equations of discrete $XYZ$ model are equivalent to the isospectral deformation: $$L_{k+1}(\lambda) = A_k(\lambda) L_k(\lambda) A_k^{-1}(\lambda),$$ where $$L_k(\lambda) = J^2 + \lambda q_{k-1} \wedge J q_k -\lambda ^2
q_{k-1} \otimes q_{k-1},$$ $$A_k(\lambda) = J - \lambda q_k \otimes q_{k-1}.$$ The equation of the isospectral curve $\Gamma\, :\,
\det(L(\lambda) - \mu I) = 0$ can be written in the following form: $$\label{kriva}
\nu^2 = \prod_{i=1}^{d-1} (\mu - \mu_i) \prod_{j=1}^d (\mu -
J_j^2),$$ where $\nu = \lambda \prod_{i=1}^{d-1} (\mu
- \mu_i)$ and $\mu_1, \dots, \mu_{d-1}$ are zeroes of the function: $$\phi_{\mu}(x,Jy) = \sum_{i=1}^d \frac{F_i (x,y)}{\mu - J_i^2},$$ $$F_i = x_i^2 + \sum_{j \neq i} \frac{ (x \wedge Jy)_{ij}^2 }{ J_i^2
- J_j^2 }, \quad x=q_{k-1}, \quad y=q_k.$$ It can be proved that $\mu_1,\dots,\mu_{d-1}$ are parameters of the caustics corresponding to the billiard trajectory [@Mo]. Another way for obtaining the same conclusion is to calculate them directly by taking the first segment of the billiard trajectory to be parallel to a coordinate axe.
If eigenvectors $\psi_k$ of matrices $L_k(\lambda)$ are known, it is possible to determine uniquely members of the sequence $q_k$. Let $D_k$ be the divisor of poles of function $\psi_k$ on curve $\Gamma$. Then [@MV]: $$D_{k+1} = D_k + P_{\infty} -P_0,$$ where $P_{\infty}$ is the point corresponding to the value $\mu =
\infty$ and $P_0$ to $\mu = 0$, $\lambda = (q_k, J^{-1}
q_{k+1})^{-1}$.
Characterization of Periodical Billiard Trajectories
----------------------------------------------------
In the next lemmae, we establish a connection between periodic billiard sequences $q_k$ and periodic divisors $D_k$.
[[@DR1]]{} Sequence of divisors $D_k$ is $n$-periodic if and only if the sequence $q_k$ is also periodic with the period $n$ or $q_{k+n} = -q_k$ for all $k$.
If, for all $k$, $q_{k+n}=q_k$, or $q_{k+n}=-q_k$ for all $k$, then, obviously, $L_{k+n}=L_k$. Thus, the sequence of eigenvectors $\psi_k$ is periodic with the period $n$. It follows that the sequence of divisors is also periodic.
Suppose now that $D_{k+n}=D_k$ for all $k$. This implies that $\psi_{k+n}=c_k \psi_k$. We have: $$\psi_{k+1}=A_k(\lambda) \psi_k.$$ Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be values of parameter $\mu$ which correspond to the value $\lambda=1$ on the curve $\Gamma$, and $$\Psi_k=(\psi_k(1,\mu_1),\psi_k(1,\mu_2)).$$ From $\psi_{k+1} = A_k(\lambda) \psi_k$ , we obtain $ A_k(1)=
\Psi_{k+1} \Psi_k^{-1}$. It follows that $$A_k(1)= \frac{c_{k+1}}{c_k} A_{k+n}(1).$$ From the condition $ \det A_k= \det A_{k+1} $ for all $k$, we have $c_k=c_{k+1}$. Thus, the sequence $$A_k(1)=J-q_k \otimes q_{k-1}$$ is $n$-periodic. From there, $$q_{k+n} = \alpha_k q_k, \quad q_{k+n-1}= \frac{1}{\alpha_k} q_{k-1}.$$ Since $|q_k|=1$, we have $\alpha_k=1$ or $\alpha_k=-1$, where all $\alpha_k$ are equal to each other, which proves the assertion.
\[divizor\] [[@DR1]]{} The billiard is, up to the central symmetry, periodic with the period $n$ if and only if the divisor sequence $D_k$ joined to the corresponding Heisenberg $XYZ$ system is also periodic, with the period $2n$.
Let $x_{k+n} =\alpha x_k$ for all $k$, $\alpha\in\{-1,1\}$. Join to a billiard trajectory $(x_k, y_k)$ the corresponding flow $(\bar x_k, \bar y_k)$. Since $$(\bar x_{2k}, \bar y_{2k}) = (-1)^k (x_k, y_k), \quad (\bar
x_{2k+1}, \bar y_{2k+1}) = \phi (\bar x_{2k}, \bar y_{2k}),$$ where the mapping $\phi$ is linear, we obtain: $$\bar x_{k+2n} = \alpha(-1)^n \bar x_k.$$
From there, immediately follows that $q_{k+2n} = \alpha(-1)^n
q_k$. According to Lemma 3, the divisor sequence $D_k$ is $2n$-periodic.
Applying the previous lemma, we obtain the main statement of this section:
\[nas.uslov\] [[@DR2]]{} A condition on a billiard trajectory inside ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_0$ in $\mathbb R^d$, with non-degenerate caustics $\mathcal Q_{\mu_1},\dots,\mathcal
Q_{\mu_{d-1}}$, to be periodic, up to the central symmetry, with the period $n\ge d$ is: $$\rank \left( \begin{array}{llll}
B_{n+1} & B_n & \dots & B_{d+1}\\
B_{n+2} & B_{n+1} & \dots & B_{d+2}\\
\hdotsfor 4 \\
B_{2n-1} & B_{2n-2} & \dots & B_{n+d-1}
\end{array} \right) < n-d+1,$$ where $$\sqrt{(x-\mu_1)\cdots(x-\mu_{d-1})(x-a_1)\cdots(x-a_d)} =
B_0 + B_1 x + B_2 x^2 + \dots .$$
The trajectory is periodic with period $n$ if, by Lemma \[divizor\], the corresponding divisor sequence on the curve $\Gamma$ has the period $2n$, i.e.$2n(P_{\infty}-P_0)=0$ on $\mathcal J(\Gamma)$. Curve $\Gamma$ is hyperelliptic with genus $g=d-1$. Taking $\mathcal A(P_{\infty})$ to be the neutral on $\mathcal J(\Gamma)$ we get the desired result by applying Lemma \[nP=0\].
[**Cases of Singular Isospectral Curve.**]{} When all $a_1,
\dots, a_d, \mu_1, \dots, \mu_{d-1}$ are mutually different, then the isospectral curve has no singularities in the affine part. However, singularities appear in the following three cases and their combinations:
[**(i)**]{} $a_i=\mu_j$ for some $i,j$. The isospectral curve (\[kriva\]) decomposes into a rational and a hyperelliptic curve. Geometrically, this means that the caustic corresponding to $\mu_i$ degenerates into the hyperplane $x_i=0$. The billiard trajectory can be asymptotically tending to that hyperplane (and therefore cannot be periodic), or completely placed in this hyperplane. Therefore, closed trajectories appear when they are placed in a coordinate hyperplane. Such a motion can be discussed like in the case of dimension $d-1$.
[**(ii)**]{} $a_i=a_j$ for some $i\neq j$. The boundary $\mathcal Q_0$ is symmetric.
[**(iii)**]{} $\mu_i=\mu_j$ for some $i\neq j$. The billiard trajectory is placed on the corresponding confocal quadric hyper-surface.
In the cases (ii) and (iii) the isospectral curve $\Gamma$ is a hyperelliptic curve with singularities. In spite of their different geometrical nature, they both need the same analysis of the condition $2nP_0\sim 2nE$ for the singular curve (\[kriva\]).
Immediate consequence of Lemma \[sing.kriva\] is that Theorem \[nas.uslov\] can be applied not only for the case of the regular isospectral curve, but in the cases (ii) and (iii), too. Therefore, the following interesting property holds.
\[kratke.trajektorije\] If the billiard trajectory within an ellipsoid in $d$-dimensional Eucledean space is periodic, up to the central symmetry, with the period $n<d$, then it is placed in one of the $n$-dimensional planes of symmetry of the ellipsoid.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[nas.uslov\] and the fact that the section of a confocal family of quadrics with a coordinate hyperplane is again a confocal family.
Note that all trajectories periodic with period $n$ up to the central symmetry, are closed after $2n$ bounces. A statement sharper than Theorem \[kratke.trajektorije\] for the trajectories closed after $n$ bounces, where $n\le d$, can be obtained in the elementary fashion:
If the billiard trajectory within an ellipsoid in $d$-dimensional Eucledean space is periodic with period $n\le d$, then it is placed in one of the $(n-1)$-dimensional planes of symmetry of the ellipsoid.
First, consider the case $n=d$. Let $x_1\cdots x_d$ be a periodic trajectory, and $(N,x)=\alpha$ the equation of the hyperplane spanned by its vertices. Here, $N$ is a vector normal to the hyperplane and $\alpha$ is a constant. Since all lines normal to the surface of the ellipsoid at the points of reflection belong to this hyperplane, it follows that $(AN,x_i)=(N,Ax_i)=0$. Thus, $(AN,x)=0$ is also an equation of the hyperplane, so $\alpha=0$ and the vectors $N$, $AN$ are collinear. From here, the claim follows immediately.
The case $n<d$ can be proved similarly, or applying Theorem \[kratke.trajektorije\] and the previous case of this proposition.
This property can be seen easily for $d=3$.
[Consider the billiard motion in an ellipsoid in the $3$-dimensional space, with $\mu_1=\mu_2$, when the segments of the trajectory are placed on generatrices of the corresponding one-folded hyperboloid, confocal to the ellipsoid. If there existed a periodic trajectory with period $n=d=3$, the three bounces would have been coplanar, and the intersection of that plane and the quadric would have consisted of three lines, which is impossible. It is obvious that any periodic trajectory with period $n=2$ is placed along one of the axes of the ellipsoid. So, there is no periodic trajectories contained in a confocal quadric surface, with period less or equal to $3$.]{}
Periodic Trajectories of Billiards on Quadrics in $\mathbf R^{\mathbf d}$ {#on.quad}
=========================================================================
In [@CS], the billiard systems on a quadric $\mathcal Q_0$ in $\mathbb R^d$: $$\frac {x_1^2}{a_1}+\dots + \frac {x_d^2}{a_d}=1,\quad
a_1>\dotsb>a_d,$$ are defined as limits of corresponding billiards within $\mathcal
Q_0$, when one of the caustics tends to $\mathcal Q_0$. The boundary of such a billiard consists of the intersection of $\mathcal Q_0$ with certain confocal quadrics $\mathcal
Q_{\beta_1}, \dots, \mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ of the family (\[konfokalna.familija\]). Between the bounces, the billiard trajectories follow geodesics of the surface of $\mathcal Q_0$, while obeying the reflection law at the points of the boundary. A tangent line issued from any point of a given trajectory touches, besides $\mathcal Q_0$, also $d-2$ confocal quadrics $\mathcal
Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-2}}$ from the family (\[konfokalna.familija\]). These $d-2$ quadrics are fixed for each trajectory, and we shall refer to them as caustics.
The question of description of periodic trajectories of these systems was formulated as an open problem by Abenda and Fedorov [@Ab].
Like in Section \[k.quad\], we will consider two cases: the billiard inside a domain $\Omega\subset\mathcal Q_0$ bounded by several confocal quadrics, and the billiard ordered game within several confocal quadrics of the same type.
For the first case, the domain $\Omega$ is given by: $$\beta_1'\le\lambda_1\le\beta_1'',\quad \dots,\quad
\beta_{d-1}'\le\lambda_{d-1}\le\beta_{d-1}'', \quad (\beta_d=0),$$ where $\beta_s',\beta_s''\in[a_{s+1},a_s]$ for $1\le s\le d-1$. Like in Section \[k.quad\], $\Lambda_s$, $(1\le s\le d-1)$, is defined as the set of all values taken by the coordinate $\lambda_s$ on the given trajectory, and it can be shown in the same way that $$\Lambda_s=\{\, \lambda\in[\beta_s',\beta_s'']\, :\, \mathcal
P_1(\lambda)\ge0\,\},$$ with $$\mathcal
P_1(x)=-x(a_1-x)\cdots(a_d-x)(\alpha_1-x)\cdots(\alpha_{d-2}-x),$$ where $\alpha_1$, …, $\alpha_{d-2}$ are parameters of caustics of the trajectory.
Denote $[\gamma_s',\gamma_s'']:=\Lambda_s$.
Before formulating the theorem, let us define the following projection of the Abel-Jacobi map on the curve $$\Gamma_1 \ :\ y^2=\mathcal P_1(x),$$ by: $$\bar{\mathcal{A}}(P)= \left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\int_0^P \dfrac{x dx}y \\
\int_0^P \dfrac{x^2 dx}y \\
\dots \\
\int_0^P \dfrac{x^{d-2} dx}y
\end{array}\right).$$
\[omega.ellipsoid\] A trajectory of the billiard system constrained on the ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_0$ within $\Omega$, with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-2}}$, is periodic with exactly $n_s$ bounces at each of quadrics $\mathcal
Q_{\gamma_s'}$, $\mathcal Q_{\gamma_s''}$, $(1\le s\le d-1)$, if and only if $$\sum_{s=1}^{d-1} n_s\bigl(\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\gamma_s'})
-\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\gamma_s''})\bigr)=0.$$ Here $P_{\gamma_s'}$, $P_{\gamma_s''}$ are the points on $\Gamma_1$ with coordinates $P_{\gamma_s'}=\left(\gamma_s',
(-1)^s\sqrt {\mathcal P_1(\gamma_s')}\right)$, $P_{\gamma_s''}=\left(\gamma_s'', (-1)^s\sqrt {\mathcal
P_1(\gamma_s'')}\right)$.
By [@Jac], the system of differential equations of a geodesic line on $\mathcal Q_0$ with the caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-2}}$ is: $$\sum_{s=1}^{d-1}\frac{\lambda_s d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P_1(\lambda_s)}}=0, \quad \sum_{s=1}^{d-1}\frac{\lambda_s^2
d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal P_1(\lambda_s)}}=0, \quad \dots, \quad
\sum_{s=1}^{d-1}\frac{\lambda_s^{d-2} d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P_1(\lambda_s)}}=0,$$ with the square root $\sqrt{\mathcal P(\lambda_s)}$ taken with the same sign in all of the expressions, for any fixed $s$. Also, $$\sum_{s=1}^{d-1}\frac{\lambda_s^{d-1} d\lambda_s}{\sqrt{\mathcal
P_1(\lambda_s)}}=2d\ell,$$ where $d\ell$ is the length element.
Now, the rest of the demonstration is completely parallel to the proof of Theorem \[uslov.k\].
In the same way as in Section \[k.quad\], a billiard ordered game constrained on the ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_0$ within given quadrics $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1}, \dots, \mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ of the same type can be defined. The only difference is that now the signature $\sigma=(i_1,\dots,i_k)$ can be given arbitrarily, since trajectories are bounded, lying on the compact hypersurface $\mathcal Q_0$. Denote by $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_{d-2}}$ the caustics of a given trajectory of the game. Since quadrics $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1}, \dots, \mathcal
Q_{\beta_k}$ are all of the same type, there exist $\mu',\mu''$ in the set $S=\{a_1,\dots,a_d,\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{d-2}\}$ such that $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_k\in[\mu',\mu'']$ and $(\mu',\mu'')\cap
S$ is empty.
Associate to the game the following divisors on the curve $\Gamma_1$: $$\mathcal D_s= \begin{cases}
P_{\mu''}, & \text{if}\; i_s=i_{s+1}=1\\
0, &
\begin{array}{l} \text{if}\; i_s=-i_{s+1}=1, \beta_s<\beta_{s+1}\\
\text{or}\; i_s=-i_{s+1}=-1, \beta_s>\beta_{s+1}
\end{array}
\\
P_{\mu''}-P_{\mu'}, & \text{if}\; i_s=-i_{s+1}=1, \beta_s>\beta_{s+1}\\
P_{\mu'}-P_{\mu''}, & \text{if}\; i_s=-i_{s+1}=-1, \beta_s<\beta_{s+1}\\
P_{\mu'}, & \text{if}\; i_s=i_{s+1}=-1,
\end{cases}$$ where $P_{\mu'}$ and $P_{\mu''}$ are the branching points with coordinates $(\mu',0)$ and $(\mu'',0)$ respectively.
\[game.ellipsoid\] Given a billiard ordered game constrained on $\mathcal Q_0$ within quadrics $\mathcal Q_{\beta_1}$, …, $\mathcal Q_{\beta_k}$ with signature $\sigma=(i_1,\dots,i_k)$. Its trajectory with caustics $\mathcal Q_{\alpha_1}$, …, $\mathcal
Q_{\alpha_{d-2}}$ is $k$-periodic if and only if $$\sum_{s=1}^k i_s\bigl(\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\beta_s})-\bar{\mathcal
A}(\mathcal D_s)\bigr)$$ is equal to a sum of several expressions of the form $\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\alpha_p})-\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\alpha_{p'}})$ on the Jacobian of the curve $ \Gamma_1 : y^2=\mathcal P_1(x), $ where $P_{\beta_s}=\left(\beta_s,+\sqrt {\mathcal
P_1(\beta_s)}\right)$ and $Q_{\alpha_p}$, $Q_{\alpha_{p'}}$ are pairs of caustics of the same type.
Consider the case $d=3$ and a billiard system constrained on the ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_0$ with the boundary $\mathcal
Q_{\gamma}$ and caustic $\mathcal Q_{\alpha}$, $a_3<\gamma<\alpha<a_2$. A sufficient condition for a corresponding billiard trajectory to be $n$-periodic is: $$n\bigl({\mathcal A}(P_{\gamma})-{\mathcal
A}(P_{\alpha})\bigr)=0,$$ or, equivalently, in Cayley-type form: $$\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll}
C_{p+1} & C_{p+2} & \dots & C_{2p-2}\\
C_{p+2} & C_{p+3} & \dots & C_{2p-1}\\
\dots\\
C_{2p} & C_{2p+1} & \dots & C_{3p-3}
\end{array}\right)<p-2,
\qquad
n=2p,$$ and $$\rank\left(\begin{array}{llll}
C_{p+1} & C_{p+2} & \dots & C_{2p-1}\\
C_{p+2} & C_{p+3} & \dots & C_{2p}\\
\dots\\
C_{2p} & C_{2p+1} & \dots & C_{3p-2}
\end{array}\right)<p-1,
\qquad
n=2p+1,$$ where $$y=C_0 + C_1\left(\tilde x-{\frac1{\alpha}-\gamma}\right)+C_2\left(\tilde x-{\frac1{\alpha}-\gamma}\right)^2+\dots,$$ is the Taylor expansion around the point $P_{\gamma}$, with $\tilde x=\dfrac1{\alpha-x}$. (See also [@DR3].)
More precisely, this condition will be satisfied if and only if the trajectory is $n$-periodic and its length $L$ with respect to the parameter $s$: $$ds=\lambda_1\lambda_2\cdots\lambda_nd\ell$$ is such that the vector $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
L/2\\
0\\
\vdots\\
0
\end{array}\right)
+n\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\gamma})- n\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\alpha})$$ belongs to the period-lattice of the Jacobian of the corresponding hyper-elliptic curve.
\[ex:jura\]
In a recent preprint [@Ab], another interesting class of periodical billiard trajectories on 2-dimensional ellipsoid, associated with closed geodesics, is described. Such geodesics are closely connected with 3-elliptic KdV solutions, which historically goes back to Hermite and Halphen [@HH].
The corresponding genus 2 isospectral curve is: $$\label{kriva.G}
\mathrm G\ :\ y^2=-\frac14(4x^3-9g_2x-27g_3)(x^2-3g_2).$$ This curve is $3:1$ tangetial covering of two elliptic curves: $$\displaylines{ \mathrm E_1\ :\ y_1^2=4x_1^3 - g_2 x_1 - g_3,\cr
\mathrm E_2\ :\
y_2^2=x_2^3-\frac{27}{16}(g_2^3+9g_3^2)x_2-\frac{243}{32}(3g_3^2-g_3g_2^3).
}$$ The corresponding conditions for closed billiard trajectories are obtained in [@Ab], by use of Lemma 3 from [@DR2], which corresponds to Lemma \[nP=0\] of the present paper. For the exact formulae and details of calculations, see [@Ab].
Note that in the same algebro-geometric situation as in the previous example, with the application of Theorems \[omega.ellipsoid\] and \[game.ellipsoid\], it is possible to describe a wider class of closed billiard trajectories, without the assumption that their segments belong to closed geodesics. Namely, an important property of the covering $\mathrm G\to\mathrm
E_1$ from Example \[ex:jura\] is that the holomorphic differential $\frac{xdx}y$ on $\mathrm G$ reduces to $-\frac23\frac{dx_1}{y_1}$ on $\mathrm E_1$. Thus, whenever the isospectral curve can be represented in the form (\[kriva.G\]), it is possible to obtain conditions of Cayley’s type by the application of Theorem \[omega.ellipsoid\], Theorem \[game.ellipsoid\] and Lemma \[nP=0\].
This is going to be illustrated in the next example.
Consider the billiard motion on quadric $\mathcal Q_0$ in $\mathbb
R^3$, with $a_1=a\sqrt3$, $a_2=\frac32a$, $a_3=-a\sqrt3$, with the caustic $\mathcal Q_{\alpha}$, $\alpha=-\frac32a$, $a>0$. The domain $\Omega$ is bounded by confocal ellipsoid $\mathcal
Q_{\beta}$, $\beta<-a\sqrt3$. By Theorem \[omega.ellipsoid\], the condition for such a billiard to be $n$-periodic is: $$\label{eq:uslov.G}
n\bigl(\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\beta}) -\bar{\mathcal
A}(P_{-a\sqrt3})\bigr)=0$$ on the Jacobian of the curve $$y^2=-x\left(x^2-\frac94a^2\right)(x^2-3a^2).$$ This curve is of the form \[kriva.G\], with $g_2=a^2$, $g_3=0$.
The covering $\mathrm G\to\mathrm E_1$ is given by: $$x_1=-\frac19\frac{x^3}{x^2-3a^2},\quad
y_1=\frac2{27}\frac{x^3-9a^2x}{(x^2-3a^2)^2}.$$ The condition (\[eq:uslov.G\]) reduces to the following relation: $$n\bigl({\mathcal A}(Q_{\bar\beta}) - {\mathcal
A}(Q_{\infty})\bigr)=0$$ on the Jacobian of the curve: $$\mathrm E_1\ :\ y_1^2=4x_1^3-a^2x_1,$$ with the point $Q_{\bar\beta}\in\mathrm E_1$ having the coordinates $(z_1=\bar\beta,\ w_1=4\bar\beta^3-a^2\bar\beta)$, $\bar\beta=-\dfrac19\dfrac{\beta^3}{\beta^2-3a^2}$ and $Q_{\infty}$ being the infinite point on $\mathrm E_1$.
By Lemma \[nP=0\], the desired condition becomes: $$\aligned
\left | \begin{array}{llll}
B_3 & B_4 & \dots & B_{m+1} \\
B_4 & B_5 & \dots & B_{m+2} \\
& & \dots \\
B_{m+1} & B_{m+2} & \dots & B_{2m-1}
\end{array} \right |\, & =\, 0,
\quad \text{for}\ n=2m\\
\left | \begin{array}{llll}
B_2 & B_3 & \dots & B_{m+1} \\
B_3 & B_4 & \dots & B_{m+2} \\
& & \dots \\
B_{m+1} & B_{m+2} & \dots & B_{2m}
\end{array} \right |\, & =\, 0,
\quad \text{for}\ n=2m+1,
\endaligned$$ where $ \sqrt{4x_1^3-a^2x_1}=B_0 + B_1(x_1-\bar\beta) +
B_2(x_1-\bar\beta)^2+\dots$ is the Taylor expansion around the point $Q_{\bar\beta}$.
We will finish this section by analysis of the behaviour of geodesic lines on quadrics after the reflection of a confocal quadric.
Denote by $\mathbf g$ a geodesic line on the quadric $\mathcal Q_0$ in $\mathbb R^d$, and by $\Omega$ a domain on $\mathcal Q_0$ bounded by a single confocal quadric $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$. We will suppose that the set $\mathbf g\cap\mathcal Q_{\beta}\neq\emptyset$ and that the geodesic $\mathbf g$ intersects $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$ transversally. Under these assumptions, the number of their intersection points will be finite if and only if the line $\mathbf g$ is closed. These points are naturally divided into two sets – one set, denote it by $S_1$, contains those points where $\mathbf g$ enters into $\Omega$, while $S_2$ contains the points where the geodesic leaves the domain.
Consider reflections on $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$ according to the billiard rule in each point of $S_2$. Applying these reflections to $\mathbf g$, we obtain a family of geodesic segments on $\mathcal Q_0$. It appears that all these segments belong to one single geodesic line, see Figure \[fig:bilijar.geodezijska\].
\[prop:bilijar.geodezijska\] Let $\mathbf{g'}$ be a geodesic line which contains a point $P\in S_2$, such that $\mathbf g$ and $\mathbf{g'}$ satisfy the reflection law in $P$ at $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$. Then $\mathbf{g'}$ contains all points of $S_2$ and the two lines $\mathbf g$, $\mathbf{g'}$ satisfy the reflection law at $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$ in each of these points.
If $\mathbf g$ is closed, then $\mathbf{g'}$ is also closed and they have the same number of intersection points with $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$.
![Reflection of a geodesic line[]{data-label="fig:bilijar.geodezijska"}](geodezijska.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
The reflection from inside at $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$ corresponds to the shift by the vector $\bar{\mathcal A}(P_{\beta}) - \bar{\mathcal A}(\tau P_{\beta})$ on the Jacobian of the curve $\Gamma_1$, where $\tau:\Gamma_1\to\Gamma_1$ is the hyper-elliptic involution: $(x,y)\mapsto(x,-y)$. Thus, the shift does not depend on the choice of the intersection point and it maps one geodesic into another one. This proof is essentially the same as the proof of Lemma 5.1 in [@Ab], which covers the special case of a closed geodesic line on the two-dimensional ellipsoid.
Observe that $\mathbf{g'}$ not necessarily contains the points of $S_1$, see Figure \[fig:bilijar.geodezijska\].
Denote by $T_{\beta}$ the above mapping $\mathbf g\mapsto \mathbf{g'}$ in the set of geodesics on $\mathcal Q_0$ (on geodesic lines that are tangent to $\mathcal Q_{\beta}$ or do not intersect it at all, we define $T_{\beta}$ to be the identity). As a consequence of Proposition \[prop:bilijar.geodezijska\], we obtain a new porism of Poncelet type.
Suppose that $T_{\beta}^n(\mathbf g)=\mathbf g$. Then $T_{\beta}^n$ is the identity on the class of all geodesics sharing the same caustics with $\mathbf g$.
Moreover, if the geodesic line $\mathbf g$ is closed, then any billiard trajectory in $\Omega$ with the initial segment lying on $\mathbf g$, will be periodic.
Virtual Billiard Trajectories {#virtual}
=============================
Apart from reflections from inside and outside of a quadric, as we defined in Section 4, which correspond to the real motion of the billiard particle, it is of interest to consider [*virtual reflections*]{}. These reflections were considered by Darboux in [@Dar3]. The aim of this section is to prove and generalize a property of virtual reflections formulated by Darboux in the three-dimensional case in the footnote [@Dar3] on p. 320-321:
[*“…Il importe de remarquer: le théorème donné dans le texte suppose essentiellement que les côtés du polygone soient formés par les parties [**réelles**]{} et non [**virtuelles**]{} du rayon réfléchi. Il existe des polygones fermés d’une tout autre nature. Étant donnés, par exemple, deux ellipso[ï]{}des homofocaux $(E_0)$, $(E_1)$, si, par une droite quelconque, on leur mène des plans tangents, on aura quatre points de contact $a_0$, $b_0$ sur $(E_0)$, $a_1$, $b_1$ sur $(E_1)$. Le quadrilatère $a_0 a_1 b_0 b_1$ sera tel que les bissectrices des angles $a_1$, $b_1$ soient les normales de $(E_1)$, et les bissectrices des angles $a_0$, $b_0$ les normales de $(E_0)$, mais il ne constituera pas une route [**réelle**]{} pour un rayon lumineux; deux de ses côtés seront formés par les parties virtuelles des rayons réfléchis. De tels polygones mériteraient aussi d’être étudiés, leur théorie offre les rapports les plus étroits avec celle de l’addition des fonctions hyperelliptiques et de certaines surfaces algébriques …”*]{}
More formally, we can define the [*virtual reflection*]{} at the quadric $\mathcal Q$ as a map of a ray $\ell$ with the endpoint $P_0$ ($P_0\in\mathcal Q$) to the ray complementary to the one obtained from $\ell$ by the real reflection from $\mathcal Q$ at the point $P_0$.
Let us remark that, in the case of real reflections, exactly one elliptic coordinate, the one corresponding to the quadric $\mathcal Q$, has a local extreme value at the point of reflection. On the other hand, on a virtual reflected ray, this coordinate is the only one not having a local extreme value. In the 2-dimensional case, the virtual reflection can easily be described as the real reflection from the other confocal conic passing through the point $P_0$. In higher dimensional cases, the virtual reflection can be regarded as the real reflection of the line normal to $\mathcal Q$ at $P_0$.
From now on, we consider the $n$-dimensional case.
Let points $X_1, X_2$; $Y_1, Y_2$ belong to quadrics $\mathcal
Q_1$, $\mathcal Q_2$ of a given confocal system.
We will say that the quadruple of points $X_1, X_2, Y_1, Y_2$ constitutes a [*virtual reflection configuration*]{} if pairs of lines $X_1 Y_1$, $X_1 Y_2$; $X_2 Y_1$, $X_2 Y_2$; $X_1 Y_1$, $X_2
Y_1$; $X_1 Y_2$, $X_2 Y_2$ satisfy the reflection law at points $X_1$, $X_2$ of $\mathcal Q_1$ and $Y_1$, $Y_2$ of $\mathcal Q_2$ respectively.
{width="5cm" height="4cm"}
\[fig:virtual\_reflection\]
Now, the Darboux’s statement can be generalized and proved as follows:
\[th:virt.refl\] Let $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$, $\mathcal
Q_{\lambda_2}$ be confocal quadrics, $X_1$, $X_2$ points on $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$ and $Y_1$, $Y_2$ on $\mathcal
Q_{\lambda_2}$. If the tangent hyperplanes at these points to the quadrics belong to a pencil, then $X_1, X_2, Y_1, Y_2$ constitute a virtual reflection configuration.
Furthermore, if $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$ and $\mathcal
Q_{\lambda_2}$ are ellipsoids and $\lambda_1>\lambda_2$, then the sides of the quadrilateral $X_1Y_1X_2Y_2$ obey the real reflection from $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_2}$ and the virtual reflection from $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$.
Denote by $\xi_1$, $\xi_2$ and $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$ the tangent hyperplanes to $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$ at $X_1$, $X_2$ and to $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_2}$ at $Y_1$, $Y_2$, respectively. All these hyperplanes belong to a pencil, thus their poles with respect to any quadric will be collinear – particularly, the pole $P$ of $\xi_1$ lies on line $Y_1Y_2$. If $Q=Y_1Y_2\cap\xi_1$, then pairs $P$, $Q$ and $Y_1$, $Y_2$ are harmonically conjugate. It follows that the lines $X_1Y_1$, $X_1Y_2$ obey the reflection law from $\xi_1$. We prove similarly that all other adjacent sides of the quadrilateral $X_1Y_1X_2Y_2$ obey the law of reflection on the corresponding quadrics.
Now, suppose that $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$, $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_2}$ are ellipsoids, and $\lambda_1>\lambda_2$. This means that $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$ is placed inside $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_2}$, thus the whole quadrilateral $X_1Y_1X_2Y_2$ is inside $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_2}$. This means that the reflections in points $Y_1$, $Y_2$ are real reflections from inside on $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_2}$. Besides, the ellipsoid $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$ is completely placed inside the dihedron with the sides $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$. This ellipsoid is also inside the dihedron $\angle(\xi_1, \xi_2)$. Since planes $\eta_1$ i $\eta_2$ are outside $\angle(\xi_1, \xi_2)$, it follows that points $Y_1$, $Y_2$ are also outside this dihedron. Thus, points $Y_1$, $Y_2$ are placed at the different sides of each of the planes $\xi_1$, $\xi_2$, and reflections of $\mathcal Q_{\lambda_1}$ are virtual.
We are going to conclude this section with the statement converse to the previous theorem.
Let pairs of points $X_1$, $X_2$ and $Y_1$, $Y_2$ belong to confocal ellipsoids $\mathcal Q_1$ and $\mathcal Q_2$, and let $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ be the corresponding tangent planes. If a quadruple $X_1, X_2, Y_1, Y_2$ is a virtual reflection configuration, then planes $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ belong to a pencil.
Consider the pencil determined by $\alpha_1$ and $\beta_1$. Let $\alpha_2'$, $\beta_2'$ be planes of this pencil, tangent respectively to $\mathcal Q_1$, $\mathcal Q_2$ at points $X_2'$, $Y_2'$, and distinct from $\alpha_1$ and $\beta_1$. By Theorem \[th:virt.refl\], the quadruple $X_1, X_2', Y_1,
Y_2'$ is a virtual reflection configuration. Moreover, if denote by $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ parameters of $\mathcal Q_1$, $\mathcal Q_2$ and assume $\lambda_1>\lambda_2$, then the sides of the quadrangle obey the reflection law at points $Y_1, Y_2'$ and the virtual reflection at $X_1, X_2'$. Since the ray obtained from $X_1Y_1$ by the virtual reflection of $\mathcal Q_1$ at $X_1$, has only one intersection with $\mathcal Q_2$, we have $Y_2=Y_2'$. Points $X_2$ and $X_2'$ coincide, being the intersection of rays obtained from $Y_1X_1$ and $Y_2X_1$, by the reflection at the quadric $\mathcal Q_2$. Now, the four tangent planes are all in one pencil.
On Generalization of Lebesgue’s Proof of Cayley’s Condition {#gen.lebeg}
===========================================================
In this section, the analysis of possibility of generalization of the inspiring Lebesgue’s procedure to higher dimensional cases will be given.
A higher dimensional analogue of the crucial lemma from [@Leb], which is Lemma \[lebeg.lema\] of this article, is the following:
\[mali.uopsten.lebeg\] Let $\mathcal Q_1$, $\mathcal Q_2$ be quadrics of a confocal system and let lines $\ell_1$, $\ell_2$ satisfy the reflection law at point $X_1$ of $\mathcal Q_1$ and $\ell_2$, $\ell_3$ at $Y_2$ of $\mathcal Q_2$. Then line $\ell_1$ meets $\mathcal Q_2$ at point $Y_1$ and $\ell_3$ meets $\mathcal Q_1$ at point $X_2$ such that pairs of lines $\ell_1$, $Y_1X_2$ and $Y_1X_2$,$\ell_3$ satisfy the reflection law at points $Y_1$, $X_2$ of quadrics $\mathcal Q_2$, $\mathcal Q_1$ respectively. Moreover, tangent planes at $X_1$, $X_2$, $Y_1$, $Y_2$ of these two quadrics are in the same pencil.
This statement can be proved by the direct application of Theorem \[th:virt.refl\] on virtual reflections. Nevertheless, there is no complete analogy between Lemma \[mali.uopsten.lebeg\] and the corresponding assertion in plane. Lines $\ell_1$, $\ell_3$ and $\ell_2$, $Y_1 Y_2$ are generically skew. Hence we do not have the third pair of planes tangent to the quadric, containing intersection points of these two pairs of lines.
Nevertheless, a complete generalization of the Basic Lemma, can be formulated as follows:
\[uopsten.lebeg\] Let $\mathcal F$ be a dual pencil of quadrics in the three-dimensional space.
For a given quadric $\Gamma_0\in\mathcal F$, there exist quadruples $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ of planes tangent to $\Gamma_0$, and quadrics $\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,
\Gamma_3\in\mathcal F$ touching the pairs of intersecting lines $\alpha\beta$ and $\gamma\delta$, $\alpha\gamma$ and $\beta\delta$, $\alpha\delta$ and $\beta\gamma$ respectively, with the tangent planes to $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ at points of tangency with the lines, all being in one pencil $\Delta$. Moreover, the six intersecting lines are in one bundle.
Every such a configuration of planes $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ and quadrics $\Gamma_0$, $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$ is determined by two of the intersecting lines, and the tangent planes to $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, or $\Gamma_3$ corresponding to these two lines.
Suppose first that two adjacent lines $\alpha\beta$ and $\alpha\gamma$ are given. There exist two quadrics in $\mathcal F$ touching $\alpha\beta$ — let $\Gamma_1$ be the one tangent to the given plane $\mu\supset\alpha\beta$. $\Gamma_2$ denotes the quadric that touches $\alpha\gamma$ and the given plane $\pi\supset\alpha\gamma$. The pencil $\Delta$ is determined by its planes $\mu$ and $\pi$. All three lines $\alpha\beta$, $\alpha\gamma$, $\Delta$ are in one bundle $\mathcal B$, see Figure \[fig:pramen\].
![Theorem \[uopsten.lebeg\][]{data-label="fig:pramen"}](uopsten_lebeg1.ps){width="7cm" height="4cm"}
Note that lines $\alpha\beta$ and $\alpha\gamma$ determine plane $\alpha$ and that $\alpha$ touches a unique quadric $\Gamma_0$ from $\mathcal F$. Thus, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are determined as tangent planes to $\Gamma_0$, containing lines $\alpha\beta$ and $\alpha\gamma$ respectively and being different from $\alpha$.
Let $\nu$ be the plane from $\Delta$, other than $\mu$, that is touching $\Gamma_1$. We are going to prove that the point of tangency $\nu$ with $\Gamma_1$ belongs to $\gamma$.
Denote by $\Phi$ the dual pencil determined by quadric $\Gamma_1$ and the degenerate quadric which consists of lines $\alpha\beta$ and $\gamma\nu$. Since $\gamma\nu\in\mathcal B$, these two lines are coplanar.
Dual pencils $\mathcal F$ and $\Phi$ determine the same involution of the pencil $\alpha\gamma$, because they both determine the pair $\alpha,\gamma$ and the quadric $\Gamma_1$ is the common for both pencils. Since quadric $\Gamma_2\in\mathcal F$ determines the pair $\pi,\pi$ of coinciding planes, a quadric $\mathcal Q$ determining the same pair has to exist in $\Phi$. This quadric, as well as all other quadrics in $\Phi$, touches $\nu$ and $\mu$. Since $\nu$, $\mu$, $\pi$ all belong to the pencil $\Delta$, $\mathcal Q$ is degenerate and contains $\Delta$. Since any quadric of $\Phi$ touches $\mu$, $\pi$ at points of lines $\alpha\beta$, $\alpha\gamma$ respectively, the other component of $\mathcal Q$ also has to be $\Delta$, thus $\mathcal Q$ is the double $\Delta$.
It follows that all quadrics of $\Phi$, and particularly $\Gamma_1$, are tangent to $\nu$ at a point of $\gamma\nu$.
Similarly, if $\kappa\neq\pi$ is the other plane in $\Delta$ tangent to $\Gamma_2$, the touching point belongs to $\beta$ and to $\delta$, the plane, other than $\gamma$, tangent to $\Gamma_0$ and containing the line $\gamma\nu$.
Now, let us note that $\mathcal F$ and $\Phi$ determine the same involution on pencil $\alpha\delta$, because they both determine pair $\alpha,\delta$ and $\Gamma_1$ belongs to both pencils. Thus, the common plane $\rho$ of pencils $\Delta$ and $\alpha\delta$ is tangent to a quadric of $\mathcal F$ at a point of $\alpha\delta$. Denote this quadric by $\Gamma_3$. Similarly as before, we can prove that $\Gamma_3$ is touching the line $\beta\gamma$ and the corresponding tangent plane $\sigma$ is common to pencils $\Delta$ and $\beta\gamma$.
Now, suppose that two non-adjacent lines $\alpha\beta$, $\gamma\delta$, both tangent to a quadric $\Gamma_1\in\mathcal F$, with the corresponding tangent planes $\mu$, $\nu$, are given. Similarly as above, we can prove that the plane $\rho$ is tangent to a quadric from $\mathcal F$ at a point of $\alpha\delta$. So, we can consider the configuration as determined by adjacent lines $\alpha\beta$, $\alpha\delta$ and planes $\mu$, $\rho$. In this way, we reduced it to the previous case.
For the conclusion, we will generalize the notion of Cayley’s cubic.
[The [*generalized Cayley curve*]{} is the variety of hyperplanes tangent to quadrics of a given confocal family in $\mathbb CP^d$ at the points of a given line $\ell$. ]{}
This curve is naturally embedded in the dual space $\mathbb
CP^{d\,*}$.
On Figure \[fig:gen.cayley.curve\], we see the planes which correspond to one point of the line $\ell$ in the 3-dimensional space.
![Three points of the generalized Cayley curve in dimension 3[]{data-label="fig:gen.cayley.curve"}](gen_cayley_curve2.ps){width="7cm" height="4cm"}
The generalized Cayley curve in $\mathbb C^d$, for $d\ge 3$ is a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g=d-1$. Its natural realization in $\mathbb C^{d\,*}$ is of degree $2d-1$.
Let us consider the projection from the generalized Cayley’s curve to the line of the parameters of the confocal family. Since $\ell$ intersects each quadric twice, this is a two-folded covering, with branching points corresponding to quadrics touching $\ell$ and the degenerate ones. Since there is $(d-1)+(d+1)$ such quadrics, we obtain the genus directly from Riemann-Hurwitz formula.
Its degree is equal to the number of intersection points with a hyperplane in $\mathbb C^{d\,*}$. Such a hyperplane is a bundle of hyperplanes containing one point in $\mathbb C^d$. Take $P\in\ell$ to be this point. Since there are $d$ quadrics from the confocal family containing $P$ and $d-1$ tangent to $\ell$, the assertion follows.
Let us note that this curve is isomorphic to the Veselov-Moser isospectral curve (\[kriva\]). Also, in the 3-dimensional case, it is isomorphic to the Jacobi hyperelliptic curve, which was used by Darboux considering the generalization of Poncelet theorem.
Further development of these ideas will be presented in the separate publication [@DR4].
Appendix 1Integrable Potential Perturbations of the Elliptical Billiard {#appendix-1integrable-potential-perturbations-of-the-elliptical-billiard .unnumbered}
=======================================================================
The equation $$\label{BerDar}
\lambda V_{xy}+3\left( yV_x-xV_y\right) +(y^2-x^2)V_{xy}+xy\left(
V_{xx}- V_{yy}\right)=0,$$ is a special case of the Bertrand-Darboux equation [@B; @Dar2; @Wh], which represents the necessary and sufficient condition for a natural mechanical system with two degrees of freedom $$H=\frac{1}2(p^2_x + p^2_y) + V(x,y)$$ to be separable in elliptical coordinates or some of their degenerations.
Solutions of Equation (\[BerDar\]) in the form of Laurent polynomials in $x,y$ were described in [@Drag1]. Such solutions are in [@Drag2] naturally related to the well-known hypergeometric functions of Appell. This relation automatically gives a wider class of solutions of Equation (\[BerDar\]) – new potentials are obtained for non-integer parameters, giving a huge family of integrable billiards within an ellipse with potentials. Similar formulae for potential perturbations for the Jacobi problem for geodesics on an ellipsoid from [@Drag1; @Drag3] are given. They show the existence of a connection between separability of classical systems on one hand, and the theory of hypergeometric functions on the other one, which is still not completely understood. Basic references for the Appell functions are [@Ap; @AK; @VK].
The function $F_4$ is one of the four hypergeometric functions in two variables, which are introduced by Appell [@Ap; @AK]: $$F_4(a,b,c,d;x,y)=\sum \frac{(a)_{m+n} (b)_{m+n}}{(c)_m (d)_n}
\frac {x^m}{m!} \frac{y^n}{n!},$$ where $(a)_n$ is the standard Pochhammer symbol: $$\aligned
(a)_n&=\frac {\Gamma (a+n)}{\Gamma (a)}=a(a+1)\dots (a+n-1),\\
(a)_0&=1.
\endaligned$$ (For example $ m!=(1)_m.$)
The series is convergent for $\sqrt x + \sqrt y \le 1$. The functions $F_4$ can be analytically continued to the solutions of the equations: $$\aligned x(1-x)\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x^2} &- y^2
\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial y^2}-2xy \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial
x\partial y}+\\
&+[c-(a+b+1)x]\frac{\partial F}{\partial x} - (a+b+1)y\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}-abF=0,\\
y(1-y)\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial y^2} &- x^2 \frac {\partial^2
F}{\partial x^2}-2xy \frac {\partial^2F}{\partial x\partial
y}+\\
&+[c'-(a+b+1)y]\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}-(a+b+1)x
\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}-ab F=0 ,
\endaligned$$
A1.1 Potential Perturbations of a Billiard inside an Ellipse {#a1.1-potential-perturbations-of-a-billiard-inside-an-ellipse .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------
A billiard system which describes a particle moving freely within the ellipse $$\frac{x^2}A + \frac{y^2}B = 1$$ is completely integrable and it has an additional integral $$K_1=\frac{\dot x^2}A+\frac{\dot y^2}B-\frac{(\dot x y -\dot y
x)^2}{AB}.$$ We are interested now in potential perturbations $V=V(x,y)$ such that the perturbed system has an integral $\tilde K_1$ of the form $$\tilde K_1=K_1 + k_1(x,y),$$ where $k_1=k_1(x,y)$ depends only on coordinates. This specific condition leads to Equation (\[BerDar\]) on $V$ with $\lambda=A-B$.
In [@Drag1; @Drag3] the Laurent polynomial solutions of Equation (\[BerDar\]) were given. Denoting $$\label{Vgama}
V_{\gamma}=\tilde y ^{-\gamma}\bigl( (1-\gamma)\,\tilde x\, F_4(1,
2-\gamma, 2, 1-\gamma, \tilde x, \tilde y)+1\bigr),$$ where $\tilde x=x^2/\lambda$, $\tilde y =-y^2/\lambda$, the more general result was obtained in [@Drag2]:
\[th:Vgama1\] Every function $V_{\gamma}$ given with [(\[Vgama\])]{} and $\gamma \in \mathbb C$ is a solution of Equation [(\[BerDar\])]{}.
This theorem gives new potentials for non-integer $\gamma$. For integer $\gamma$, one obtains the Laurent solutions.
[**Mechanical Interpretation.**]{} With $\gamma\in\mathbb R^-$ and the coefficient multiplying $V_{\gamma}$ positive, we have a potential barrier along $x$-axis. We can consider billiard motion in the upper half-plane. Then we can assume that a cut is done along negative part of $y$-axis, in order to get a unique-valued real function as a potential.
Solutions of Equation (\[BerDar\]) are also connected with interesting geometric subjects.
A1.2 The Jacobi Problem for Geodesics on an Ellipsoid {#a1.2-the-jacobi-problem-for-geodesics-on-an-ellipsoid .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------
The Jacobi problem for the geodesics on an ellipsoid $$\frac{x^2}A + \frac{y^2}B + \frac{z^2}C=1$$ has an additional integral $$K_1=\left(\frac{x^2}{A^2}+\frac{y^2}{B^2}+\frac{z^2}{C^2}\right)
\left(\frac{\dot x^2}A+\frac{\dot y^2}B+\frac{\dot z^2}C\right).$$ Potential perturbations $V=V(x,y,z)$, such that perturbed systems have integrals of the form $$\tilde K_1 = K_1 + k(x,y,z),$$ satisfy the following system: $$\label{pde.sistem}
\aligned
\left(\frac{x^2}{A^2}+\frac{y^2}{B^2}+\frac{z^2}{C^2}\right)&
V_{xy}\frac{A-B}{AB} - 3\frac y{B^2}\frac{V_x}A +
3\frac{x}{A^2}\frac{V_y}B +\\
+\left(\frac{x^2}{A^3} - \frac {y^2}{B^3}\right)& V_{xy}
+\frac{xy}{AB} \left(\frac{V_{yy}}A - \frac {V_{xx}}B\right)
+\frac{zx}{CA^2}V_{zy}-\frac {zy}{CB^2}V_{zx}=0\\
\\
\left(\frac{x^2}{A^2}+\frac{y^2}{B^2}+\frac{z^2}{C^2}\right)&
V_{yz}\frac{B-C}{BC} -
3\frac{z}{C^2}\frac{V_y}B+3\frac{y}{B^2}\frac {V_z}C +\\
+\left(\frac {y^2}{B^3}-\frac {z^2}{C^3}\right)&V_{yz}
+\frac{yz}{BC}\left(\frac{V_{zz}}B-\frac {V_{yy}}C\right) +
\frac{xy}{AB^2}V_{xz}-\frac {xz}{AC^2}V_{xy}=0\\
\\
\left(\frac{x^2}{A^2} + \frac{y^2}{B^2} + \frac{z^2}{C^2}\right)&
V_{zx}\frac{C-A}{AC}-3\frac x{A^2}\frac{V_z}C+3\frac z{C^2}\frac
{V_x}A+\\
+\left(\frac {z^2}{C^3}-\frac {x^2}{A^3}\right)&V_{zx} +\frac
{xz}{AC}\left( \frac {V_{xx}}C-\frac {V_{zz}}A\right) +\frac
{zy}{BC^2} V_{xy}-\frac {yx}{BA^2}V_{yz}=0.
\endaligned$$ This system is an analogue of the Bertrand-Darboux equation (\[BerDar\]) (see [@Drag2]).
Let $$\frac{x^2 C(A-C)}{z^2 (B-A)A}=\hat x, \quad
\frac{y^2C(C-B)}{z^2(B-A)B} = \hat y.$$ The following statement was also proved in [@Drag2]:
\[th:Vgama2\] For every $\gamma\in\mathbb C$, the function $$V_{\gamma}=(-\gamma +1)\left( \frac
{z^2}{x^2}\right)^{\gamma}F_4(1,-\gamma +2,2,-\gamma +1,\hat x,
\hat y)$$ is a solution of the system [(\[pde.sistem\])]{}.
Thus, by solving Bertrand–Darboux equation and its generalizations, as it is done in Theorems \[th:Vgama1\] and \[th:Vgama2\], one get large families of separable mechanical systems with two degrees of freedom. It is well known that separable systems of two degrees of freedom are necessarily of the Liouville type, see [@Wh].
Now the natural question of Poncelet type theorem describing periodic solutions of such perturbed billiard systems arises. It appears that again Darboux studied such a question, since in [@Dar3], he analyzed generalizations of Poncelet theorem in the case of the Liouville surfaces.
Appendix 2Poncelet Theorem on Liouville Surfaces {#appendix-2poncelet-theorem-on-liouville-surfaces .unnumbered}
================================================
In this section, we are going to give the presentation and comments to the Darboux results on the generalization of Poncelet theorem to Liouville surfaces.
A2.1 Liouville Surfaces and Families of Geodesic Conics {#a2.1-liouville-surfaces-and-families-of-geodesic-conics .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, following [@Dar3], we are going to define geodesic conics on an arbitrary surface, derive some important properties of theirs and finally to obtain an important characterization of Liouville surfaces via families of geodesic conics.
Let $\mathcal C_1$ and $\mathcal C_2$ be two fixed curves on a given surface $\mathcal S$. [*Geodesic ellipses and hyperbolae*]{} on $\mathcal S$ are curves given by the equations: $$\displaylines{ \theta+\sigma=\const,\cr \theta-\sigma=\const,}$$ where $\theta$, $\sigma$ are geodesic distances from $\mathcal
C_1$, $\mathcal C_2$ respectively.
A coordinate system composed of geodesic ellipses and hyperbolae joined to two fixed curves is orthogonal. In the following proposition, we are going to describe all orthogonal coordinate systems with coordinate curves that can be regarded as a family of geodesic ellipses and hyperbolae.
Let $$\label{ds}
ds^2=A^2du^2 + C^2dv^2$$ be the surface element corresponding to an orthogonal system of coordinate curves. Then the coordinate curves represent a family of geodesic ellipses and hyperbolae if and only if the coefficients $A$, $C$ satisfy a relation of the form: $$\frac{U}{A^2} + \frac{V}{C^2} =1,$$ with $U$ and $V$ being functions of $u$, $v$ respectively.
By assumption, equations of coordinate curves are: $$\theta+\sigma=\const, \quad \theta-\sigma=\const,$$ with $\theta$, $\sigma$ representing geodesic distances from a point of the surface to two fixed curves.
Thus: $$u=F(\theta+\sigma), \qquad v=F_1(\theta-\sigma).$$ Solving these equations with respect to $\theta$ and $\sigma$, we obtain: $$\theta=\phi(u)+\psi(v), \quad \sigma=\phi(u)-\psi(v).$$
As geodesic distances, $\theta$ and $\sigma$ need to satisfy the characteristic partial differential equation: $$\label{pde.geod}
\frac{A^2(\frac{\partial\xi}{\partial v})^2 +
C^2(\frac{\partial\xi}{\partial u})^2}{A^2C^2}=1.$$ From there, we deduce the desired relation with $U=(\phi'(u))^2$, $V=(\psi'(v))^2$.
The converse is proved in a similar manner.
As a straightforward consequence, the following interesting property is obtained:
If an orthogonal system of curves can be regarded as a system of geodesic ellipses and hyperbolae in two different ways, then it can be regarded as such a system in infinitely many ways.
Now, let us concentrate to Liouville surfaces, i.e. to surfaces with the surface element of the form $$\label{element.liuvil}
ds^2=(U-V)(U_1^2du^2+V_1^2dv^2),$$ where $U$, $U_1$ and $V$, $V_1$ depend only on $u$ and $v$ respectively.
Now, we are ready to present the characterization of Liouville surfaces via geodesic conics.
\[th:konike.liuvil\] An orthogonal system on a surface can be regarded in two different manners as a system of geodesic conics if and only if it is of the Liouville form.
Consider a surface with the element (\[ds\]). If coordinate lines $u=\const$, $v=\const$ can be regarded as geodesic conics in two different manners then, by Proposition 6, $A$, $C$ satisfy two different equations: $$\frac{U}{A^2} + \frac{V}{C^2} =1,\qquad \frac{U_1}{A^2} +
\frac{V_1}{C^2} =1.$$ Solving them with respect to $A$, $C$, we obtain that the surface element is of the form $$ds^2=\left(\frac{U}{U-U_1} + \frac{V}{V_1-V}\right)
\bigl((U-U_1)du^2+(V_1-V)dv^2\bigr).$$
Conversely, consider the Liouville surface with the element (\[element.liuvil\]) and the following solutions of the equation (\[pde.geod\]): $$\displaylines{ \theta=\int U_1\sqrt{U-a}\,du + \int
V_1\sqrt{a-V}dv,\cr \sigma=\int U_1\sqrt{U-a}\,du - \int
V_1\sqrt{a-V}dv. }$$ The equations $\theta+\sigma=\const$, $\theta-\sigma=\const$ will define the coordinate curves.
A2.2 Generalization of Graves and Poncelet Theorems to Liouville Surfaces {#liuvil .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We learned from Darboux [@Dar3] that Liouville surfaces are exactly these having an orthogonal system of curves that can be regarded in two or, equivalently, infinitely many different ways, as geodesic conics. Now, we are going to present how to make a choice, among these infinitely many presentations, of the most convenient one, which will enable us to show the generalizations of theorems of Graves and Poncelet. All these ideas of enlightening beauty and profoundness belong to Darboux [@Dar3].
Consider a curve $\gamma$ on a surface $\mathcal S$. The [*involute*]{} of $\gamma$ with respect to a point $A\in\gamma$ is the set of endpoints $M$ of all geodesic segments $TM$, such that:
$T\in\gamma$;
$TM$ is tangent to $\gamma$ at $T$;
the length of $TM$ is equal to the length of the segment $TA\subset\gamma$; and
these two segments are placed at the same side of the point $T$.
{width="5cm" height="4cm"}
Involutes have the following important property, which follows immediately from the definition:
\[lema:developande\] The geodesic segments $TM$ are orthogonal to the involute, and the involute itself is orthogonal to $\gamma$ at $A$.
Now, we are going to find explicitly the equations of involutes of coordinate curves on a Liouville surface $\mathcal S$ with the surface element (\[element.liuvil\]).
\[lema:jne.devel\] The curves on $\mathcal S$ given by the equations: $$\label{jne.devel}
\aligned \theta&=\int U_1\sqrt{U-a}\,du + \int
V_1\sqrt{a-V}dv=\const,\cr \sigma&=\int U_1\sqrt{U-a}\,du - \int
V_1\sqrt{a-V}dv=\const
\endaligned$$ are involutes of the coordinate curve whose parameter satisfies the equation: $$(U-a)(V-a)=0.$$
Fix the parameter $a$. The equations of of geodesics normal to the curves $\theta=\const$, $\sigma=\const$ are obtained by differentiating (\[jne.devel\]) with respect to $a$: $$\label{geodezijske.normale}
\frac{U_1du}{\sqrt{U-a}}\pm\frac{V_1dv}{\sqrt{a-V}}=0.$$ Let $u_0$ be a solution of the equation $U-a=0$. Then, the geodesic line (\[geodezijske.normale\]) will satisfy $du=0$ at the point of intersection with the curve $u=u_0$, i.e. it will be tangent to this coordinate curve. The statement now follows from Lemma \[lema:developande\].
Coordinate curves on a Liouville surface are geodesic conics with respect to any two involutes of one of them.
Follows from Lemma \[lema:jne.devel\] and the proof of Theorem \[th:konike.liuvil\].
Now, we are ready to prove the generalization of Graves’ theorem.
\[th:graves\] Let $\mathcal E_0:u=u_0$ and $\mathcal E_1:u=u_1$ be coordinate curves on the Liouville surface $\mathcal S$. For a point $M\in\mathcal E_1$, denote by $MP$ and $MP'$ geodesic segments that touch $\mathcal E_0$ at $Q$, $Q'$. Then the expression $$\ell(MP)+\ell(MP')-\ell(PP')$$ is constant for all $M$, where $\ell(MP)$, $\ell(MP')$, and $\ell(PP')$ denote lengths of geodesic segments $MP$, $MP'$, and of the segment $PP'\subset\mathcal E_0$ respectively.
![Theorem \[th:graves\]](graves.ps){width="5cm" height="4cm"}
Let $\mathcal D$, $\mathcal D'$ be involutes of the curve $\mathcal E_0$ with respect to points $R,R'\in\mathcal E_0$, and $Q,Q'$ intersections of geodesics $MP,MP'$ with these involutes.
Both $\mathcal E_0$ and $\mathcal E_1$ are geodesic ellipses with base curves $\mathcal D$, $\mathcal D'$, thus the sum $\ell(MQ)+\ell(MQ')$ remains constant when $M$ moves on $\mathcal
E_1$.
Since $\ell(PR)=\ell(MP)+\ell(MQ)$, $\ell(P'R')=\ell(MP')+\ell(MQ')$, we have: $$\aligned \ell(MQ)+\ell(MQ')
&=\ell(PR)+\ell(P'R')-\ell(MP)-\ell(MP')\cr
&=\ell(RR')-\bigl(\ell(MP)+\ell(MP')-\ell(PP')\bigr),
\endaligned$$ and the theorem is proved.
From here, the complete analogue of the Poncelet theorem can be derived:
Let us consider a polygon on the Liouville surface $\mathcal S$, with all sides being geodesics tangent to a given coordinate curve, and each vertex but one moving on a coordinate curve. Then the last vertex also remains on a fixed coordinate curve.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The research was partially supported by the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technology, Project [*Geometry and Topology of Manifolds and Integrable Dynamical Systems*]{}. The authors would like to thank Prof. B. Dubrovin, Yu. Fedorov and S. Abenda for interesting discussions, and to Prof. M. Berger for historical remarks. One of the authors (M.R.) acknowledges her gratitude to Prof. V. Rom-Kedar and the Weizmann Institute of Science for the kind hospitality and support during in the final stage of the work on this paper.
[99]{}
S. Abenda, Yu. Fedorov, [*Closed geodesics and billiards on quadrics related to elliptic KdV solutions*]{}, preprint, arXiv nlin.SI/0412034, 2004.
P. Appell, [*Sur les fonctions hypergéométriques de deux variables et sur des équations lineaires aux derivées partielles*]{}, Comptes Rendus [**90**]{} (1880), p. 296.
P. Appell, J. Kempe de Feriet, [*Fonctions hypergéométriques et hyperspheriques*]{}, in [*Polynomes d’Hermite*]{}, Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1926.
V. Arnol’d, [*Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978.
W. Barth, Th. Bauer, [*Poncelet theorems*]{}, Expo. Math. [**14**]{} (1996), 125-144.
W. Barth, J. Michel, [*Modular curves and Poncelet polygons*]{}, Math. Ann. [**295**]{} (1993), 25-49.
M. Berger, [*Geometry*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
J. Bertrand, Jour. de Math. [**17**]{} (1852), p. 121.
H. J. M. Bos, C. Kers, F. Oort, D. W. Raven, [*Poncelet’s closure theorem*]{}, Expo. Math. [**5**]{} (1987), 289-364.
A. Cayley, [*Developments on the porism of the in-and-circumscribed polygon*]{}, Philosophical magazine [**7**]{} (1854), 339-345.
S.-J. Chang, B. Crespi B, K.-J. Shi, [*Elliptical billiard systems and the full Poncelet’s theorem in $n$ dimensions*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**34**]{} (1993), no. 6, 2242-2256.
S.-J. Chang, K. J. Shi, [*Billiard systems on quadric surfaces and the Poncelet theorem*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**30**]{} (1989), no. 4, 798-804.
G. Darboux, [*Sur les polygones inscrits et circonscrits à l’ellipsoïde*]{}, Bulletin de la Société philomathique [**7**]{} (1870), 92-94.
G. Darboux, Archives Neerlandaises (2) [**6**]{} (1901), p. 371.
G. Darboux, [*Leçons sur la théorie générale des surfaces et les applications géométriques du calcul infinitesimal*]{}, volumes 2 and 3, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1914.
V. Dragović, [*On integrable potential perturbations of the Jacobi problem for the geodesics on the ellipsoid*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**29**]{} (1996), no. 13, L317-L321.
V. I. Dragovich, [*Integrable perturbations of the Birkgof billiard inside an ellipse*]{} (in Russian), Prikladnaya matematika i mehanika, 62 (1998), no. 1, 166-169.
V. Dragović, [*The Appell hypergeometric functions and classical separable mechanical systems*]{}, J. Phys A: Math. Gen. [**35**]{} (2002), no. 9, 2213-2221.
V. Dragović, M. Radnović, [*Conditions of Cayley’s type for ellipsoidal billiard*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**39**]{} (1998), no. 1, 355-362.
V. Dragović, M. Radnović, [*On periodical trajectories of the billiard systems within an ellipsoid in $\mathbb R^d$ and generalized Cayley’s condition*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**39**]{} (1998), no. 11, 5866-5869.
V. Dragović, M. Radnović, [*Cayley-type conditions for billiards within $k$ quadrics in $\mathbb R^d$*]{}, J. of Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**37**]{} (2004), 1269-1276. V. Dragović, M. Radnović, [*Corrigendum: Cayley-type conditions for billiards within $k$ quadrics in $\mathbb R^d$*]{}, J. of Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**38**]{} (2005), 7927. arXiv: math-ph/0503053
V. Dragović, M. Radnović, [*Algebra of pencils of quadrics, billiards and closed geodesics*]{}, to appear.
P. Griffiths, J. Harris, [*A Poncelet theorem in space*]{}, Comment. Math. Helvetici, [**52**]{} (1977), no. 2, 145-160.
P. Griffiths, J. Harris, [*On Cayley’s explicit solution to Poncelet’s porism*]{}, Enseign. Math. [**24**]{} (1978), no. 1-2, 31-40.
R. C. Gunning, [*Lectures on Riemann Surfaces*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1966.
C. Hermite, [*Œuvres de Charles Hermite*]{}, vol. III, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1912.
C. Jacobi, [*Vorlesungen über Dynamic. Gesammelte Werke, Supplementband*]{}, Berlin, 1884.
B. Jakob, [*Moduli of Poncelet polygons*]{}, J. reine angew. Math. [**436**]{} (1993), 33-44.
H. Knörrer, [*Geodesics on the ellipsoid*]{}, Inventiones math. [**59**]{} (1980), 119-143.
V. V. Kozlov, D. V. Treshchëv, [*Billiards*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence RI, 1991.
H. Lebesgue, [*Les coniques*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1942.
J. Moser, A. P. Veselov, [*Discrete versions of some classical integrable systems and factorization of matrix polynomials*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**139**]{} (1991), no. 2, 217-243.
J. Moser, [*Geometry of quadrics and spectral theory*]{}, The Chern Symposium, Springer, New York-Berlin, 1980, pp. 147-188.
J. V. Poncelet, [*Traité des propriétés projectives des figures*]{}, Mett-Paris, 1822.
N. Ja. Vilenkin, A. U. Klimyk, [*Representations of Lie groups and special functions*]{}, Recent Advances, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995 (see in particular p. 208).
E. T. Whittaker, [*A treatise on the analytical dynamics of particles and rigid bodies*]{}, third edition, The University Press, Cambridge, 1927.
[^1]: on leave at The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Human heart rate is known to display complex fluctuations. Evidence of multifractality in heart rate fluctuations in healthy state has been reported \[Ivanov et al., Nature [**399**]{}, 461 (1999)\]. This multifractal character could be manifested as a dependence on scale or beat number of the probability density functions (PDFs) of the heart rate increments. On the other hand, scale invariance has been recently reported in a detrended analysis of healthy heart rate increments \[Kiyono et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 178103 (2004)\]. In this paper, we resolve this paradox by clarifying that the scale invariance reported is actually exhibited by the PDFs of the sum of detrended healthy heartbeat intervals taken over different number of beats, and demonstrating that the PDFs of detrended healthy heart rate increments are scale dependent. Our work also establishes that this scale invariance is a general feature of human heartbeat dynamics, which is shared by heart rate fluctuations in both healthy and pathological states.'
author:
- 'Emily S. C. Ching'
- 'Yue-Kin Tsang'
title: Multifractality and scale invariance in human heartbeat dynamics
---
Introduction
============
The heartbeat interval in human is known to display complex fluctuations, referred to as heart rate variability (HRV). In the past decade, many analyses [@PengPRL1993; @Thurner1998; @IvanovNature1999; @AmaralPRL2001; @Ashkenazy2001; @Bernaola2001; @Costa2002; @Yang2003] have been carried out to characterize the statistical features of human HRV, with an aim to gain understanding of human heartbeat dynamics. An intriguing finding is the multifractality in healthy HRV and the loss of this multifractal character in pathological HRV in patients with congestive heart failure [@IvanovNature1999]. Such multifractal complexity in healthy HRV was further shown to be related to the intrinsic properties of the control mechanisms in human heartbeat dynamics and is not simply due to changes in external stimulation and the degree of physical activity [@AmaralPRL2001].
In another complicated phenomenon of fluid turbulence, physical measurements are also known to be multifractal [@ParisiFrisch1985]. In fluid turbulence, it is common to study structure functions, which are the statistical moments of the increments of the signals at different scales, and their scaling behavior. Multifractality manifests itself as a nonlinear dependence of the scaling exponents on the order of the structure functions. This nonlinear dependence is equivalent to the scale dependence of the probability density functions (PDFs) of the increments of the signals at different scales. These ideas of structure functions in fluid turbulence were employed to analyse healthy HRV and similar multifractality, with a scale dependence of the PDFs of the heart rate increments at different scales or between different number of beats, was indeed found [@LinPRL2001]. This analogy of human HRV to fluid turbulence was further exploited and a hierarchical structure found in fluid turbulence [@ShePRL1994] was shown to exist also in human HRV, with different parameters for heart rate fluctuations in healthy and pathological states [@ChingPRE2004]. The different values of the parameters can thus be used to quantify the multifractal character of healthy HRV and its loss in pathological HRV. On the other hand, in a recent detrended analysis [@KiyonoPRL2004] that aims to eliminate the non-stationarity of heartbeat data, “scale invariance of the PDFs of detrended healthy heart rate increments" was reported, and interpreted as an indication that healthy heartbeat dynamics are in a critical state. This finding appears to be in contradiction to the multifractal character of healthy HRV and needs clarification.
In this paper, we resolve this apparent paradox and further establish that human heartbeat dynamics exhibit a general scale invariance, which is shared by heart rate fluctuations in both healthy and pathological states.
This paper is organized as follows. We first review the statistical character of multifractality in healthy HRV in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we clarify that the scale invariance reported for healthy HRV in Ref. [@KiyonoPRL2004] is actually exhibited by the PDFs of the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals and demonstrate explicitly that the PDFs of detrended healthy heart rate increments are indeed scale dependent and thus consistent with the multifractal character of healthy HRV. Then we show that pathological heart rate fluctuations in patients with congestive heart failure also display this scale invariance. Our finding thus shows that such scale invariance cannot be an indication of healthy human heartbeat dynamics being in a critical state. In Sec. IV, we show that this general scale invariance in human heartbeat dynamics is non-trivial in that it is absent in multifractal turbulent temperature measurements in thermal convective flows. In Sec. V, we show that the essential effect of the detrended analysis is to take out the local mean from the data. Finally, we summarize and conclude our paper in Sec. VI.
Statistical signature of multifractality
========================================
For completeness, we first review how the multifractality of healthy human HRV can be studied using the ideas of structure functions in fluid turbulence. Consider a dataset of human heartbeat intervals $b(i)$, where $i$ is the beat number. The beat-to-beat interval is also known as RR interval as it is the time interval between successive “R" peaks in the electrocardiogram (ECG) time signal. The value of $b(i)$ varies from beat to beat and this variation is the human HRV. Following the ideas of structure functions in turbulent fluid flows, one defines [@LinPRL2001] the heart rate increments between an interval of $n$ beats as, $$\Delta_n b(i) = b(i+n)-b(i) \ ,
\label{increment}$$ which are differences between the heart rate intervals separated by $n$ beats. The $p$-th order structure functions are the $p$-th order statistical moments of the increments: $$S_p(n) = \langle |\Delta_n b(i)|^p \rangle
\label{structure}$$ It was found [@LinPRL2001] that $S_p(n)$ for heart rate fluctuations in healthy state exhibits power-law dependence on $n$: $$S_p(n) \sim n^{\zeta_p}
\label{scaling}$$ for $n \approx 8 - 2048$. This power-law or scaling behavior is analogous to that found for velocity or temperature structure functions in turbulent fluid flows. Moreover, the scaling exponents $\zeta_p$ were found to depend on $p$ in a nonlinear fashion [@LinPRL2001] as in turbulent fluid flows. This implies that for healthy HRV, the standardized PDFs (with mean substracted then normalized by the standard deviation) of $\Delta b_n$ changes with the scale or the number of beats $n$, and are thus scale dependent. In fact when Eq. (\[scaling\]) holds, the standardized PDFs of $\Delta b_n$ are scale invariant, [*i.e.*]{}, independent of $n$, if and only if $\zeta_p$ is proportional to $p$. Hence the nonlinear dependence of $\zeta_p$ on $p$ or, equivalently, the scale dependence of the standardized PDFs of $\Delta b_n$ on $n$ is a characteristic signature of the multifractality of healthy HRV, in analogy to turbulent fluid flows.
Scale invariance in the detrended analysis
==========================================
In contrast to physical measurements in turbulent fluid flows, human heartbeat interval data are often non-stationary. This non-stationarity is one possible reason for the relatively poor quality of scaling in HRV as compared to that in turbulent fluid flows. To eliminate the non-stationarity, a “detrended fluctuation analysis" has been introduced [@PengChaos1995]. This analysis was further developed to study detrended heart rate increments [@KiyonoPRL2004; @KiyonoIEEE2006]. The procedure of this detrended analysis consists of the following steps. First, $B(m)$, which is the sum of $b(j)$: $$B(m) = \sum_{j=1}^m b(j) \ ,
\label{Bm}$$ is calculated. Second, the dataset of $B(m)$ is divided into segments of size $2n$, and the datapoints in each segment is fitted by the best $q$th-order polynomial. This polynomial fit represents the “trend" in the corresponding segment. Third, these polynomial fits are subtracted from $B(m)$ to get $B^*(m)$, which are then “detrended". Finally, the standardized PDFs of the increments of $B^*$: $$\Delta_n B^*(i) = B^*(i+n)-B^*(i)
\label{DeltaB*}$$ for different values of $n$ are studied. Note that in Refs. [@KiyonoPRL2004; @KiyonoIEEE2006], $\Delta_n B^*(i)$ was denoted as $\Delta_n B(i)$ and the symbol $s$ was used in place of $n$. The standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n B^*(i)$ for healthy heartbeat data were found to be independent of $n$, and this was referred to as “scale-invariance in the PDFs of detrended healthy human heart rate increments" in Ref. [@KiyonoPRL2004]. We shall show below that this conclusion is inaccurate.
Let us denote the detrended heartbeat interval by $b^*(i)$. From the detrended procedure described above, it is natural to define $b^*(i)$ by $$B^*(m) = \sum_{j=1}^m b^*(j)
\label{defb*}$$ Then $$\Delta_n B^*(i) = \sum_{j=i+1}^{i+n} b^*(j)
\label{deltaB*}$$ Thus the detrended heart rate increment between $n$ beats should be defined as $$\Delta_n b^*(i) = b^*(i+n)-b^*(i)
\label{delatb*}$$ Hence $\Delta_n B^*(i)$ is the [*sum*]{} of detrended heartbeat intervals taken over $n$ beats rather than detrended heart rate increments. As a result, the observation of scale-invariant or $n$-independent standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n B^*$ does not necessarily imply that the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n b^*$ are also $n$-independent. Indeed, one expects the contrary, namely, the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n b^*$ should depend on $n$ as healthy human HRV is multifractal.
To investigate this issue, we study the scaling behavior of the statistical moments of $\Delta_n B^*$ and $\Delta_n b^*$. As the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n B^*$ are $n$ independent, the scaling exponents for the statistical moments of $\Delta_n B^*$ should be proportonal to the order of the moments. On the other hand, we expect the scaling exponents for the statistical moments of $\Delta_n b^*$ to have a nonlinear dependence on the order of the moments. We analyze healthy heartbeat data that are taken from a database of 18 sets of daytime normal sinus rhythm data downloaded from public domain[@physionet]. We follow the detrended procedure described above to get $\Delta_n B^*(i)$. We find that a polynomial of degree 3 ($q=3$) is sufficient to fit the “trend" as found in Ref. [@KiyonoPRL2004]. To get the detrended heart rate increment $b^*(i)$, we use Eq. (\[defb\*\]) to get $$b^*(i) = B^*(i)-B^*(i-1)
\label{b*}$$ for both $B^*(i-1)$ and $B^*(i)$ belonging to the same segment and skip that datapoint when $B^*(i-1)$ and $B^*(i)$ fall into different (consecutive) segments. Next, we evaluate the statistical moments $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{S}_p(n) &\equiv& \langle |\Delta_n B^*(i)|^p \rangle
\label{structureB*}\\
S_p^*(n) &\equiv& \langle |\Delta_n b^*(i)|^p \rangle
\label{structureb*}\end{aligned}$$ As seen from Fig. \[fig1\], $\hat{S}_p(n)$ exhibits power-law or scaling behavior with $n$ with exponents $\hat{\zeta}_p$: $$\hat{S}_p(n) \sim n^{\hat{\zeta}_p}
\label{hatzeta}$$ for $n$ between 16 to 1024 and $p$ between 0.2 to 3. On the other hand, $S_p^*(n)$ exhibits better scaling behavior with $n$ with exponents $\zeta^*_p$: $$S_p^*(n) \sim n^{\zeta^*_p}
\label{zeta*}$$ for $n$ between 32 to 1024 and $p$ between $0.2$ to $3$ (see Fig. \[fig2\]).
![The statistical moments $\hat{S}_p(n)$ of the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals \[see Eq. (\[structureB\*\]) for definition\] for healthy heartbeat data for $p=0.2$ (circles), $p=0.6$ (triangles), $p=1.0$ (squares), $p=1.6$ (plusses), $p=2.0$ (crosses), $p=2.6$ (diamonds), and $p=3.0$ (inverted triangles). The curves have been shifted vertically for clarity.[]{data-label="fig1"}](sq_dBBs.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![The statistical moments $S_p^*(n)$ of detrended heart rate intervals \[see Eq. (\[structureb\*\]) for definition\] for healthy heartbeat data for $p$ ranges from 0.2 to 3.0. Same symbols as in Fig. 1. The curves have been shifted vertically for clarity.[]{data-label="fig2"}](sq_dbs.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig3\], we plot the scaling exponents $\hat{\zeta}_p$ and $\zeta^*_p$ as a function of $p$. It can be seen that $\hat{\zeta}_p$ is proportional to $p$ confirming that the standarized PDFs of $\Delta_n B^*$ are scale invariant as reported in Ref.[@KiyonoPRL2004]. On the other hand, $\zeta^*_p$ is not proportional to $p$ but changes with $p$ in a nonlinear manner, as expected from the multifractal character of healthy human HRV. Thus we have clarified that for healthy human HRV that is multifractal, the standardized PDFs of detrended heart rate increments between $n$ beats depend on $n$ while those of the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals taken over $n$ beats are $n$-independent. We have also calculated the scaling exponents $\zeta_p$ of $S_p(n)$ of the statistical moments of untreated heart rate increments and the results are shown in Fig. \[fig3\] too. It can be seen that the detrended procedure does not change much the scaling exponents of the heart rate increments. We shall return to this in Sec. V.
![The exponents $\hat{\zeta}_p/\hat{\zeta}_2$ (plusses), $\zeta^*_p/\zeta^*_2$ (crosses), and $\zeta_p/\zeta_2$ (circles) as a function of $p$ for healthy heartbeat data. It can be seen that $\hat{\zeta_p}/\hat{\zeta_2}$ is close to $p/2$ which is shown as the solid line.[]{data-label="fig3"}](zeta_normal.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
It was suggested that this scale invariance of the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n B^*$, the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals taken over $n$ beats, is an indication of healthy human heartbeat dynamics being in a critical state [@KiyonoPRL2004]. To check this suggestion, it would be useful to perform the same analysis to human HRV in pathological state. Thus, we perform the same analysis using 45 sets of daytime data from congestive heart failure patients, also downloaded from the same public domain [@physionet]. The results for $\hat{\zeta}_p$ and $\zeta^*_p$ in this case are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. Note that $\zeta^*_p$ is now approximately proportional to $p$, showing that the multifractality is lost in pathological HRV, consistent with earlier report [@IvanovNature1999]. On the other hand, $\hat{\zeta}_p$ is again proportional to $p$, demonstrating that the scale invariance of the standardized PDFs of the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals is not restricted to healthy HRV but also exhibited by pathological HRV in congestive heart failure patients. Moreover, we find that the scale-invariant standardized PDFs are approximately exponential for both the healthy and pathological heartbeat data as shown in Figs. \[fig5\] and \[fig6\].
![The exponents $\hat{\zeta}_p/\hat{\zeta}_2$ (plusses) and $\zeta^*_p/\zeta^*_2$ (crosses) as a function of $p$ for pathological heartbeat data from congestive heart failure patient. Both of them are close to the solid line of $p/2$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](zeta_chf.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![Standardized PDFs for $\Delta_n B^*$ for healthy heartbeat data with $n=4$ (circles), $n=16$ (squares), $n=64$ (diamonds), and $n=256$ (triangles). Data from four different healthy subjects are shown and seen to coincide with one another. These $n$-independent PDFs are seen to be well approximated by the standard exponential distribution (solid line).[]{data-label="fig5"}](pdf_dBBs_hrv.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
![Standardized PDFs for $\Delta_n B^*$ for heartbeat data from a congestive heart failure patient with $n=4$ (circles), $n=16$ (squares), $n=64$ (diamonds), and $n=256$ (triangles). Again, the scale invariant PDFs are well approximated by the standard exponential distribution (solid line).[]{data-label="fig6"}](pdf_dBBs_chf2.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
Since this scale invariance is found generally in heart rate fluctuations in both healthy and pathologial state, it could not be an indication that healthy heartbeat dynamics are in a critical state. Common feature for both healthy and diseased human HRV was also reported before [@BernaolaPRL2001]; it would be interesting to explore whether this earlier feature and the present one are related.
Detrended analysis for turbulent temperature measurements
=========================================================
It is natural to ask whether this general scale invariance found in human heartbeat dynamics is trivial, i.e., whether it exists for any fluctuating data. In this section, we shall see that such scale invariance is absent in temperature data in turbulent flows so the answer to the above question is no.
Specifically, we apply the detrended analysis to temperature measurements taken in turbulent thermal convective flows [@Chicago]. In place of $b(i)$, we now have $\theta(t_i)$, the temperature measurement taken at time $t_i$. In the experiment, the measurements were sampled at a constant frequency of 320 Hz such that $t_i = i \delta t$ with $\delta t = 1/320$ s. The standardized PDFs of the temperature increments $\Delta_n \theta(t_i) =
\theta(t_{i+n})-\theta(t_{i})$ have been studied and found to change with $n$ [@ChingPRA] thus the temperature data in turbulent thermal convection are multifractal. Also, the temperature structure functions, $R_p(n) \equiv \langle
|\Delta_n \theta(t_i)|^p \rangle$ have been studied and found to have good relative scaling [@ChingPRErapid]: $$R_p(n) \sim [R_2(n)]^{\xi_p/\xi_2}
\label{xi}$$
We calculate $\Theta(t_m) = \sum_{j=1}^m \theta(t_j)$ and repeat the procedure of the detrended analysis, as discussed in Sec. III with $B(m)$ replaced by $\Theta(t_m)$, to obtain $\Delta_n \Theta^*(t_i)$ and $\Delta_n \theta^*(t_i)$. We then calculate the corresponding statistical moments $\hat{R}_p(n)
\equiv \langle |\Delta_n \Theta^*(t_i)|^p \rangle$ and $R^*_p(n) \equiv \langle |\Delta_n \theta^*(t_i)|^p \rangle$ and their respective relative exponents $\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2$ and $\xi^*_p/\xi^*_2$, defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{R}_p(n) &\sim& [\hat{R}_2(n)]^{\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2} \\
R^*_p(n) &\sim& [R^*_2(n)]^{\xi^*_p/\xi^*_2}\end{aligned}$$
Our results are shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. Again we find that $\xi^*_p/\xi^*_2$ deviates from $p/2$, as expected from the multifractal character of the turbulent temperature measurements. However, interestingly $\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2$ deviates from $p/2$ too, showing that the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n \Theta^*$ are scale dependent and changing with $n$. To show this deviation more clearly, we plot $\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2 -p/2$ versus $p$ in the inset of Fig. \[fig7\].
![The three relative exponents $\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2$ (plusses), $\xi^*_p/\xi^*_2$ (crosses), and $\xi_p/\xi_2$ (circles) for temperature measurements in turbulent convective flows. All the three relative exponents deviate from $p/2$ (the solid line). The deviation $\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2 -p/2$ is plotted versus $p$ in the inset to show clearly that $\hat{\xi}_p/\hat{\xi}_2$ is not proportional to $p$.[]{data-label="fig7"}](zeta_ts.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
Indeed, the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n \Theta^*$ changes from stretched-exponential to exponential to Gaussian as $n$ increases from 4 to 4096, as shown explicitly in Fig. \[fig8\]. This change of the standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n \Theta^*$, the sum of detrended temperature measurements taken over $n$ sampling intervals, with $n$ is similar to the change of the standardized PDFs of the temperature increments $\Delta_n \theta$ with $n$ as reported in Ref. [@ChingPRA].
![The standardized PDFs of $\Delta_n \Theta^*$ for temperature measurements taken in turbulent thermal convective flows with $n=4$ (solid), $n=32$ (dashed), $n=256$ (dot-dashed) and $n=4096$ (dotted). The dependence of the standardized PDFs on $n$ is clearly seen.[]{data-label="fig8"}](pdf_dBBs_ts.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
As can be seen in Fig. \[fig7\], $\xi^*_p/\xi^*_2$ are close to $\xi_p/\xi_2$, indicating again that the detrended procedure does not affect the scaling exponents of the temperature increments. We shall understand this in the next section.
The essential effect of the detrended analysis
==============================================
In this section, we shall explore and understand what the detrended procedure does to the data. As discussed in Sec. III, the “trend" in the data is estimated by a polynomial fit in each segment of the dataset of $B(m)$, and we have used a polynomial of degree 3. We check that our results do not change much when a polynomial of a lower degree is used instead. In particular, we obtain similar results by using a linear fit of the different segments of $B(m)$. In the following, we shall get explicit results for “detrended" $B^*$ when the “trend" is estimated by a linear fit.
Let us focus on the $l$th segment of $B(m)$ with $m_1 \le m \le m_2$, where $m_1=(l-1)(2n)+1$ and $m_2=l(2n)$ for some $l$. $l$ runs from $1,2,3, \ldots$ for all the segments. Denote the best linear fit to this segment by $a_l \ m + c_l$ where the fitting constants $a_l$ and $c_l$ depend on $l$. The fitting constant $a_l$ can be reasonably well approximated by the slope in this segment: $$a_l \approx \frac{B(m_2)-B(m_1)}{2n-1}$$ Using Eq. (\[Bm\]), we have $$a_l \approx \frac{\sum_{j=m_1+1}^{m_2} b(j)}{2n-1} \approx
\frac{\sum_{j=m_1}^{m2} b(j)}{2n} \equiv \bar{b}_l$$ where $\bar{b}_l$ is the local average of $b(j)$ in the $l$th segment. Recall from Sec. III that $B^*$ is $B$ subtracting the best linear fit and use Eq. (\[Bm\]), we have $$B^*(m) \approx
\sum_{j=1}^{m} [b(j)-{\bar b}_l] - c_l$$ and $$B^*(m+n) \approx
\begin{cases}
\sum_{j=1}^{m+n} [b(j)-{\bar b}_l] - c_l &
m+n \le m_2 \\
\sum_{j=1}^{m+n} [b(j)-b_{l+1}] - c_{l+1} &
m+n > m_2
\end{cases}$$ Thus using Eq. (\[DeltaB\*\]), we get $$\Delta_n B^*(m) \approx
\sum_{j=m+1}^{m+n} [b(j)-\bar{b}_l]
\label{B*}$$ for $m+n \le m_2$ and $$\Delta_n B^*(m) \approx
\sum_{j=m+1}^{m_2} [b(j)-\bar{b}_l] \ + \sum_{j=m_2+1}^{m+n}
[b(j) - \bar{b}_{l+1}]
\label{B*2}$$ for $m+n > m_2$. To obtain Eq. (\[B\*2\]), we make use of the approximation that the two linear fits of the $l$th and $(l+1)$th segments intersect at $m=m_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
b_l \ m_2 + c_l &\approx& b_{l+1} \ m_2 + c_{l+1} \\
\Rightarrow c_{l+1}-c_l &\approx& ({\bar b}_{l}-{\bar b}_{l+1})m_2\end{aligned}$$ Comparing Eqs. (\[B\*\]) and (\[B\*2\]) with (\[deltaB\*\]), we see immediately that the detrended heartbeat interval $b^*$ is given approximately by $$b^*(j) \approx b(j) - \bar{b}_l
\label{detrend}$$ Hence what the detrended analysis essentially does is to subtract the local average from the data.
To verify this directly, we redo the analysis for the heartbeat data with the local mean subtracted and compare the results obtained with those from the detrended analysis. We define $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde b}(j) &=& b(j) - \bar{b}_l \\
{\tilde B}(m) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{m} {\tilde b}(i)\end{aligned}$$ and study the scaling behavior of the statistical moments of $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_n {\tilde b}(j) &=& {\tilde b}(j+n)-{\tilde b}(j) \\
\Delta_n {\tilde B}(j) &=& {\tilde B}(j+n)-{\tilde B}(j)
= \sum_{i=j+1}^{j+n} {\tilde b}(i)\end{aligned}$$ with $n$. The corresponding exponents are denoted by $\alpha_p$ and $\hat{\alpha}_p$, which are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle |\Delta_n {\tilde b}(i)|^p \rangle &\sim& n^{\alpha_p} \\
\langle |\Delta_n {\tilde B}(i)|^p \rangle &\sim& n^{\hat{\alpha}_p}\end{aligned}$$
We compare $\alpha_p$ and $\hat{\alpha}_p$ with $\zeta^*_p$ and $\hat{\zeta}_p$ respectively. As seen from Fig. \[fig9\], the results are in good agreement confirming that the essential effect of the detrended analysis is to eliminate the local average from the data.
![Comparison of the exponents $\hat{\zeta}_p/\hat{\zeta}_2$ (plusses) and $\zeta^*_p/\zeta^*_2$ (crosses) with $\hat{\alpha}_p/\hat{\alpha}_2$ (circles) and $\alpha_p/\alpha_2$ (squares) obtained respectively from the detrended analysis and from the analysis eliminating the local mean. The comparison for healthy heartbeat data is shown in (a) and (b) while that for pathological heartbeat data from congestive heart failure patients is shown in (c) and (d). Good agreement between $\hat{\zeta}_p$ and $\hat{\alpha}_p$ and between ${\zeta}_p^*$ and $\alpha_p$ is seen.[]{data-label="fig9"}](compare.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
As a result, $b^*(j+n)-b^*(j) \approx {\tilde b}(j+n)-{\tilde b}(j)$ will be close to $b(j+n)-b(j)$, that is, the heart rate increments are not affected much by the detrended analysis. This explains why $\zeta^*_p$ are close to $\zeta_p$ (see Fig. \[fig3\]) and similarly why $\xi^*_p$ are close to $\xi_p$ (see Fig. \[fig7\]). On the other hand, $B^*(j+n)-B^*(j) \approx {\tilde B}(j+n)-{\tilde
B}(j)$ can be different from $B(j+n)-B(j)$, and thus the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals could have different statistical features from those of the sum of untreated heartbeat intervals.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Understanding the nature of the complicated human HRV and thus human heartbeat dynamics has been the subject of many studies. An interesting and intriguing finding reported in earlier studies [@IvanovNature1999] is that in the healthy state, human heart rate fluctuations display multifractality, and that this multifractal character is lost for heart rate fluctuations in pathological state such as congested heart failure. Based on an analogy with measurements in turbulent fluid flows, which are known to have multifractal character as well, such multifractality in healthy HRV can be manifested as a scale dependence of the standardized PDFs of the increment of heartbeat intervals at different scales or between different number of beats. A detrending analysis aiming to eliminate the non-stationarity of heartbeat data has been performed, and “scale invariance of the PDFs of detrended healthy human heart rate increments” reported [@KiyonoPRL2004]. We have resolved this paradox by clarifying that the scale invariance found in the detrended analysis is actually exhibited by the PDFs of the sum of detrended heartbeat intervals taken over different number of beats, and demonstrating explicitly that the PDFs of detrended healthy heart rate increments are scale dependent. We have understood the essential effect of this detrended analysis is to eliminate the local average from the heartbeat data. We have further found that this scale invariance of the PDFs of the sum of heartbeat intervals, with the local mean subtracted, is displayed also by heart rate fluctuations of congestive heart failure patients. In both the healthy and pathological states, such scale-invariant PDFs are close to an exponential distribution. On the other hand, this scale invariance is absent in the multifractal temperature measurements in turbulent thermal convective flows. Hence we have found an interesting scale invariance of exponential PDFs in human heartbeat dynamics, which is exhibited generally by heart rate fluctuations in both healthy and pathological states. Since this scale invariance is a general feature, it cannot be an indication of the healthy state being critical, in contrast to what was claimed in earlier studies [@KiyonoPRL2004].
ESCC thanks D.C. Lin for discussions in the early part of this work. This work is supported in part by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (Grant No. CUHK 400304).
[99]{} C.-K. Peng, J. Mietus, J.M. Hausdorff, S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A.L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1343 (1993). S. Thurner, M.C. Feurstein, and M.C. Teich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1544 (1998). P.C. Ivanov, L.A.N. Amaral, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, M.G. Rosenblum, Z.R. Struzik, and H.E. Stanley, Nature (London) [**399**]{}, 461 (1999). L.A.N. Amaral, P.C. Ivanov, N. Aoyagi, I. Hidaka, S. Tomono, A.L. Goldberger, H.E. Stanley, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 6026 (2001). Y. Ashkenazy, P.C. Ivanov, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, A. L. Goldberger, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1900 (2001). P. Bernaola-Galvan, P.C. Ivanov, L.A.N. Amaral, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 168105 (2001). M. Costa, A.L. Goldberger, and C.K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 068102 (2002). A.C.-C. Yang, S.-S. Hseu, H.-W. Yen, A.L. Goldberger, and C.-K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 108103 (2003). G. Parisi and U. Frisch, in [*Proceedings of the International School on Turbulence and Predictability in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics and Climate Dynamics*]{}, edited by M, Ghil, R. Benzi, and G. Parisi (North-Hollan, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 84. D.C. Lin and R.L. Hughson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1650 (2001). Z.-S. She and E. Leveque, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 336 (1994). E.S.C. Ching, D.C. Lin and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 051919 (2004). K. Kiyono, Z. R. Struzik, N. Aoyagi, S. Sakata, J. Hayano, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 178103 (2004). C.-K. Peng , S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A. L. Goldberger, Chaos [**5**]{}, 82 (1995). K. Kiyono, Z. R. Struzik, N. Aoyagi, and Y. Yamamoto, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. [**53**]{}, 95 (2006). http://physionet.org. See also A.L. Goldberger, L.A.N. Amaral, L. Glass, J.M. Hausdorff, P.Ch. Ivanov, R.G. Mark, J.E. Mietus, G.B. Moody, C.-K. Peng, and H.E. Stanley, [*Circulation*]{}, [**101**]{}, e215 (2000). see, e.g., B. Castaing, G. Gunaratne, F. Heslot, L. Kadanoff, A. Libchaber, S. Thomae, X. Wu, S. Zalesky, and G. Zanetti, J. Fluid Mech. [**204**]{}, 1 (1989). E.S.C. Ching, Phys. Rev. A [**44**]{}, 3622 (1991). E.S.C. Ching, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, R33 (2000). P. Bernaola-Galvan, P.Ch. Ivanov, L.A.N. Amaral, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 168105 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii,\
Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
author:
- XERXES TATA
title: 'WHAT IS SUPERSYMMETRY AND HOW DO WE FIND IT? [^1]'
---
psfig.sty
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
5[\_5]{}
Why Is the TeV Scale Special?
=============================
The 1970’s witnessed the emergence of what has now become the Standard Model [@STAND] (SM) of particle physics. This is a non-Abelian gauge theory based on the gauge group $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$. The left- and right-handed components of the matter fermions are assigned to different representations of the gauge group, thereby allowing a chiral structure for the weak interactions. It is further assumed that the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken to the observed $SU(3)_C \times U(1)_{em}$ symmetry by a single $SU(2)_L$ doublet of spin zero fields that acquires a vacuum expectation value (VEV). The $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ structure of electroweak interactions was strikingly confirmed with the discovery of the $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^0$ bosons at CERN. During the last few years, the beautiful measurements [@LEPC] of the properties of the $Z^0$ boson have allowed us to test [@HAG] electroweak theory at the $10^{-3}$ level. The QCD part of the SM has not been tested at the same level. Currently, QCD tests are mostly confined to the domain where the theory can be treated perturbatively. Unfortunately, this precludes the use of most of the experimental data on strong interactions; [*viz.*]{} the observed properties of hadrons, for QCD tests. In the future, lattice computations may change this state of affairs. It would indeed be extremely interesting if the lattice community could come up with an incisive test that could (in principle) unambiguously falsify QCD. Despite this, we should acknowledge that the SM has been spectacularly successful in accounting for a variety of experimental data spanning a vast range of energy.
Why then do we entertain the possibility of any physics beyond the SM? [^2] First, we do not really know that electroweak symmetry is broken by the VEV of a spin zero elementary field, let alone, that this electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) sector consists of just one $SU(2)_L$ doublet as is assumed in the SM. Understanding the mechanism of EWSB is one of the most pressing questions of particle physics today. There are also aesthetic reasons to believe that the SM is not the complete story. It does not provide any explanation of particle masses or mixing patterns. The SM, therefore, contains a large number of arbitrary parameters. Moreover, one needs to make an [*ad hoc*]{} choice of gauge group and particle multiplets. Also, the SM offers no explanation for the replication of generations. Finally, we should always keep in mind that the SM does not incorporate gravity.
Perhaps more to the point is a technical problem [@SUSS] that arises in quantum field theories with elementary spin zero fields. Ignoring gravitational interactions (so that the vacuum energy is not relevant), the largest quantum corrections are to scalar masses: the radiative correction ($\delta m_H$) to the scalar boson mass diverges quadratically as the internal momentum in the loop becomes very large. This divergence is unphysical since our SM computation breaks down for loop momenta $p^2 \sim \Lambda^2$, where $\Lambda$ denotes the energy scale at which the SM ceases to be an adequate description of nature. This breakdown could occur because of form factor effects which become important at the scale $\Lambda$, or because there are new degrees of freedom at this scale that are not part of the SM. For instance, $\Lambda \sim
M_{GUT}$ if the SM is embedded in a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) since the effects of GUT boson exchanges become important for $p^2 \sim \Lambda^2$. The scale $\Lambda$ thus serves as a cut-off on loop integrals in the sense that effects not included in the SM become important above this scale, and serve to dynamically regulate the integral. In lowest order in perturbation theory, we would then write the physical scalar boson mass as, $$m_H^2 = m_0^2 +\delta m_H^2 \sim m_0^2 - g^2\Lambda^2,$$ where $m_0$ is the bare Higgs boson mass parameter and $g$ a dimensionless coupling constant. We will assume that all dimensionless constants and ratios are of ${\cal{O}}(1)$. From perturbative unitarity arguments [@DICUS] we believe that $m_H$ is not larger than a few hundred GeV, so that if $\Lambda$ is indeed as large as $M_{GUT}$, the two terms on the right hand side of the equation, each of which is $\sim 10^{30}$ GeV$^2$, have to combine to yield an answer $\leq 10^6$ GeV$^2$. While this possibility cannot be logically excluded, the incredible sensitivity of the theory to the input parameters is generally regarded as a shortcoming of field theories with elementary scalars.
If we turn this reasoning around, and require as a matter of principle that the theory should not require this incredible fine tuning of parameters, we would be led to conclude that $$\Lambda \alt \ 1000 \ GeV.$$ If this perturbative estimate is valid, we must conclude that new physics effects not included in the SM must manifest themselves in collisions of elementary particles at about the TeV energy scale. What form this New Physics will take is unknown. We do not even know whether it will be in the form of direct production of new particles or indication of structure (via form factors) for particles that we currently regard to be elementary. Possibilities that have been considered in the literature include technicolour, [@TECH] compositeness of leptons and quarks [@COMP] and supersymmetry. [@SUSY; @WZ] It is the last of these alternatives that forms the subject of these lectures. [@LECTURES]
It is important to note that even though we do not know what the New Physics might be, its scale has been fixed to be $\alt 1$ TeV. Along with the search for the Higgs boson, the only missing ingredient of the SM, the search for novel phenomena which are expected to occur at TeV energy is the primary reason for the construction of supercolliders such as the Large Hadron Collider [@CMS; @ATLAS] (LHC) or a 0.5-2 TeV electron-positron collider. [@ZDR; @JLC] It is worth remarking that strong interactions in the EWSB sector could invalidate the perturbative argument that led to the bound (2). The search for effects of these new strong interactions at colliders poses [@STRONG] a formidable experimental challenge.
Before closing this Section, we remark that the instability of the mass to radiative corrections is endemic to spin zero fields. Chiral symmetry and gauge symmetry, respectively protect fermions and gauge bosons from large radiative corrections to their masses. For instance, in quantum electrodynamics, the corrections to the electron mass is only logarithmically divergent, and hence, by dimensional analysis must have the form, $$\delta m \propto m \ln \Lambda,$$ since $m$ is the only mass scale in the problem. Massless fermions, therefore, are protected from acquiring masses, a property that can be traced to the chiral symmetry of QED. Likewise, the photon remains massless due to the gauge symmetry. In a generic quantum field theory, however, there is no known symmetry that keeps scalars from acquiring large masses by radiative corrections without resorting to fine-tuning. There is, however, a special class of theories in which this is not necessary. The price paid is that for every known particle, one has to introduce a new partner with spin differing by $\frac{1}{2}$. The properties of the known particles and their new partners are related by a symmetry. This symmetry is unlike any known symmetry in that it inter-relates properties of bosons and fermions. Such a symmetry [@REV] is known as a supersymmetry (SUSY). These supersymmetric partners constitute the new physics that we alluded to above. It should now be clear that if SUSY is to ameliorate [@KAUL; @DIMO] the fine tuning problem, supersymmetric partners should be lighter than $\sim 1$ TeV, so that they can be searched for at supercolliders.
An Introduction to Supersymmetry
================================
In order to describe what supersymmetric particles would look like in experiments at high energy colliders, we have to understand how they might be produced, and, if they are unstable, into what these particles decay. In other words, we have to understand their interactions. We should mention at the outset that as yet no compelling model has emerged (primarily because of our ignorance of physics at high energy scales). Nonetheless, there is a useful (albeit cumbersome) parametrization of the effective theory that can be used for phenomenological analyses. Before delving into the complications of constructing realistic SUSY field theories, we will illustrate the essential ideas of supersymmetry using a simple example first written down by Wess and Zumino [@WZ].
Working with a SUSY field Theory: A Toy Model
---------------------------------------------
Consider a field theory with the Lagrangian given by,
$$\cal{L}=\cal{L}_{\it kin}+\cal{L}_{\it mass},$$
where, $${\cal{L}}_{\it kin} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}A)^2 +
\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}B)^2 + \frac{i}{2}\bar{\psi}\dsl\psi +
\frac{1}{2}(F^2+G^2),$$ and $${\cal{L}}_{mass} = -m \left [\frac{1}{2}\bar{\psi}\psi -GA -FB \right ].$$
Here, $A$, $B$, $F$ and $G$ are real scalar fields, and $\psi$ is a self-conjugate or Majorana spinor field satisfying,
$$\psi = C\bar{\psi}^T$$ where the charge conjugation matrix $C$ satifies $$C\gamma_{\mu}^T C^{-1} = -\gamma_{\mu}, \nonumber,$$ $$C^T=C^{-1}=-C,$$ and $$[C,\gamma_5 ]=0.$$ Notice that (4) is a constraint equation that tells us that only two of the four components of $\psi$ are independent. This can be easily seen by projecting out the right-handed component in (4) to get $$\psi_R=C\gamma_0\psi_L^*$$
Bilinears of Majorana spinors also have very special properties. For instance, $$\bar{\psi}\chi =\psi^T C\chi = \psi_{\alpha}C_{\alpha\beta}\chi_{\beta}
= -\chi_{\beta}(-C_{\beta\alpha})\psi_{\alpha} = \chi^T C \psi =
\bar{\chi}\psi,$$ where the first minus sign in the fourth step is due to the anticommutativity of the spinor fields and the second one due to the antisymmetry (5b) of the matrix $C$. Similarly, one can show that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\psi}\gamma_5 \chi = \bar{\chi}\gamma_5 \psi, \\
\bar{\psi}\gamma_{\mu} \chi = -\bar{\chi}\gamma_{\mu} \psi, \\
\bar{\psi}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5 \chi = \bar{\chi}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5
\psi, \\
\bar{\psi}\sigma_{\mu\nu} \chi = -\bar{\chi}\sigma_{\mu\nu} \psi. \end{aligned}$$
Wess and Zumino [@WZ] observed that under the transformations, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta A &=&i\bar{\alpha}\gamma_5\psi ,\\
\delta B &=&-\bar{\alpha}\psi ,\\
\delta\psi &=&-F\alpha+iG\gamma_5\alpha+\dsl\gamma_5 A\alpha +i\dsl B\alpha ,\\
\delta F &=&i\bar{\alpha}\dsl \psi ,\\
\delta G &=&\bar{\alpha}\gamma_5 \dsl \psi\end{aligned}$$ the Lagrangian density (3) changes by a total derivative. The action then changes by just a surface term, and the equations of motion remain unchanged. Before verifying this, we note that the transformations (8) mix boson and fermion fields; [*i.e.*]{} the invariance of the equations of motion is the result of a supersymmetry. The parameter of the transformation $\alpha$ is thus spinorial. Furthermore, to preserve the reality of the bosonic fields $A$, $B$, $F$ and $G$, as well as the Majorana nature of $\psi$, $\alpha$ itself must satisfy the Majorana property (4). To verify that (3) indeed changes by a total derivative under the transformations (8), we note that $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over 2}\delta [(\dmu A)^2] &=&(\partial^{\mu} A)\dmu\delta A
=i\partial^{\mu}
A\bar{\alpha}\gamma_5\dmu\psi ,\\
{1\over 2}\delta [(\dmu B)^2] &=&-\partial^{\mu} B\bar{\alpha}\dmu\psi ,\\
{i\over 2}\delta [\psib\dsl\psi ] &=&
{i\over 2}[\delta\psib\dsl\psi +
\psib\dsl\delta\psi ] \nonumber \\
& &={i\over 2}\dmu [\delta\psib\gamma_{\mu}\psi ]-{i\over
2}(\dmu\delta\psib )
\gamma_{\mu}\psi
+{i\over 2}\psib\dsl\delta\psi \nonumber \\
& &={i\over 2}\dmu [\delta \psib\gamma_{\mu}\psi ]+i\psib\dsl\delta
\psi, \end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we have used (7c) for the Majorana spinors $\psi$ and $\delta\psi$. Continuing, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over 2}\delta (F^2) &=& iF\bar{\alpha}\dsl\psi, \\
{1\over 2}\delta (G^2) &=& G\bar{\alpha}\g5\dsl\psi .\end{aligned}$$ We thus find that apart from a total derivative, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {\cal{L}}_{kin} & = & -i\Box A \bar{\alpha}\g5 \psi +
\Box B \bar{\alpha}\psi \\
& & +i\bar{\psi}[-\dsl F\alpha +i\dsl G \g5 \alpha + \Box A \g5\alpha
+i\Box B\alpha] \\
& & +iF\bar{\alpha}\dsl \psi + G \bar{\alpha}\g5\dsl \psi. \\ \end{aligned}$$ Using (7a) and (7b), we see that the terms involving $\Box A$ and $\Box
B$ exactly cancel, leaving the remainder which, using (7c) and (7d), can be written as a total derivative. It will be left as an exercise for the reader to verify that $\delta{\cal{L}}_{mass}$ is also a total derivative.
In order to further understand the supersymmetric transformations, we consider the effect of two successive SUSY transformations with parameters, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. Starting from (8a) followed by (8b) and judicuously using (7), it is simple to show that, $$(\delta_2\delta_1-\delta_1\delta_2)A =
2i\ab_2\gamma^{\mu}\alpha_1 \dmu A,$$ In order to find the algebra satisfied by the Majorana spinor supersymmetry generators $Q$, we write $\delta \equiv i\bar{\alpha}Q$, and find from (10) that $$-(\ab_2 Q \ab_1 Q \ - \ \ab_1 Q \ab_2 Q)A =
-\ab_{2b}\alpha_{1a}(Q_b\bar{Q}_a \ + \bar{Q}_aQ_b)A =
2i\ab_{2b}\alpha_{1a}(\dsl A)_{ba},$$ where $a$ and $b$ are spinor indices. In the first step we have used (7a) together with the fact that the parameters $\alpha_{ia}$ anticommute amongst themselves and also with the components $Q_{a}$ of the SUSY generators. We will leave it to the reader to verify that the same relation [^3] holds for successive action of SUSY transformations on the fields $B$, $\psi$, $F$ and $G$. We can thus write, $$\{Q_a,\bar{Q}_b\} \ = \ -2(\gamma_{\mu}P^{\mu})_{ab}$$ where $P^{\mu}$ is the translation generator of the Poincaré group, and the curly brackets denote the anti-commutator. The presence of the translation generator in (11) shows that supersymmetry is a spacetime symmetry. Conservation of supersymmetry implies $$[Q_a,P^0] = 0,$$ or, from Lorentz covariance, $$[Q_a,P^{\mu}] = 0.$$ The commutators of $Q$ with the Lorentz group generators $J_{\mu\nu}$ are fixed because we have already declared $Q$ to be a spin $\frac{1}{2}$ Majorana spinor.
The Supersymmetry algebra described above is not a Lie Algebra since it includes anti-commutators. Such algebras are referred to as Graded Lie Algebras. Haag, Lopuzanski and Sohnius [@HLS] have shown that (except for the possibility of neutral elements and of more than one spinorial charge $Q$ [@OLIVE]) the algebra that we have obtained above is the most general graded Lie Algebra consistent with rather reasonable physical assumptions. Models with more than one SUSY charge in the low energy theory do not lead to chiral fermions and so are excluded for phenomenological reasons. We will henceforth assume that there is just a single super-charge.
We immediately note that (12a) implies all states but the zero energy ground state (the vacuum) come in degenerate pairs, with one member of the pair being a boson and the other a fermion. Thus, in any supersymmetric theory, every particle has a partner with the same mass but with a spin differing by $\frac{1}{2}$ (since $Q$ carries $\frac{1}{2}$ unit of spin). A study of how the partners of the known SM particles would manifest themselves in experiments at colliders forms the main subject of these Lectures. But continuing our study of the basics, we note that SUSY acts independently of any internal symmetry. In other words, the generators of supersymmetry commute with all internal symmetry generators. We immediately conclude that [*any particle and its superpartner have identical internal quantum numbers*]{} such as electric charge, isospin, colour, [*etc.*]{}
In order to see how supersymmetry is realized in the model defined by (3), we note that the fields $F$ and $G$ are not dynamically independent as the Lagrangian has no kinetic terms for these fields (which, therefore, do not propagate). The Euler-Lagrange equations of these fields are, $$F = - mB, \hspace{5mm} G = -mA.$$ If we substitute these back into the Lagrangian (3), we obtain, $${\cal{L}} = \frac{1}{2}(\dmu A)^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\dmu B)^2 +
\frac{i}{2}\psib \dsl \psi - \frac{1}{2}m^2(A^2+B^2) -
\frac{1}{2} m\psib\psi .$$ This Lagrangian describes a non-interacting theory and, as such, is not terribly interesting. Notice, however, that there are two real scalar fields $A$ and $B$ and one spin $\frac{1}{2}$ Majorana fermion field, all with mass $m$. We thus see that the number of bosonic degrees of freedom (two) matches the fermionic degrees of freedom (recall that (6) shows that just two of the four components of $\psi$ are dynamically independent) at each space-time point.
In order to make the model more interesting, we include an interaction term given by $${\cal{L}}_{int} = -\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}A\psib\psi +
\frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}B\psib\g5\psi + \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(A^2-B^2)G
+ g\sqrt{2}ABF,$$ to the Lagrangian (3). The courageous reader can verify that ${\cal{L}}_{int}$ is invariant up to a total derivative under the transformations (8). Once again we can eliminate the auxiliary fields $F$ and $G$ via their Euler-Lagrange equations which get modified to, $$\begin{aligned}
F & = & - mB - g\sqrt{2}AB \\
G & = & - mA - \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}(A^2-B^2), \end{aligned}$$ and obtain the total Lagrangian in terms of the dynamical fields as, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}} & = & \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}A)^2 +
\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}B)^2 + \frac{i}{2}\bar{\psi}\dsl\psi -
\frac{1}{2}m^2(A^2+B^2) - \frac{1}{2} m\psib\psi \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}A\psib\psi + \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}B\psib\g5\psi -
gm\sqrt{2}AB^2 - \frac{gm}{\sqrt{2}}A(A^2-B^2) \nonumber \\
& & -g^2A^2B^2 - \frac{1}{4}g^2(A^2-B^2)^2.\end{aligned}$$
Several features of the Lagrangian in (16) are worth stressing.
1. It describes the interaction of two real spin zero fields and a Majorana field with spin half. As before, the number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom match.
2. There is a single mass parameter $m$ common to all the fields.
3. Although the interaction structure of the model is very rich and includes scalar and pseudoscalar interactions of the fermion as well as a variety of trilinear and quartic scalar interactions, there is just one single coupling constant $g$. We thus see that supersymmetry is like other familiar symmetries in that it relates the various interactions as well as masses. The mass and coupling constant relationships inherent in (16) are completely analogous to the familiar (approximate) equality of neutron and proton masses or the relationships between their interactions with the various pions implied by (approximate) isospin invariance.
How Supersymmetry Removes Quadratic Divergences
-----------------------------------------------
We have already mentioned that the existence of supersymmetric partners serves to remove the quadratic divergences that destabilize the scalar sector of a generic field theory. We will illustrate this cancellation of quadratic divergences in the toy model that we have been studying. Consider the corrections to the “one point function” of the field $A$ to first order in the coupling constant $g$ in (16). These corrections, which are represented by tadpole diagrams shown in Fig. \[fig1\], come from trilinear couplings in the second line of the Lagrangian (16). A simple computation gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | {\cal{L}}_{int} | A \rangle \sim &
{\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\left \{Tr\int \frac{d^4p}{\pslh-m_{\psi}}
-m \int \frac{d^4p}{p^2-m_B^2} -3m \int \frac{d^4p}{p^2-m_A^2}\right\}
\nonumber \\
=& {\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}} \left \{\int \frac{d^4p}{p^2-m_{\psi}}4m_{\psi}
-m \int \frac{d^4p}{p^2-m_B^2} -3m \int \frac{d^4p}{p^2-m_A^2}\right\}. \end{aligned}$$ The factor 3 in the last term arises since any one of the three fields in the $A^3$ interactions could annihilate the external particle. Here, we have deliberately denoted the masses that enter via the propagators by $m_A$, $m_B$ and $m_{\psi}$ although these are exactly the same as the mass parameter $m$ that enters via the trilinear scalar couplings in Eq. (16). We first see that because all these masses are exactly equal in a supersymmetric theory, the three contributions in (17) add to zero. Thus although each diagram is separately quadratically divergent, the divergence from the fermion loop exactly cancels the sum of divergences from the boson loops. Two remarks are in order.
1. In order for this cancellation to occur, it is crucial that the $A^3$, $AB^2$ and $A\psib\psi$ couplings be exactly as given in (16).
2. The [*quadratic*]{} divergence in the expression (17) is independent of the scalar masses, $m_A$ and $m_B$. It is, however, crucial that the fermion mass $m_{\psi}$ is exactly equal to the mass $m$ that enters via the trilinear scalar interactions in order for the cancellation of the quadratic divergence to be maintained. If the boson masses differ from the fermion mass $m_{\psi}$, the expression in (17) is at most logarithmically divergent. As we have discussed, logarithmic divergences do not severely destabilize scalar masses.
It is also instructive to inspect the lowest order quadratic divergences in the two-point function of $A$. The one loop contributions to the quadratic divergences are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. [^4] It is left as an exercise for the reader to check that while each one of the diagrams in Fig. \[fig2\] is individually quadratically divergent, this divergence cancels when the three diagrams are summed. Once again, the contributions from the fermion loop cancel those from the boson loops. Moreover, this cancellation occurs for [*all*]{} values of particle masses. This is because trilinear scalar interactions do not contribute to the quadratic divergence that we have just computed. It is, however, crucial that the fermion Yukawa coupling ($\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}$) is related to the quartic scalar couplings on the last line of (16).
Soft Supersymmetry Breaking
---------------------------
The fact that the quadratic divergences continue to cancel even if the scalar boson masses are not exactly equal to fermion masses (as implied by SUSY) is absolutely critical for the construction of phenomenologically viable models. We know from observation that SUSY cannot be an exact symmetry of nature. Otherwise, there would have to exist a spin zero or spin one particle [*with exactly the mass and charge of an electron.*]{} Such a particle could not have evaded experimental detection. The only way out of this conundrum (if we are to continue with these Lectures) is to admit that supersymmetric partners cannot be degenerate with the usual particles. Thus, supersymmetry must be a broken symmetry.
Does this mess up our solution to the fine-tuning problem that got us interested in SUSY in the first instance? Fortunately, it does not. We have just seen (by the two examples above) that if SUSY is explicitly broken because scalar masses differ from their fermion counterparts, no new quadratic divergences occur. We will state without proof that this is true for all processes, and to all orders in perturbation theory. It is, therefore, possible to introduce new terms such as independent additional masses for the scalars which break SUSY without the reappearance of quadratic divergences. Such terms are said to break SUSY [*softly*]{}. Not all SUSY breaking terms are soft. We have already seen that if $m_{\psi} \not= m$, the expression in (17) is quadratically divergent. Thus additional contributions to the fermion mass in the Wess-Zumino model results in a [*hard*]{} breaking of supersymmetry. Similarly, any additional contribution to just the quartic scalar interactions will result in the reappearance of a quadratic divergence in the correction to $m_A^2$
Are there other soft SUSY breaking terms in the toy theory that we have been considering? Recall that the combinatorial factor 3 in the last term in (17). This tells us that the contribution of the $A$ loop from the trilinear $A^3$ interaction is exactly three times bigger than the contribution from the $B$ loop from the $AB^2$ interaction (the coupling constants for these interactions are exactly equal). Thus, there will be no net quadratic divergence in the expression (17) even if we add a term of the form, $${\cal{L}}_{soft} = k(A^3-3AB^2)$$ to our model, where $k$ is a dimensional coupling constant. Obviously, this interaction does not give a quadratically divergent correction to the one loop contribution to $m_A^2$. It is an example of a soft supersymmetry breaking interaction term. We remark that this term can be written in terms of $\CS =\frac{A+iB}{\sqrt{2}}$ as $${\cal{L}}_{soft} = \sqrt{2}k(\CS^3 \ + \ h.c.)$$ while an arbitrary splitting in the masses of $A$ and $B$ can be incorporated by including a term, $${\cal{L}}_{soft}= m'^2(\CS^2 \ + \ h.c.)$$ into the Lagrangian. It will turn out that super-renormalizable terms that are analytic in $\CS$ are soft while terms that involve products of $\CS$ and $\CS^*$ (except supersymmetric terms such as $\CS^*\CS$ already present in (16)) result in a hard breaking of SUSY. The reader can, for instance, easily check that an interaction proportional to ($\CS^2\CS^*+h.c.)=2(A^2+B^2)A$ leads to a quadratically divergent contribution to the expression in (17).
Although we have illustrated the cancellation of quadratic divergences with just a couple of examples, it is important to stress that this is a general feature of supersymmetric theories. The reader is also urged to verify that the quadratic divergence cancels in the one loop tadpole and mass corrections to the $B$ field. Furthermore, we have already noted that this cancellation of quadratic divergences is true to all orders in perturbation theory. The SUSY resolution of the fine-tuning issue rests upon this important propery of supersymmetric models.
Construction of Supersymmetric Lagrangians
==========================================
Non-Gauge Theory
----------------
The fields in the model we have been considering can be re-written in terms of $$\begin{aligned}
\CS & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A+iB) \nonumber\\
\psi & & \\
{\cal{F}} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(F+iG) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\CS$, $\psi$ and transform into one another under the SUSY transformations (8) which can be re-written as, [^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\CS &=& -\sqrt{2}i\ab\psi_L, \\
\delta\psi_L& =& -\sqrt{2}{\cal{F}}\alpha_L +\sqrt{2}\dsl\CS\alpha_R, \\
\delta{\cal{F}}& =& \sqrt{2}\ab\dsl\psi_L \end{aligned}$$ Thus ($\CS$, $\psi_L$ and $\cal{F}$) together constitute an irreducible supermultiplet in exactly the same way that the proton and neutron form a doublet of isospin. Further, analogous to the isospin formalism that treats the nucleon doublet as a single entity, there is a formalism known as the superfield formalism [@SUPERF] that combines all three components of the supermultiplet into a superfield $\hat{S}$. Since only one chiral component of the Majorana spinor $\psi$ enters the transformations, such superfields are referred to as (left) chiral superfields. Further, because the lowest spin component of the multiplet has spin zero, this superfield is known as a left chiral scalar superfield. It is easy to check that the Hermitean conjugate of a left chiral superfield is a right chiral superfield. There are, of course, other irreducible multiplets of supersymmetry just as there are other representations of isospin symmetry.
The superfield formalism [@SUPERF] is the most convenient way of discussing how to write supersymmetric Lagrangians. As we do not have time to discuss it during these Lectures, we will content ourselves by stating clearly (but without proof) those features that will be useful to us.
1. There is a multiplication rule $\hat{S}=\hat{S_1}\hat{S_2}$ which allows us to compute the components of the “product superfield” in terms of the components of $\hat{S_1}$ and $\hat{S_2}$, and
2. The product of two (and hence, several) left (right) chiral superfields is itself a left (right) chiral superfield, but the product of a left chiral superfield and a right chiral superfield is neither a left nor a right chiral superfield.
The strategy for the construction of supersymmetric Lagrangians is straightforward once we observe from (8d,e), or equivalently from (20c) that the $\cal{F}$ component of a left-chiral superfield changes by a total derivative under a SUSY transformation. By (2) above, since any product of left-chiral superfields is itself a left-chiral superfield, any [*analytic function*]{} $f(\hat{S_1},\hat{S_2},....\hat{S_N}$) of left chiral superfields is a composite left chiral superfield. The $\CF$ component of this composite superfield is thus a function of the component fields in $\hat{S_1},\hat{S_2},....{\hat{S}}_N$ which changes by a total derivative under supersymmetry transformations. This function, therefore, has exactly the properties that we want from a supersymmetric Lagrangian density. It is a function of various fields $\CS_i,\psi_i$ and ${\cal{F}}_i $ that remains invariant up to a total derivative under SUSY, and is thus a candidate for our Lagrangian. The function $f$ is referred to as the [*superpotential.*]{} The reason that it has to be analytic is that if it involves both $\hat{S}_i$ and $\hat{S}_i^*$, it will no longer be a chiral superfield and its $\CF$-component will no longer be a SUSY invariant.
The Lagrangian density, [*i.e.*]{} the $\CF$-component of the superpotential, can be readily computed using the rules for superfield multiplication. The computation is somewhat tedious. It is a function of the component fields $\CS_i,\psi_i$ and ${\cal{F}}_i$ of the superfields $\hat{S}_i$ that appear in the superpotential. The auxiliary fields ${\cal{F}}_i$ can be eliminated using the algebraic constraints (analogous to the equation below (15)) from their Euler-Lagrange equations. The resulting Lagrangian takes the form, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}} &=& -\sum_i \left|\frac{\partial f}{\partial
\hat{S}_i}\right|^2_{\hat{S_i}=\CS_i}\nonumber\\ & &
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}\left\{\psib_i\left[\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}
\right]\left(\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial \hat{S_i} \partial
\hat{S_j}}\right)_{\hat{S_i}=\CS_i}\psi_j +h.c.\right\}\end{aligned}$$ The terms involving derivatives of the superpotential are functions of just the scalar fields $\CS_i$ since in the expression we set $\hat{S_i}=\CS_i$ after differentiation. The first term in (21) is the scalar potential while the second term describes the interaction of the scalars with the fermions. Notice that the bilinear terms in the superpotential become mass terms for both the scalars and the fermions.
It is apparent from the first term in (21) that a term of degree $n$ in the superpotential leads to a Lagrangian density with mass dimension $d=2(n-1)$. For the theory is to be power-counting renormalizable, we must have $2(n-1) \leq 4$, and the superpotential at most cubic in the superfields.
Before proceeding further, let us illustrate the use of (21) by a simple example where the superpotential is a function of just one superfield. Choose $$f=\frac{1}{2}m\hat{S}^2 + \frac{1}{3}g\hat{S}^3.$$ Then, using (21) it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}} & = & -\left |m\CS+g\CS^2 \right |^2 \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{2}\left \{\psib\left[\frac{1-\g5}{2}\right ](m+2g\CS)\psi +
h.c\right \},\end{aligned}$$ which, using (19) reduces to the Lagrangian (16) except that the kinetic energy terms are missing.
These have their origin in a different source. For our purposes it is sufficient to recall that we saw that they were separately supersymmetric, so that the Lagrangian in (21) only needs to be supplemented [^6] by, $${\cal{L}}_{kin} =
\sum_{i} (\partial_{\mu}\CS_i)^{\dagger}(\partial^{\mu}\CS_i) +
\frac{i}{2}\sum_{i}\bar{\psi_i}\dsl \psi_i,$$ which are the canonically normalized kinetic energies for complex scalar and Majorana fermion fields. The Lagrangian given by the sum of (21) and (23) is the most general globally supersymmetric Lagrangian for non-gauge theories. We now turn to the corresponding formula for the Lagrangian in gauge theory.
The Lagrangian for Supersymmetric Gauge Theories
------------------------------------------------
In order to write down a locally gauge invariant supersymmetric Lagrangian, we have to introduce a gauge covariant derivative. As in the usual Yang-Mills construction of gauge theories, this is done by introducing a set of massless vector fields which, under gauge transformations, transform as the adjoint representation of the gauge group. In a supersymmetric theory, this cannot be done without also including some additional fermions to match the gauge bosons that we had to introduce. We have to introduce a complete supermultiplet of gauge potentials. However, this supermultiplet differs from the multiplet (19) of the Wess Zumino model, in that the gauge field (unlike the scalar field $\CS$ in the chiral supermultiplet) is real. As a result, the gauge supermultiplet is neither a left nor a right chiral superfield. Although we have not shown this in these Lectures, it can be demonstrated that all but three components of the gauge supermultiplet can be chosen to be zero. [^7] This choice of the supermultiplet is known as the Wess–Zumino gauge in the literature. In this gauge, the gauge supermultiplet consists of $(V_\mu, \lambda, {\cal D})$, where $V_\mu$ is the usual Yang–Mills gauge potential, $\lambda$ is a Majorana spinor field, and ${\cal D}$, like the field ${\cal F}$ in (19) is an auxiliary non–propagating field that can be algebraically eliminated via its Euler–Lagrange equations.
Notice that once again the number of dynamical bosonic degrees of freedom (two for the gauge field) matches the number for the dynamical fermionic degrees of freedom (two for the Majorana fermion $\lambda)$, in agreement with our general considerations. This new fermion, called the gaugino, is the supersymmetric partner of the gauge boson and so, under gauge transformations, transforms as a member of the adjoint representation of the gauge group.
As before, we will content ourselves by presenting a general formula for the couplings of “matter” particles and their superpartners to gauge bosons and gauginos in a globally supersymmetric gauge theory. Matter particles belong to chiral supermultiplets such as (19), while the gauge bosons and their gaugino partners reside in the gauge multiplet that we have just introduced. After elimination of the auxiliary fields ${\cal F}_i$ and ${\cal D}_A$ the globally supersymmetric Yang-Mills Lagrangian takes the form, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}} & =&
\sum_{i} (D_{\mu}\CS_i)^{\dagger}(D^{\mu}\CS_i) +
\frac{i}{2}\sum_{i}\bar{\psi_i}\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu} \psi_i \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{4}\sum_A F_{\mu \nu A}F^{\mu \nu}_A +
\frac{i}{2}\sum_A \bar{\lambda}_A\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu} \lambda_A\nonumber\\
& & -\sqrt{2}\sum_{i,A}\left[\CS_i^\dagger(g_{\alpha} t_{\alpha A})\bar{\psi_i}
\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2} \lambda_A + h. c.\right]\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{2}\sum_A\left[\sum_i \CS_i^\dagger g_{\alpha} t_{\alpha A} \CS_i +
\xi_A\right]^2\nonumber\\
& & -\sum_i \left|\frac{\partial f}{\partial
\hat{S}_i}\right|^2_{\hat{S_i}=\CS_i} \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}\left\{\bar{\psi_i}
\left[\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2} \right]
\left(\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial \hat{S}_i
\partial \hat{S}_j}\right)_{\hat{S}_i=\CS_i}\psi_j +h.c.\right\}
\label{eq:lagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\CS_i$ ($\psi_i$) denotes the scalar (Majorana fermion) component of the [*i*]{}th chiral superfield, $F_{\mu \nu A}$ is the Yang-Mills gauge field, $\lambda_A$ is the Majorana gaugino superpartner of the corresponding gauge boson and $\xi_A$ are constants [@FI] which can be non-zero only for $U(1)$ factors of the gauge group. In anticipation of simple grand unification, we will set these to zero. The last two lines of (24) come from the superpotential interactions and are identical to the Lagrangian in Eq. (21).
We note the following:
1. The first two lines are the gauge invariant kinetic energies for the components of the chiral and gauge superfields. The derivatives that appear are gauge covariant derivatives appropriate to the particular representation in which the field belongs. For example, if we are talking about SUSY QCD, for quark fields in the first line of Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian\]) the covariant derivative contains triplet $SU(3)_C$ matrices; [*i.e.*]{} $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+ig_s\frac{\lambda_A}{2}V_A^{\mu}$, whereas the covariant derivative acting on the gauginos in the following line will contain octet matrices. These terms completely determine how all particles interact with gauge bosons.
2. The third line describes the interactions of gauginos with matter and Higgs multiplets (we will soon see that quarks, leptons as well as Higgs bosons (and their superpartners) belong to chiral supermultiplets). Notice that these interactions are also determined by the gauge couplings. Here $t_{\alpha A}$ is the appropriate dimensional matrix represention of the group generators for the $\alpha$th factor of the gauge group, while $g_{\alpha}$ are the corresponding gauge coupling constants (one for each factor of the gauge group). Matrix multiplication is implied. To see that these terms are gauge invariant, recall that $\psi_{iR}$ which is fixed by the Majorana condition, transforms according to the conjugate representation to $\psi_{iL}$.
3. Line four describes quartic couplings of scalar matter. Notice that these are determined by the gauge interactions. The interactions on this line are referred to as $D$-terms.
4. Finally, the last two lines in Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian\]) describe the non-gauge, superpotential interactions of matter and Higgs fields, such as the Yukawa interactions responsible for matter fermion masses in the SM. Since these interactions do not involve any spacetime derivatives, choosing the superpotential to be a globally gauge invariant function of superfields is sufficient to guarantee the gauge invariance of the Lagrangian. For a renormalizable theory, the superpotential must be a polynomial of degree $\leq 3$.
Since the procedure that we have described is crucial for the construction of SUSY models, we summarize by presenting a recipe for constructing an arbitrary supersymmetric gauge theory.
- Choose a gauge group and the representations for the various supermultiplets, taking care to ensure that the theory is free of chiral anomalies. Matter fermions and Higgs bosons form parts of chiral scalar supermultiplets, while gauge bosons reside in the real gauge supermultiplet.
- Choose a superpotential function which is a globally gauge invariant polynomial (of degree $\leq$ 3 for renormalizable interactions) of the various left chiral superfields.
- The interactions of all particles with gauge bosons are given by the usual “minimal coupling” prescription.
- Couple the gauginos to matter via the gauge interactions given in (\[eq:lagrangian\]).
- Write down the additional self interactions of the scalar matter fields as given by (\[eq:lagrangian\]).
- Write down the non–gauge interactions of matter fields coming from the superpotential. The form of these is as given by (21), or equally well, by the last two lines of (24).
The final step is to write down soft supersymmetry breaking terms which are crucial for the construction of realistic models.
Before closing our discussion of exact supersymmetry we briefly comment (without proof) on how supersymmetry protects scalar masses from large radiative corrections. Using perturbation theory, it can be shown [@NONREN] that radiative corrections can alter masses and couplings in the superpotential only through wave function renormalization, provided supersymmetry is unbroken: in other words, if any parameter in the superpotential is zero to begin with, it will not be generated at any order in perturbation theory unless quantum corrections in the propagator induce mixing in the kinetic energy terms ($D$-terms) of the superfields. [^8] This statement is most easily proven using supergraphs, [@SUPERF; @NONREN] which is a diagramatic technique that keeps the underlying supersymmetry manifest in the course of the calculation. We have seen, however, that the mass parameter for the scalar component of a chiral superfield (the Higgs field is just such a scalar) arises from the superpotential and hence, gets radiatively corrected only due to the (at most logarithmically divergent) wave function renormalization. In terms of a calculation involving usual Feynman graphs with components of the superfield, this is equivalent to a cancellation between graphs involving internal boson loops and those involving loops of the fermionic partners of the bosons. Individually, these contributions are all very large, but supersymmetry leads to a precise cancellation of the bosonic and fermionic contributions, order by order in perturbation theory. If supersymmetry is broken at a scale $\Lambda_{SUSY}$, the cancellations are not complete and we are left with $\delta m^2 \sim $[O]{}($\Lambda^2_{SUSY}$), which fixes $\Lambda_{SUSY}$ to be smaller than [O]{}(1) TeV, as we have already seen.
Supersymmetry Breaking
----------------------
[*a. Spontaneous Supersymmetry Breaking*]{}
Supersymmetry cannot be an exact symmetry of nature. Aesthetically, it would be most pleasing if SUSY is spontaneously broken. As with gauge symmetry breaking, this would then preserve the coupling constant relationships needed for the cancellations of quadratic divergences but break the unwanted degeneracy between the masses of particles and their superpartners.
The action of any symmetry transformation on a field operator $\phi$ can be schematically written as, $$\delta \phi \ = [ \bar{\alpha} Q, \phi ].$$ In order for the symmetry [*not*]{} to be spontaneously broken, the symmetry generator $Q$ should annihilate the vaccum, so that $$\langle 0 | \delta \phi | 0 \rangle = \ 0.$$ If this is not the case, the symmetry will be spontaneously broken.
If $Q$ above is a generator of supersymmetry it is clear that $\delta \phi$ must be a spin zero field (otherwise rotational invariance automatically ensures $\langle 0 | \delta \phi | 0 \rangle = \ 0$, and we obtain no new information), or from Eq. (20), $\phi \ = \psi$. We thus see that in order to break supersymmetry spontaneously without breaking Lorentz invariance we must have $$\langle 0 |\CF | 0 \rangle \neq 0,$$ where $\CF$ is the auxiliary field of a chiral supermultiplet.
We now recall that the auxiliary fields $\CF_i$ are algebraically eliminated via their Euler-Lagrange equations. This then suggests a way of breaking SUSY spontaneously: choose the superpotential so that the system of equations, $$\langle 0 |\CF_i |0 \rangle = 0,$$ is inconsistent. This is equivalent to the statement that the set of equations, $$\langle 0 | \left [ \frac{\partial f}{\partial \hat{S}_i}
\right ]_{\hat{S}_i=\CS_i}
| 0 \rangle \qquad = \ 0,$$ has no consistent solution. This mechanism, due to O’Raifeartaigh, [@ORAF] is also known in the literature as ${\cal F}$–type breaking. As an example, we leave it to the reader to check that the superpotential, $$\begin{aligned}
f (\hat{X}, \hat{Y}, \hat{Z}) \ = \lambda (\hat{X}^2 - \mu^2) \hat{Y} \
+ m \hat{X}\hat{Z}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ leads to the spontaneous breakdown of SUSY.
Although we have not discussed the transformation of real superfields in detail, we should mention that supersymmetry is also spontaneously broken if the corresponding auxiliary field (denoted by ${\cal D}$) develops a vacuum expectation value. This gives us the other known way of breaking SUSY [@FI; @DBREAK] spontaneously: $D$-term or Fayet-Illiopoulos breaking.
[*b. Practical Supersymmetry Breaking*]{}
Much as we would like to have it, a compelling model where SUSY is broken spontaneously has not yet been constructed. From many phenomenological analyses, it is fortunate that one does not need to know the details of the physics of SUSY breaking since they are not currently understood. The best that we can do at present is to provide a useful parametrization of SUSY-breaking effects. Our guiding principle is that the SUSY breaking terms should not destabilize scalar masses by reintroducing the quadratic divergences that SUSY was introduced to eliminate in the first place. In other words, SUSY breaking effects can be incorporated by including all soft SUSY breaking masses and interactions consistent with the known symmetries (Poincaré invariance, SM gauge invariance and any other global symmetries that we might impose).
Girardello and Grisaru [@GG] have classified all renormalizable soft SUSY breaking operators. For our purposes, it is sufficient to know that these consist of,
- explicit masses for the scalar members of chiral multiplets; [*i.e.*]{} squarks, sleptons and Higgs bosons;
- an independent gaugino mass for each factor of a direct product gauge group: for instance, we would have masses $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$ for the $U(1)_Y$, $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(3)_C$ gauginos, respectively;
- new super-renormalizable scalar interactions: for each trilinear (bilinear) term in the superpotential of the form $C_{ijk}\hat{S_i}\hat{S_j}\hat{S_k}$ ($C_{ij}\hat{S_i}\hat{S_j}$), we can introduce a soft supersymmetry breaking scalar interaction $A_{ijk}C_{ijk}{\CS_i}{\CS_j}{\CS_k}$ ($B_{ij}C_{ij}{\CS_i}{\CS_j}$) where the $A$’s and $B$’s are constants. These terms are often referred to as $A$- and $B$-terms, respectively.
We have already seen examples of the cubic and quadratic soft breaking interactions at the end of Sec. 2 (see Eq. (18)). The scalar and gaugino masses obviously serve to break the undesired degeneracy between the masses of sparticles and particles. We will see later that the explicit trilinear scalar interactions mainly affect the phenomenology of the third family.
The Minimal Supersymmetric Model {#sec:framework}
================================
We now have the necessary background to begin discussing particle physics in a supersymmetric world, where SUSY is somehow (softly) broken at the weak scale. We start with a discussion of what we will term as the Minimal Supersymmetric Model [@DIMO; @HK] (MSSM). As the name [^9] suggests, it is the simplest phenomenologically viable supersymmetric theory in that it contains the fewest number of new particles and new interactions.
Field Content
-------------
We have already seen that in order to construct supersymmetric theories, we have to introduce a partner for every particle of the SM, with a spin differing by $\frac{1}{2}$ but with the same internal quantum numbers. Furthermore, we have seen that matter fermions and Higgs bosons are members of chiral scalar supermultiplets. Thus, the SUSY partners of matter fermions must have spin zero bosons as their partners. The dynamical matter fields of our model are thus given by, $$\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\nu \\ e
\end{array} \right )_L \ \ , \ e_R
\ \ ,
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
u \\ d
\end{array} \right )_L \ \ , \ u_R
\ , \ d_R \ ,$$ $$\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{\nu}_L \\ \widetilde{e}_L
\end{array} \right ) \ \ , \ \widetilde{e}_R \ ,
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{u}_L \\ \widetilde{d}_L
\end{array} \right ) \ \ , \ \widetilde{u}_R
\ , \ \widetilde{d}_R \ ,$$ for the first family. The other families are copies of this exactly as in the SM: SUSY sheds no light on the reason for the replication of generations. Note that for the lepton (quark) doublet there is a scalar lepton or slepton (scalar quark or squark) doublet, and likewise for the singlets. Thus, corresponding to each massive Dirac fermion $f$, there are [*two* ]{} complex SUSY fields $\widetilde{f}_L$ and $\widetilde{f}_R$, the partners of the left and right chiral projections of the fermion. This is in keeping with our counting of the number of degrees of freedom — a massive Dirac fermion has four degrees of freedom corresponding to two spin states of the particle and antiparticle. Note also that $\widetilde{f}_L$ and $\widetilde{f}_R$ have exactly the same gauge quantum numbers as their SM fermion partners.
In the gauge field sector, we have a gauge supermultiplet for each factor of the gauge group; [*i.e.*]{}, the dynamical fields are, $$A_0 \; , \ \stackrel{\rightarrow}{A}_\mu \; , \
\stackrel{\rightarrow}{g}_\mu$$ and $${\widetilde{\lambda}}_{0}
\; , \ \stackrel{^{\widetilde{\rightarrow}}}{\lambda} \; , \
\stackrel{^{\widetilde{\rightarrow}}}{g}.$$ The vector fields above are the $U(1)_Y$, $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(3)_C$ gauge potentials whereas the fermion fields are the spin $\frac{1}{2}$ Majorana supersymmetric partners of these fields. Like the gauge fields, these fermion fields transform as the adjoint representation of the appropriate group factor. Once $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ is broken, fields with the same spin and charge can mix to form the observed particles ([*e.g*]{}. $\gamma$ and $Z^0)$ as discussed in the next subsection.
Finally, we come to the electroweak symmetry breaking sector. In the SM, the $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ symmetry is broken by a single doublet of Higgs fields which acquires a non–vanishing value in the ground state. Moreover, the same field, by virtue of its Yukawa interactions with fermions gives rise to a mass term for all the fermions of the SM. Technically, this is possible because the doublet (the complex conjugate of the doublet) can couple to the $T_3 \ = + \frac{1}{2} \ (T_3 \ = -\frac{1}{2}$) fermions in a gauge invariant way. In a supersymmetric theory, however, Yukawa interactions come from a superpotential which, as we have seen, cannot depend on a field as well as its complex conjugate. As a result, any doublet can give mass either to a $T_3 \ = +\frac{1}{2}$ or a $T_3 \ =
-\frac{1}{2}$ fermion, but not both. Thus, in order to give masses to all the fermions, we are forced to introduce two Higgs doublet chiral superfields $\hat{h}_u$ and $\hat{h}_d$ which interact with $T_3 \ = +\frac{1}{2}$ and $T_3 = -\frac{1}{2}$ fermions, respectively. This sector then consists of the dynamical boson fields with hypercharge $Y_{h_u} \ = 1$, $Y_{h_d} = -1$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\ h_u^+ \\
h^0_u
\end{array} \right ) , \qquad
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
h_d^- \\
h_d^0
\end{array} \right ) , \qquad
$$ and their fermionic partners (the Higgsino doublets) $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{h}_u^+ \\
\widetilde{h}_u^0
\end{array} \right ) , \qquad
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{h}_d^{-} \\
\widetilde{h}_d^0
\end{array} \right ) . \qquad$$ The fermion spinor fields that appear are Majorana. The charge shown corresponds to that of its left chiral component; the right-handed part has the opposite charge. Notice also that the upper component of the doublet $\hat{h}_d$ has been written with an electric charge $Q = -1$. In other words, we have taken the $\hat{h}_u$ and $\hat{h}_d$ doublets to transform as the and representations, respectively. Since these are equivalent, it should be clear that this is done only for convenience. [^10]
Interactions
------------
The supersymmetric interactions for these fields can now be readily worked out using Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian\]). The interactions of the matter and Higgs fields (and their superpartners) with gauge bosons and gauginos are as given by the first four lines, and are thus model-independent, except for the constant $\xi$ which we set to zero. In particular, because of supersymmetry, the gauge couplings also determine all the interactions of gauginos. Given the field content, model dependence arises via the choice of the superpotential $f$ which, for the MSSM, is taken to be,
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{MSSM} &=& \mu(\hat{h}_u^0\hat{h}_d^0 + \hat{h}_u^+\hat{h}_d^-) +
f_u(\hat{u}\hat{h}_u^0 -\hat{d}\hat{h}_u^+)\hat{U}^c\nonumber \\
& & +f_d(\hat{u}\hat{h}_d^- + \hat{d}\hat{h}_d^0)\hat{D}^c
+ f_e(\hat{\nu}\hat{h}_d^- + \hat{e}\hat{h}_d^0)\hat{E^c} + \ldots.
\label{eq:supR}\end{aligned}$$
Since the superpotential is a function of only the left–chiral superfields, we work with the (left–handed) conjugates of the $SU(2)_L$ singlet fermions and their partners, which together constitute a left chiral supermultiplet with the quantum numbers of the representation conjugate to that of the usual (right-handed) singlet fermions. In Eq. (\[eq:supR\]), $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{d}$ denote the $SU(2)_L$ components of the doublet quark superfield. A similar notation is used for leptons. The minus sign in the second term is because it is the anti-symmetric combination of two doublets that forms an $SU(2)_L$ singlet. Since $\hat{h}_d$ is defined to transform according to the representation, the symmetric combination appears in other terms. Finally, $f_u$, $f_d$ and $f_e$ are the coupling constants for the Yukawa interactions that give rise to first generation quark and lepton masses. The ellipses denote similar terms for other generations.
The observant reader will have noticed that we have [*not*]{} written the most general $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ invariant renormalizable superpotential in Eq. (\[eq:supR\]). In particular, we could have included the terms given by, $$g_1 = \sum_i\mu'_i\hat{L_i}\hat{h}_u+
\sum_{i,j,k}\left[\lambda_{ijk}\hat{L_i}\hat{L_j}\hat{E_k}^c +
\lambda^{'}_{ijk}\hat{L_i}\hat{Q_j}\hat{D_k}^c\right],
\label{eq:supL}$$
and,
$$g_2 = \sum_{i,j,k} \lambda^{''}_{ijk}\hat{U_i}^c\hat{D_j}^c\hat{D_k}^c.
\label{eq:supB}$$
in the superpotential $f$. In the Eq. (\[eq:supL\]) and (\[eq:supB\]), $i,j$ and $k$ denote generation indices, while the $\lambda$’s are coupling constants. We have, for brevity, not expanded out the gauge invariant product of doublets in Eq. (\[eq:supL\]).
The Lagrangian interactions can now be obtained by substituting the appropriate superpotential into Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian\]). It is easy to check that the terms obtained from $g_1$ and $g_2$ lead to the violation of lepton and baryon number conservation, respectively. This can also be seen directly from the superpotential. For instance, with the usual assignment of lepton number of one unit to $\hat{L}$ and $\hat{E}$ (so that $f_{MSSM}$ remains invariant), $g_1$ clearly is not globally invariant under the corresponding $U(1)$ transformations. In other words, the MSSM framework in which the couplings in $g_1$ and $g_2$ are all set to zero, [*assumes*]{} that there are no renormalizable baryon or lepton number violating operators in the superpotential.
In addition to the supersymmetric interactions discussed above, we also need to include soft supersymmetry breaking interactions. These include an independent mass (or, allowing for flavour mixing, mass matrix) for each squark, slepton and Higgs boson multiplet: [*i.e.*]{} 9 squark + 6 slepton + 2 Higgs boson masses neglecting inter-generation mixing, a gaugino mass for each of the $SU(3)_C$, $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauginos, and finally the trilinear and bilinear $A$- and $B$-terms for scalars. Again ignoring inter-generation mixing, there are nine $A$-terms for the nine Yukawa interactions in the superpotential (\[eq:supR\]) but just one $B$-term. We further assume that baryon and lepton number are conserved by [*all*]{} renormalizable interactions of the MSSM, and set the trilinear and bilinear soft SUSY breaking terms corresponding to operators in $g_1$ and $g_2$ to zero. The MSSM thus contains thirty soft SUSY breaking parameters [^11] together with the supersymmetric parameter $\mu$ in addition to the arbitrary parameters of the SM. One of these parameters can be eliminated in favour of $M_W$, so that we have thirty independent SUSY parameters left over.
With these assumptions, it is easy to check that $R$-parity, defined [@RPAR] to be $+1$ for leptons, quarks, gauge bosons and Higgs bosons, and $-1$ for their supersymmetric partners, is automatically conserved in the interactions of gauge bosons and gauginos as given by the first four lines of (\[eq:lagrangian\]). Whether or not it is a good symmetry depends on the choice of the superpotential and the soft SUSY breaking interactions. The reader can easily verify using (\[eq:lagrangian\]) that the interactions from the $f_{MSSM}$ term in the superpotential also conserve $R$-parity, [^12] while those from $g_1$ or $g_2$ do not. Thus $R$-parity is conserved by the renormalizable interactions (including soft SUSY breaking terms) of the MSSM. It is [*assumed*]{} that $R$-parity invariance is an [*exact*]{} symmetry of the model. This has important implications as we will see later.
Mass Eigenstates in the MSSM
----------------------------
[*SUSY Scalars:*]{} The scalar partners $\tf_L$ and $\tf_R$ have the same electric charge and colour, and so can mix if $SU(2)_L \times
U(1)_Y$ is broken. It is simple to check that the gauge interactions conserve chiral flavour in that they couple only left (right) multiplets with one another, [*i.e.*]{} $\tf_L$ couples only to $\tf_L$ ($f_L$) via gauge boson (gaugino) interactions. Unless this “extended chiral symmetry” is broken, there can be no $\tf_L-\tf_R$ mixing. This symmmetry is, however, explicitly broken by the Yukawa interactions in the superpotential. [^13] We thus conclude that $\tf_L-\tf_R$ mixing is proportional to the corresponding Yukawa coupling and hence to the corresponding [*fermion*]{} mass. For the purposes of collider signals that will be our main concern, this mixing is generally negligible except for third generation sfermions. We will, therefore, neglect this intra-generational mixing for the first two generations, and for simplicity, also any inter-generational mixing.
[*SUSY Fermions:*]{} The gauginos and Higgsinos are the only spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermions. Of these, the gluinos being the only colour octet fermions, remain unmixed and have a mass $m_{\tg} =
|M_3|$.
Electroweak gauginos and Higgsinos of the same charge can mix, once electroweak gauge invariance is broken. The MSSM mass matrices can be readily worked out using Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian\]) and Eq. (\[eq:supR\]). We first focus on the mass terms in the charged gaugino–Higgsino sector. Since the field operator for the charged eigenstate must be a Dirac spinor, we first combine the Majorana gauginos (Higgsinos) into a Dirac gaugino (Higgsino) field with definite charge $Q = -1$. These combinations are, $$\widetilde{\lambda} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \
(\widetilde{\lambda}_1 + i \widetilde{\lambda}_2)$$ and $$\widetilde{\chi} = P_L \ \widetilde{h}_d^- - P_R \ \widetilde{h}_u^+$$ where $P_L$ and $P_R$ are the left and right chiral projectors, respectively. We stress again that ${\widetilde{h}_d}^-$ and $\widetilde{h}_u^+$ are Majorana spinors [*[whose left chiral components have the charge denoted by the spinor.]{}*]{} The right chiral component is fixed by (6), and because of the complex conjugation, has the opposite charge as the left–chiral component. Hence, $P_R \widetilde{h}_u^+$ is negatively charged, so that $\widetilde{\chi}$ is indeed a Dirac field with charge $Q = -1$. The interactions can then be written in terms of the spinors $\widetilde{\lambda}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}$ and the corresponding mass matrix read off from the bilinear terms involving these fields. In the Lagrangian, these take the form, $$-( \overline{\widetilde{\lambda}} \ ,
\overline{\widetilde{\chi}} )
\left [ M_{(charge)} \ P_L \ + M^T_{(charge)} \ P_R \right ] \
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{\lambda} \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\chi}
\end{array} \right )$$ with, $$M_{(charge)} \ =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
M_2 \ & -gv_d \nonumber \\
-gv_u \ & -\mu
\end{array} \right )
\label{eq:chargino}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:chargino\]) the $-\mu$ entry comes from the superpotential whereas the off–diagonal entries come the interactions involving the Higgs supermultiplet and the gauginos (the third term in Eq.(\[eq:lagrangian\])); this trilinear term becomes an off–diagonal mass term if the scalars acquire VEVs. In (\[eq:chargino\]), $g$ and $g'$ are the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge coupling constants, respectively. Finally, $M_2$ is the soft SUSY breaking $SU(2)_L$ gaugino mass.
The mass matrices for the neutral gaugino–Higgsino sector can be similarly worked out. In this case, we find that the Lagrangian contains the terms $$- \frac{1}{2} ( \overline{\widetilde{h}_u^0}, \
\overline{\widetilde{h}_d^0}, \
\overline{\widetilde{\lambda}}_3, \
\overline{\widetilde{\lambda}}_0 )
\left [ M_{(neutral)} \ P_L \ + M^T_{(neutral)}
\ P_R \right ] \
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\widetilde{h}_u^0 \nonumber \\
\widetilde{h}_d^{0} \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\lambda}_3 \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\lambda}_0
\end{array} \right )$$ with $$M_{(neutral)} \ = \ \left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 \ & \mu \ & -\frac{g v_u}{\sqrt{2}} \ & \frac{g'v_u}{\sqrt{2}}
\nonumber \\
\mu \ & 0 \ & \frac{g v_d}{\sqrt{2}} \ & -\frac{g'v_d}{\sqrt{2}}
\nonumber \\
-\frac{g v_u}{\sqrt{2}} \ & \frac{gv_d}{\sqrt{2}} \ & M_2 \
& 0 \nonumber \\
\frac{g'v_u}{\sqrt{2}} \ & -\frac{g'v_d}{\sqrt{2}} \ & 0 \ & M_1
\end{array} \right )
\label{eq:neutralino}$$ The sources of the various terms are more or less as in (\[eq:chargino\]). Note that in addition to the soft supersymmetry breaking mass term $M_2$ for the $SU(2)_L$ gaugino which also appears in (\[eq:chargino\]), there is now an independent mass term $M_1$ for the $U(1)_Y$ gaugino. Note also that $R$-parity conservation precludes any mixing of the charged leptons (neutrinos) with the charged (neutral) gaugino-Higgsino sector.
The mass eigenstates can now be obtained by diagonalizing these matrices. [^14] In the MSSM, the charged Dirac Higgsino (composed of the charged components of the doublets $\tilde{h}_u$ and $\tilde{h}_d$) and the charged gaugino (the partner of the charged $W$ boson) mix to form two Dirac charginos, $\tw_1$ and $\tw_2$, while the two neutral Higgsinos and the neutral $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauginos mix to form four Majorana neutralinos $\tz_1 \ldots \tz_4$, in order of increasing mass. In general, the mixing patterns are complex and depend on several parameters: $\mu$, $M_{1,2}$ and $\tan\beta \equiv \frac{v_u}{v_d}$, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs fields introduced above. If either $|\mu|$ or $|M_1|$ and $|M_2|$ are very large compared to $M_W$, the mixing becomes small. For $|\mu| >> M_W,
|M_{1,2}|$, the lighter chargino is essentially a gaugino while the heavier one is a Higgsino with mass $|\mu|$; also, the two lighter neutralinos are gaugino-like while $\tz_{3,4}$ are dominantly Higgsinos with mass $\sim |\mu|$. If instead, the gaugino masses are very large, it is the heavier chargino and neutralinos that become gaugino-like.
Without further assumptions, the three gaugino masses are independent parameters. It is, however, traditional to assume that there is an underlying Grand Unification, and that these masses derive from a common gaugino mass parameter defined at the unification scale. The differences between the various gaugino masses then come from the fact that they have different interactions, and so undergo different renormalization when these are evolved down from the GUT scale to the weak scale. The gaugino masses are then related by,
$$\frac{3M_1}{5\alpha_1} = \frac{M_2}{\alpha_2} = \frac{M_3}{\alpha_3}.
\label{eq:gaugino}$$
Here the $\alpha_i$ are the fine structure constants for the different factors of the gauge group. With this GUT assumption, $\tw_1$ and $\tz_{1,2}$ will always be substantially lighter than gluinos. It is for this reason that future $e^+e^-$ colliders operating at $\sqrt{s}
\simeq 500$-1000 GeV are expected to be competitive with hadron supercolliders such as the LHC which has much higher energy. We also mention that for not too small values of $|\mu|$, $M_{1,2}$ the lightest neutralino tends to be dominantly the hypercharge gaugino.
[*The Electroweak Symmetry Breaking Sector:*]{} Although this is not in the mainstream of what we will discuss, we should mention that because there are two doublets in the MSSM, after the Higgs mechanism there are five physical spin zero Higgs sector particles left over in the spectrum. Assuming that there are no CP violating interactions in this sector, these are two neutral CP even eigenstates ($h$ and $H$, with $m_h \leq m_H$) which behave as scalars as far as their couplings to fermions go, a neutral “pseudoscalar” CP odd particle $A$, and a pair of charged particles $H^{\pm}$.
The Higgs boson sector [@HHG] of the MSSM is greatly restricted by SUSY. At tree-level, it is completely specified by the parameters $m_{H_u}^2$, $m_{H_d}^2$, $\mu$ and $B$. The soft masses and the $B$-parameter can be eliminated in favour of the VEVs (or equivalently, $M_W^2 = \frac{1}{2}g^2(v_u^2+v_d^2)$ and $\tan\beta$) and one of the physical Higgs boson masses, usually chosen to be $m_A$. The parameters $\tan\beta$ and $\mu$ also enter into the SUSY fermion mass matrices, so that the SUSY Higgs sector is completely characterized by just one additional parameter. In particular, the Higgs quartic self-couplings are all given by those on line four of Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian\]) and so are fixed to be ($g^2$). This leads to the famous (tree-level) bound, $m_h < \min [M_Z,
m_A]|\cos2\beta|$.
This bound receives important corrections from $t$ and $\tt$ loops because of the rather large value of the top Yukawa coupling and the bound is weakened [@OK] to about 120-130 GeV depending on the value of $m_t$. Thus, in contrast to early expectations, $h$ may well escape detection at LEP2. It is worth mentioning that if we assume that all couplings remain perturbative up to the GUT scale, then the mass of the lightest Higgs boson is bounded by 145-150 GeV in [*any*]{} weak scale SUSY model. [@KOLD] The physics behind this is the same as that behind the bound [@CAB] $m_{H_{SM}} \alt 200$ GeV on the mass of the SM Higgs boson, obtained under the assumption that the Higgs self-coupling not blow up below the GUT scale; the numerical difference between the bounds comes from the difference in the evolution of the running couplings in SUSY and the SM. An $e^+e^-$ collider operating at a centre of mass energy $\sim 300$ GeV would thus be certain [@OKAD] to find a Higgs boson if these arguments are valid.
Implications of R-parity Conservation
-------------------------------------
In any realistic SUSY theory, the existence of scalar quarks and leptons admits the possibility of gauge-invariant, renormalizable baryon and lepton number violating interactions and so forces us to impose additional global symmetries. To see this, note that if all the dimensionless couplings $\lambda$, $\lambda'$ and $\lambda''$ that occur in Eq. (\[eq:supL\]) and Eq. (\[eq:supB\]) are of similar strength as the gauge couplings, and if supersymmetric particles are indeed lighter than $\sim 1$ TeV, we would be led to conclude that the proton would decay at the weak rate at complete variance with our very existence! Furthermore, the decays $\mu \to e\gamma$ and $\mu \to ee\bar{e}$, or processes such as $\mu N \to e N$ on which there are stringent bounds [@PDG] from experiment, would certainly have been observed. This situation is quite different from the SM where gauge invariance guarantees the absence of any renormalizable lepton- or baryon-number violating interactions. Within the MSSM, we introduce a discrete symmetry ($R$-parity invariance) to ensure that both $g_1$ and $g_2$ vanish. Other alternatives will be discussed toward the end of these Lectures.
The conservation of $R$-parity has important implications for phenomenology.
- SUSY ($R$-odd) particles have their own identity and do not mix with $R$-even SM particles. We will refer to these as sparticles and denote them with twiddles.
- Sparticles can only be pair produced in collisions of ordinary particles.
- A sparticle must decay into an odd number of sparticles.
- As a result, the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) must be absolutely stable.
There are strong limits on the existence of stable or even very long–lived ($\tau \stackrel{>}{\sim}$ age of the universe) charged or coloured particles. Such particles would have been produced in the Big Bang and would bind with ordinary particles resulting in exotic heavy atoms or nuclei. For masses up to about $1\; TeV$, estimates [@WOLFRAM] of their expected abundance are in the range [O]{}($10^{-10} - 10^{-6}$) whereas the empirical abundance [@COSMO] is $\alt$ [O]{}($10^{-12} - 10^{-29}$) depending on the element whose exotic isotope is searched for. This null result is taken to imply that a stable LSP must be a weakly interacting, neutral sparticle. Within the MSSM, the LSP can then only be either the lightest neutralino or one of the scalar neutrinos. We will see later that a sneutrino is disfavoured if we also assume that the LSP also forms the dark matter in our galactic halo. On the other hand, it has been shown that a stable neutralino is a promising candidate for cosmological cold dark matter. In a supergravity theory, the SUSY partner of the graviton could also be the LSP. Unless it is extremely light, however, it couples to other particles only with gravitational strength couplings so that it effectively decoupled for the purposes of collider phenomenology. In this case, the next lightest sparticle plays the role of the LSP and the constraints discussed above apply to it as long as the lifetime for its decay into the gravitino exceeds the age of the universe. [^15] If this is not the case, or if $R$-parity is not conserved, the “effective LSP” may even be charged or coloured. Throughout most of these Lectures we will assume that the LSP is the lightest neutralino.
We note here that regardless of what the LSP is (as long as it is neutral and lives to travel at least a few metres), the LSP’s produced in the decays of sparticles in SUSY events behave like neutrinos in the experimental apparatus: [*i.e.*]{} they escape without depositing any energy. Thus, in any model where $R$-parity is assumed to be conserved, apparent missing energy $(\rlap/E)$ and an imbalance of transverse momentum $(\rlap/p_T)$ are generally regarded as characteristic signatures of SUSY.
Is the MSSM a Practical Framework for SUSY Phenomenology?
---------------------------------------------------------
The MSSM is the simplest framework for SUSY phenomenology. A big advantage of this framework is that except for the assumption of $R$-parity conservation (and, of course, supersymmetry!), we have assumed very little else: a minimal particle content, Poincaré invariance and gauge invariance. The price that we have to pay for such an agnostic view is the large number of free parameters to parametrize SUSY breaking. We saw that even in the simplified case where we neglect generational mixing between sfermions, there were 30 new parameters. This is not necessarily a problem for SUSY phenomenology if we are studying a SUSY process where just a few sparticles are relevant: if this is so, only a handful of these thirty parameters would be relevant for the analysis of the process in question. [^16] We will, however, see that this is generally not the case. Typically, heavy sparticles decay into lighter sparticles which further decay until this cascade terminates in the stable LSP. This, of course, means that to describe completely even a single SUSY reaction may require the knowledge of properties of several particles (the parent, along with all the daughters that are part of the decay cascade) which, in turn, depend on the large number of MSSM parameters. This renders the MSSM rather unwieldy for many phenomenogical analyses.
Assuming grand unification ameliorates the situation to some extent: there are then only two scalar masses per generation of sfermions in $SU(5)$ and only one gaugino mass parameter, but the parameter space is still too large. In the future, a deeper understanding of the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking may relate the many SUSY breaking parameters of the MSSM, resulting in a significant reduction of the parameter space. For the present, however, we have to rely on assumptions about the nature of physics at the high energy scale to reduce the number of parameters. It is important to keep in mind that these assumptions may prove to be incorrect. For this reason, one should always be careful to test the sensitivity of phenomenological predictions to the various assumptions, particularly when using the models to guide our thinking about the design of future experiments.
Historically, inspired by supergravity model studies, many early phenomenological studies assumed that all squarks (often, sleptons were either assumed to be degenerate with squarks, or to have masses related to $m_{\tq}$) were degenerate except for $D$-term splitting. They also incorporated the GUT assumption (\[eq:gaugino\]) for gaugino masses. The masses and couplings of all sparticles were determined by the SM parameters together with relatively few additional (SUSY) parameters which were frequently taken to be, $$m_{\tg}, m_{\tq}, (m_{\tell}), \mu, \tan\beta, A_t, m_A.
\label{eq:mssm}$$ The parameter $A_t$ mainly affects top squark phenomenology, and so, was frequently irrelevant. Other $A$-terms, being proportional to the light fermion masses, are irrelevant for collider phenomenology.
In view of the fact that additional assumptions are necessary, and further, that assumptions based on supergravity models are incorporated into phenomenological analyses, it seems reasonable to explore the implications of these models more seriously. Toward this end, we describe the underlying framework in the following section.
The mSUGRA framework: A Model Paradigm {#sec:sugra}
======================================
When supersymmetry is promoted to a local symmetry, additional fields have to be introduced. The resulting theory [@GRAV] which includes gravitation is known as supergravity (SUGRA). It is not our purpose here to study SUGRA models [@NILLES; @DMART] in any detail. Our purpose is solely to provide motivation for an economic and elegant framework that has recently become very popular for phenomenological analysis and to carefully spell out its underlying assumptions.
It was recognised rather early [@WEIN] that it is very difficult to construct globally supersymmetric models where SUSY is spontaneously broken at the weak scale. This led to the development of geometric hierarchy models where SUSY is broken in a “hidden” sector at a scale $\mu_s \gg
M_W$. This sector is assumed to interact with ordinary particles and their superpartners (the “observable” sector) only via exchange of superheavy particles $X$. This then suppresses the couplings of the Goldstone fermion (which resides in the hidden sector) to the observable sector: as a result, the effective mass gap in the observable sector is $\mu \sim \frac{\mu_{s}^{2}}{M_X}$ which can easily be $\alt 1$ TeV even if $\mu_s$ is much larger.
An especially attractive realization of this idea stems from the assumption that the hidden and observable sectors interact only gravitationally, so that the scale $M_X$ is $\sim M_{Planck}$. This led to the development of supergravity GUT models [@SUGGUT] of particle physics. Because supergravity is not a renormalizable theory, we should look upon the resulting Lagrangian, with heavy degrees of freedom integrated out, as an effective theory valid below some ultra-high scale $M_X$ around $M_{GUT}$ or $M_{Planck}$, in the same way that chiral dynamics describes interactions of pions below the scale of chiral symmetry breaking. Remarkably, this Lagrangian turns out to be just the same [@HLW] as that of a globally supersymmetric $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ model, together with soft SUSY breaking masses and $A$- and $B$-parameters of ${\cal{O}}(M_{Weak})$.
The economy of the [*minimal*]{} supergravity (mSUGRA) GUT framework [^17] stems from the fact that because of the assumed symmetries, various soft SUSY breaking parameters become related independent of the details of the hidden sector and the low energy effective Lagrangian can be parametrized in terms of just a few parameters. For instance, the chiral multiplets all acquire the same soft SUSY breaking scalar mass $m_0$. Likewise, there is a universal $A$-parameter, common to all trilinear interactions. The GUT assumption, of course, implies that the soft SUSY breaking gaugino masses are related as in Eq. (\[eq:gaugino\]). The only role played by the “minimal” in mSUGRA is to provide a rationale for the universality of soft SUSY breaking parameters. It is worth stressing [@DINE] that the universality does not follow from an established principle such as general covariance. For phenomenological purposes, one can forget about the origins of the model and simply view it as a version of the MSSM with universal scalar and gaugino masses and $A$-parameters at some ultra-high scale.
The universality of the scalar masses does not imply that the physical scalar masses of all sfermions are the same. The point is that the parameters in the Lagrangian obtained by integrating out heavy fields should be regarded as renormalized at the high scale $M_X$ at which these symmetries are unbroken. If we use this Lagrangian to compute processes at the 100 GeV energy scale relevant for phenomenology, large logarithms ($\ln\frac{M_X}{M_W}$) due to the disparity between the two scales invalidate the perturbation expansion. These logarithms can be straightforwardly summed by evolving the Lagrangian parameters down to the weak scale. This is most conveniently done [@INOUE] using renormalization group equations (RGE).
The renormalization group evolution leads to a definite pattern of sparticle masses, evaluated at the weak scale. [^18] For example, gauge boson-gaugino loops result in increased sfermion masses as we evolve these down from $M_X$ to $M_W$ while superpotential Yukawa couplings (which are negligible for the two lightest generations) have just the opposite effect. Since squarks have strong interactions in addition to the electroweak interactions common to all sfermions, the weak scale squark masses are larger than those of sleptons. Neglecting Yukawa couplings in the RGE, we have to a good approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\tq}^2 & = & m_0^2 + m_q^2 + (5-6)\mhf^2 + D-terms, \\
m_{\tell}^2 & = & m_0^2 + m_{\ell}^2 + (0.15-0.5)\mhf^2 + D-terms.
\label{eq:sfermions}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:sfermions\]), $\mhf$ is the common gaugino mass at the scale $M_X$. Notice that squarks and sleptons within the same $SU(2)_L$ doublets are split only by the $D$-terms, whose scale is set by $\frac{1}{2}M_Z^2$. In contrast, various flavours of left- (and separately, right-) type squarks of the first two generations are essentially degenerate, consistent [@FCNC] with flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) constraints from the observed properties of $K$, $D$ and $B$ mesons. [^19] The difference in the coefficients of the $\mhf$ terms reflects the difference between the strong and electroweak interactions alluded to above. Although we have not shown this explicitly, $\tell_R$ which has only hypercharge interactions tends to be somewhat lighter than $\tell_L$ as well as $\tnu_L$ unless D-term effects are significant. Since $m_{\tg} = (2.5-3)\mhf$, it is easy to see that squark and slepton masses are related by,
$$m_{\tq}^2 = m_{\tell}^2 + (0.7-0.8)m_{\tg}^2.
\label{eq:squark}$$
Here, $m_{\tq}^2$ and $m_{\tell}^2$ are the squared masses averaged over the squarks or sleptons of the first (or second) generation. In the second term, the unification of gaugino masses has been assumed.
The Yukawa couplings of the top family are certainly not negligible. These Yukawa interactions tend to reduce the scalar masses at the weak scale. The RGE effects from these can overcome the additional $m_t^2$ in Eq. (37a), so that $\tt_L$ and $\tt_R$ tend to be significantly lighter than other squarks (of course, by $SU(2)_L$ invariance, the soft-breaking mass for $\tb_L$ is the same as that for $\tt_L$). In fact, we can say more: because $\tt_R$ receives top quark Yukawa corrections from both charged and neutral Higgs loops in contrast to $\tt_L$ which gets corrections just from the neutral Higgs, its squared mass is reduced (approximately) twice as much as that of $\tt_L$. Moreover, as we have already mentioned, these same Yukawa interactions lead to $\tt_L-\tt_R$ mixing, which further depresses the mass of the lighter of the two $t$-squarks (sometimes referred to as the stop) which we will denote by $\tt_1$. In fact, care must be exercised in the choice of input parameters: otherwise $m_{\tt_1}^2$ is driven negative, leading to the spontaneous breakdown of electric charge and colour. For very large values of $\tan\beta \sim \frac{m_t}{m_b}$, bottom and tau Yukawa couplings are also important; these affect $b$-squark and $\tau$ slepton masses and mixings in an analogous way.
The real beauty and economy of this picture comes from the fact that [*these same Yukawa radiative corrections drive [@RAD] electroweak symmetry breaking*]{}. Since the Higgs bosons are part of chiral supermultiplets, they also have a common mass $m_0$ at the scale $M_X$ and undergo similar renormalization as doublet sleptons due to gauge interactions: [*i.e.*]{} these positive contributions are not very large. The squared mass $m_{h_u}^2$ of the Higgs boson doublet which couples to the top family, however, receives large negative contributions (thrice those of the $\tt_L$ squark since there are three different colours running in the loop) from Yukawa interactions, and so can become negative, leading to the correct pattern of gauge symmetry breaking. Furthermore, because $f_t > f_b$, $\tan\beta > 1$. While this mechanism is indeed very pretty, it is not a complete explanation of the observed scale of spontaneous symmetry breakdown since it requires that $m_0$, the scalar mass at the very large scale $M_X$ be chosen to be $\leq 1$ TeV: in other words, the small dimensionless ratio $\frac{m_0}{M_X}$ remains unexplained. Also, for some choices of model parameters, it is possible to get ground states where $SU(3)_C$ is broken.
Let us compare the model parameters with our list (\[eq:mssm\]) for the MSSM. Here, we start with GUT scale parameters, $m_0$, $\mhf$, $A_0$, $B_0$ and $\mu_0$. The weak scale parameter $\mu$ (actually, $\mu^2$) is adjusted to give the experimental value of $M_Z$. It is convenient to eliminate $B_0$ in favour of $\tan\beta$ so that the model is completely specified by just a four parameter set (with a sign ambiguity for $\mu$),
$$m_0, \mhf, \tan\beta, A_0, sgn(\mu),
\label{eq:sugra}$$
(together with SM parameters) without the need of additional [*ad hoc*]{} assumptions as in the MSSM.
The mSUGRA model leads to a rather characteristic pattern of sparticle masses [@SPECTRA] and mixings. We have already seen that the first two generations of squarks are approximately degenerate, while the lighter of the $t$-squarks, and also $\tb_L$ can be substantially lighter. If $\tan\beta$ is large, the lighter of the two stau states will be considerably lighter than other sleptons. Also, from Eq. (\[eq:squark\]) it follows that sleptons may be significantly lighter than the first two generations of squarks if $m_{\tg} \simeq m_{\tq}$, and have comparable masses if squarks are significantly heavier than gluinos. We also see that gluinos can never be much heavier than squarks. Furthermore, because the top quark is very massive, the value of $|\mu|$ obtained from the radiative symmetry breaking constraint generally tends to be much larger than the electroweak gaugino masses, so that the lighter (heavier) charginos and neutralinos tend to be gaugino-like (Higgsino-like). As a result, except when $\tan\beta$ is very large, the additional Higgs bosons $H$, $A$ and $H^\pm$ also become very heavy, and $h$ couples like the SM Higgs boson.
We should stress that while the mSUGRA GUT framework provides a very attractive and economic picture, it hinges upon untested assumptions about the symmetries of physics at very high energies. It could be that the GUT assumption is incorrect though this would then require the unification implied by the observed values of gauge couplings at LEP to be either purely fortituous, or due to some sort of string unification. [@IBAN] It could be that the assumption of universal scalar masses (or $A$-parameters) is wrong. Recall that our arguments for this hinged upon the existence of an additional global $U(N)$ symmetry among the $N$ chiral multiplets. [^20] This is, perhaps, reasonable as long as we are near the Planck scale where gravitation presumably dominates gauge or Yukawa interactions. Non-universal masses could result if this $U(N)$ is broken by the explicit introduction of non-canonical kinetic terms for chiral supermultiplets. [@DINE] We should also remember that in the absence of a theory about physics at the high scale, we do not have a really good principle for choosing the scale $M_X$ at which the scalar masses are universal. In practice, most phenomenological calculations set this to be the scale of GUT symmetry breaking where the gauge couplings unify. If, instead, this scale were closer to $M_{Planck}$ the evolution between these scales [@PP] could result in non-universal scalar masses at $M_{GUT}$: this could have significant impact, particularly on the condition for electroweak symmetry breaking.
This mismatch between the GUT scale and the scale at which scalar masses are assumed to unify also yields a novel source of lepton flavour violation in SUSY GUTS. The point is that if lepton and slepton vertices are not diagonalized by the same rotation, the lepton-slepton-gaugino vertex will not conserve lepton flavour. This is not an issue if sleptons have universal masses since any rotation leaves the identity matrix invariant. Barbieri and Hall [@BARHAL] have pointed out that if the scale at which scalar masses unify is substantially larger than the GUT scale, radiative corrections due to large top quark Yukawa interactions split the third generation slepton (defined to be the slepton in the same supermultiplet as the top) mass from that of other sleptons. The resulting mismatch of the lepton and slepton mass matrices, they note, leads to leptonic flavour violation that might be detectable in the next round of experiments.
Despite these shortcomings, this framework at the very least should be expected to provide a useful guide to our thinking about supersymmetry phenomenology. In spite of the fact that it is theoretically rather constrained, it is consistent with all experimental and even cosmological constraints and even, as we will see, contains a candidate for galactic and cosmological dark matter. Indeed mSUGRA provides a reasonably flexible yet tractable framework whose underlying assumptions, as we will see, can be subject to direct tests at future colliders.
Decays of Supersymmetric Particles {#sec:decays}
==================================
Before we can discuss signatures via which sparticle production might be detectable at colliders, we need to understand how sparticles decay. We will assume that $R$-parity is conserved and that $\tz_1$ is the LSP.
Sfermion Decays
---------------
We have seen in Sec. \[sec:framework\] that gauginos and Higgsinos couple sfermions to fermions. Since we have also assumed that $\tz_1$ is the LSP, the decay $\tf_{L,R} \to f\tz_1$ ($f \not = t$) is always allowed. Depending on sparticle masses, the decays $$\tf_{L,R} \to f\tz_i, \ \tf_{L} \to f'\tw_i
\label{eq:sfermiondk}$$ to other neutralinos or to charginos may also be allowed. The chargino decay modes of $\tf_R$ only proceed via Yukawa interactions, and so are negligible for all but $t$-squarks, except for large values of $\tan\beta$ for which the effects of the bottom and tau Yukawa interactions become important. [^21]
Unlike sleptons, squarks also have strong interactions, and so can also decay into gluinos via, $$\tq_{L,R} \to q\tg,
\label{eq:squarkdk}$$ if $m_{\tq}>m_{\tg}$. Unless suppressed by phase space, the gluino decay mode of squarks dominates, so that squark signatures are then mainly determined by the decay pattern of gluinos. If $m_{\tq} < m_{\tg}$, squarks, like sleptons, decay[@CAS; @BBKT] to charginos and neutralinos. The important thing to remember is that sfermions dominantly decay via a two-body mode.
The various partial decay widths can be easily computed using the Lagrangian we have described above. Numerical results may be found in the literature for both sleptons [@BBKMT] and squarks [@BBKT] and will not be repeated here. The following features, however, are worthy of note:
- The electroweak decay rates are $\sim \alpha m_{\tf}$ corresponding to lifetimes of about $10^{-22}(\frac{100 \
GeV}{m_{\tf}})$ seconds. Thus sfermions decay without leaving any tracks in the detector. The reader can check that the same is true for the decays of other sparticles discussed below.
- Light sfermions directly decay to the LSP. For heavier sfermions, other decays also become accessible. Decays which proceed via the larger $SU(2)_L$ gauge coupling are more frequent than those which proceed via the smaller $U(1)_Y$ coupling (we assume Higgs couplings are negligible). Thus, for $\tf_L$, the decays to charginos dominate unless they are kinematically suppressed, whereas $\tf_R$ ($f \not= t$)mainly decays into the neutralino with the largest hypercharge gaugino component.
- Very heavy sleptons (and squarks, if the gluino mode is forbidden) preferentially decay into the lighter (heavier) chargino ($\tf_L$ only) and the lighter neutralinos $\tz_{1,2}$ (the heavier neutralinos $\tz_{3,4}$) if $|\mu|$ ($m_{\tg}$) is very large. This is because $\tw_1, \tz_{1,2}$ ($\tw_2, \tz_{3,4}$) are the sparticles with the largest gaugino components.
[*Top Squark Decays:*]{} We have seen that $t$-squarks are different in that ([*i*]{}) the mass eigenstates are parameter-dependent mixtures of $\tt_L$ and $\tt_R$, ([*ii*]{}) $\tt_1$, the lighter of the two states may indeed be much lighter than all other sparticles (except, of course, for phenomenological reasons, the LSP) even when other squarks and gluinos are relatively heavy, and ([*iii*]{}) top squarks couple to charginos and neutralinos also via their Yukawa components. As a result the decay patterns of $\tt_1$ can differ considerably from those of other squarks. Yukawa interactions may also be important for $b$-squarks and $\tau$-sleptons if $\tan\beta$ is very large.
The decay $\tt_1 \to t\tg$ will dominate as usual if it is kinematically allowed. Otherwise, decays to charginos and neutralinos, if allowed, form the main decay modes. Since $m_t$ is rather large, it is quite possible that the decay $\tt_1 \to t\tz_1$ is kinematically forbidden, and $\tt_1 \to b\tw_1$ is the only tree-level two body decay mode that is accessible, in which case it will obviously dominate. If the stop is lighter than $m_{\tw_1}+m_b$, and has a mass smaller than about 125 GeV (which, we will see, is in the range of interest for experiments at the Tevatron), the dominant decay mode of $\tt_1$ comes from the flavour-changing $\tt_1-\tc_L$ loop level mixing induced by weak interactions [@HIKASA] and the decay $\tt_1 \to c\tz_1$ dominates its allowed tree level decays into (at least) four-body final states. If $m_{\tt_1} \sim 175-225$ GeV, the three-body decays $\tt_1 \to b
W\tz_1$ may be accessible, with the two body decays $\tt_1 \to b\tw_1$ and $\tt_1 \to t\tz_1$ still closed. The rate for this three body decay then has to be compared with the two body loop decay to assess the decay pattern of $\tt_1$. Unfortunately, this branching fraction [@WOEHRMAN] is sensitive to the model parameters, and no general statement is possible.
Gluino Decays
-------------
Since gluinos have only strong interactions, they can only decay via $$\tg \to \bar{q}\tq_{L,R}, q\bar{\tq}_{L,R},
\label{eq:gluinodk}$$ where the squark may be real or virtual depending on squark and gluino masses. If $m_{\tg}>m_{\tq}$, $\tq_L$ and $\tq_R$ are produced in equal numbers in gluino decays (except for phase space corrections from the non-degeneracy of squark masses). In this case, since $\tq_R$ only decays to neutralinos, neutralino decays of the gluino dominate. If, as is more likely, $m_{\tg}<m_{\tq}$, the squark in Eq. (\[eq:gluinodk\]) is virtual and decays via Eq. (\[eq:sfermiondk\]), so that gluinos decay via three body modes, $$\tg \to q\bar{q} \tz_i, q\bar{q'}\tw_i.$$ In contrast to the $m_{\tg}>m_{\tq}$ case, gluinos now predominantly decay [@CAS; @BBKT] into charginos because of the large $SU(2)_L$ gauge coupling, and also into the neutralino with the largest $SU(2)_L$ gaugino component. For small values of $|\mu|$ ($\ll |M_2|$), these may well be the heavier chargino and the heaviest neutralino [@BBKT]; if instead $\mu$ is relatively large, as is generally the case in the mSUGRA framework, the $\tw_1$ and $\tz_2$ decays of gluinos frequently dominate.
We should also point out that our discussion above neglects differences between various squark masses. As we have seen in the last section, however, third generation squarks $\tt_1$ and $\tb_1 \sim
\tb_L$ may in fact be substantially lighter than the other squarks. It could even be [@NOJ] that $\tg \to \bar{b}\tb_1$ and/or $\tg \to
\bar{t}\tt_1$ are the only allowed two-body decays of the gluino in which case gluino production will lead to final states with very large $b$-multiplicity, and possibly also hard, isolated leptons from the decays of the top quark or the $t$/$b$ squark. Even if these decays are kinematically forbidden, branching fractions for decays to third generation fermions may nonetheless be large because of enhanced $\tt_1$ and $\tb_1$ propagators (recall that the decay rates roughly depend on $\frac{1}{m_{\tq}^4}$) with qualitatively the same effect.
Finally, we note that there are regions of parameter space where the radiative decay, $$\tg \to g \tz_i,$$ can be important [@BTWRAD]. This decay, which occurs via third generation squark and quark loops, is typically enhanced relative to the tree-level decays if the neutralino contains a large $\tilde{h}_u$ component (which has large Yukawa couplings to the top family).
Chargino and Neutralino Decays
------------------------------
Within the MSSM framework, charginos and neutralinos can either decay into lighter charginos and neutralinos and gauge or Higgs bosons, or into $\tf \bar{f}$ pairs if these decays are kinematically allowed. We will leave it as an exercise for the reader to make a list of all the allowed modes and refer the reader to the literature [@HHG; @BBKMT] for various formulae and numerical values of the branching fractions. If these two-body decay modes are all forbidden, the charginos and neutralinos decay via three body modes, $$\tw_i \to f\bar{f'}\tz_j, \tw_2 \to f\bar{f}\tw_1 \nonumber$$ $$\tz_i \to f\bar{f} \tz_j \ or \ f\bar{f'}\tw_1,$$ mediated by virtual gauge bosons or sfermions (amplitudes for Higgs boson mediated decays, being proportional to fermion masses are generally negligible except when the corresponding Yukawa couplings are enhanced). Typically, only the lighter chargino and the neutralino $\tz_2$ decay via three body modes, since the decays $\tz_{3,4} \to
\tz_1Z$ or $\tz_1 h$ and $\tw_2 \to W\tz_1$ are often kinematically accessible. Of course if the $\tz_2$ or $\tw_1$ are heavy enough they will also decay via two body decays: these decays of $\tz_2$ are referred to as “spoiler modes” since, as we will see, they literally spoil [^22] the clean leptonic signal via which $\tz_2$ may be searched for.
For sfermion masses exceeding about $M_W$, $W$-mediated decays generally dominate the three body decays of $\tw_1$, so that the leptonic branching for its decays fraction is essentially the same as that of the $W$; [*i.e.* ]{} 11% per lepton family. An exception occurs when $\mu$ is extremely large so that the LSP is mainly a $U(1)_Y$ gaugino and $\tw_1$ dominantly an $SU(2)_L$ gaugino. In this case, the $W\tw_1\tz_1$ coupling is considerably suppressed: then, the amplitudes for $\tw_1$ decays mediated by virtual sfermions may no longer be negligible, even if sfermions are relatively heavy, and the leptonic branching fractions may deviate substantially from their canonical value of 11%.
One may analogously expect that $\tz_2$ decays are dominated by (virtual) $Z^0$ exchange if sfermion masses substantially exceed $M_Z$. This is, however, not true since the $Z^0$ couples only to the Higgsino components of the neutralinos. As a result, if either of the neutralinos in the decay $\tz_2 \to \tz_1 f\bar{f}$ has small Higgsino components the $Z^0$ contribution may be strongly suppressed, and the contributions from amplitudes involving relatively heavy sfermions may be comparable. This phenomenon is common in the mSUGRA model where $|\mu|$ is generally much larger than the electroweak gaugino masses, and $\tz_1$ and $\tz_2$ are, respectively, mainly the hypercharge and $SU(2)_L$ gauginos. If, in addition, $m_{\tq} \sim m_{\tg}$, we see from Eq. (\[eq:squark\]) that sleptons are much lighter than squarks, so that the leptonic decays $\tz_2 \to \ell \bar{\ell} \tz_1$, which lead to clean signals at hadron colliders, may be considerably enhanced. [@BT] There are, however, other regions of parameter space, where sleptons are relatively light, but the amplitudes from virtual slepton exchanges interfere destructively with the $Z^0$ mediated amplitudes, and lead to a strong suppression of this decay. [@BCKT; @MRENNA] Of course, the branching fraction for the three-body decay is tiny if two-body “spoiler modes” $\tz_2 \to
Z\tz_1$ or $\tz_2 \to h\tz_1$ are kinematically allowed. For basically the same reasons the decay $\tz_2 \to \tw_1 f\bar{f'}$ which is mediated by virtual $W$ exchange, even though it is kinematically disfavoured, can sometimes be competitive [@BDDT] with the LSP decay mode of $\tz_2$. [^23]
We should also mention that, if the parameter $\tan\beta$ is large, bottom and tau Yukawa interactions can considerably modify [@BCDPT] the decay patterns of charginos and neutralinos. This happens partly because $\tb_1$ and $\ttau_1$ masses are reduced with respect to those of other squarks and sleptons, but also because coupling to Higgsino components of $\tw_1$ and $\tz_1$ is not negligible. For $\tan\beta \agt
25-30$, the branching fraction for the decay $\tw_1 \to \tau\nu \tz_1$ can substantially exceed that of $\tw_1 \to e\nu\tz_1$ or $\tw_1 \to
\mu\nu\tz_1$ decays. Likewise, $\tz_2\to b\bar{b}\tz_1$ may be the dominant decay mode of $\tz_2$ while the decay $\tz_2\to
\tau\bar{\tau}\tz_1$ can occur much more rapidly than its decay to $e$ or $\mu$. It could even be that the stau becomes so light that the decays $\tw_1\to \ttau_1\nu$ and $\tz_2\to \ttau_1\tau$ become accessible, and being the only two-body modes dominate the decay of charginos and neutralinos.
Finally, we note that there are regions of parameter space where the rate for the two body radiative decay $$\tz_2 \to \tz_1 \gamma$$ which is mediated by $f\tf$ and gauge boson-gaugino loops may be comparable [@KOM; @HW] to that for the three body decays. These decays are important in two different cases: ([*i*]{}) if one of the neutralinos is photino-like and the other Higgsino-like, both $Z^0$ and sfermion mediated amplitudes are small since the photino (Higgsino) does not couple to the $Z$-boson (sfermion), and ([*ii*]{}) both neutralinos are Higgsino-like and very close in mass (this occurs for small values of $|\mu|$); the strong suppression of the three-body phase space then favours the two-body decay. We mention here that neither of these cases is particularly likely, especially within the mSUGRA framework.
Higgs Boson Decays
------------------
Unlike in the SM, there is no clear dividing line between the phenomenology of sparticles and that of Higgs bosons, since as we have just seen, Higgs bosons can also be produced via cascade decays of heavy sparticles. Higgs boson decay patterns exhibit [@HHG] a complex dependence on model parameters. Unfortunately, we will not have time to discuss these here, and we can only refer the reader to the literature. We will, therefore, confine ourselves to mentioning a few points that will be important for later discussion.
In SUGRA models, all but the lightest Higgs scalar tend to be (but are not always) rather heavy and so are not significantly produced either in sparticle decay cascade decays or directly at colliders. An important exception occurs for very large values of $\tan\beta$ for which $A$, and hence, also $H$ and $H^{\pm}$ may be within the kinematic reach of future colliders or even LEP2.
Within the more general MSSM framework, the scale of their masses is fixed by $m_A$, which is an independent parameter. If $m_A$ is large ($ \agt
200$ GeV), $h$ (which has a mass smaller than $\sim 130$ GeV) behaves like the SM Higgs boson, while $H$, $A$ and $H^{\pm}$ are approximately decoupled from vector boson pairs. The phenomenology is then relatively simple: the decay $h \to b\bar{b}$ which occurs via $b$-quark Yukawa interactions dominates, unless charginos and/or neutralinos are also light; then, decays of $h$ into neutralino or chargino pairs, which occur via the much larger gauge coupling, is dominant unless $\tan\beta$ is very large. The invisible decay $h \to \tz_1\tz_1$, is clearly the one most likely to be accessible, and has obvious implications for Higgs phenomenology. These supersymmetric decay modes are even more likely for the heavier Higgs bosons, particularly if their decay to $t\bar{t}$ pairs is kinematically forbidden; this is especially true for $h$ which cannot decay to vector boson pairs, but also for $H$ since its coupling to $VV$ pairs ($V=W,Z$) is suppressed when it is heavy. The decays $A \to h Z$ and $H \to
hh$ can be important, while $H \to AA$ is usually inaccessible. Finally, charged Higgs bosons $H^+$ mainly decay via the $t\bar{b}$ mode unless this channel is kinematically forbidden. Then, they mainly decay via $H^+ \to Wh$, or if this is also kinematically forbidden, via $H^+ \to c\bar{s}$ ( $\tan\beta \alt 1.2$) or $H^+ \to
\bar{\tau}\nu$ ($\tan\beta> 1.2$).
Sparticle Production at Colliders {#sec:prod}
=================================
Since $R$-parity is assumed to be conserved, sparticles can only be pair produced by collisions of ordinary particles. At $e^+e^-$ colliders, sparticles (such as charged sleptons and sneutrinos, squarks and charginos) with significant couplings to either the photon or the $Z$-boson can be produced via $s$-channel $\gamma$ and $Z$ processes, with cross sections comparable with $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \mu^+\mu^-)$, except for kinematic and statistical factors. Selectron and electron sneutrino production also occurs via $t$-channel neutralino and chargino exchange, while sneutrino exchange in the $t$-channel will contribute to chargino pair production. Neutralino production, which proceeds via $Z$ exchange in the $s$-channel and selectron exchange in the $t$ and $u$ channels, may be strongly suppressed if the neutralinos are gaugino-like and selectrons are relatively heavy. Cross section formulae as well as magnitudes of the various cross sections may be found [*e.g.*]{} in Baer [*et. al.*]{} [@BBKMT]
At hadron colliders, the situation is somewhat different. Since sparticle production is a high $Q^2$ process, the underlying elementary SUSY process is the inelastic collision of quarks and gluons inside the proton. [@STAND] In other words, it is the hard scattering partonic cross section that is computable within the SUSY framework. This cross section is then convoluted with parton distribution functions to obtain the inclusive cross section for SUSY particle production. Thus, unlike at electron-positron colliders, only a fraction of the total centre of mass energy is used for sparticle production. The balance of the energy is wasted in the underlying low $p_T$ event which only contaminates the high $p_T$ signal of interest.
Squarks and gluinos, the only strongly interacting sparticles, have the largest production cross sections unless their production is kinematically suppressed. These cross sections [@SQGLPROD] are completely determined in terms of their masses by QCD and do not depend on the details of the supersymmetric model. QCD corrections to these have also been computed. [@ZERW] Squarks and gluinos can be also be produced [@ASSPROD] in association with charginos or neutralinos via diagrams involving one strong and one electroweak vertex. Finally, $\tw_i$ and $\tz_j$ can be produced by $q\bar{q}$ annihilation via processes with $W$ or $Z$ exchange in the $s$-channel, or squark exchange in the $t$ (and, for neutralino pairs only, also the $u$) channel.
The cross sections for various processes at a 2 TeV $p\bar{p}$ collider (corresponding to the energy of the Main Injector (MI) upgrade of the Tevatron) are illustrated in Fig. \[figtevcs\], while those for a 14 TeV $pp$ collider (the LHC) are shown in Fig. \[figlhccs\]. We have illustrated our results for ([*a*]{}) $m_{\tq}=m_{\tg}$, and ([*b*]{}) $m_{\tq}=2m_{\tg}$ and fixed other parameters at the representative values shown. These figures help us decide what to search for. While squarks and gluinos are the obvious thing to focus the initial search on, we see from Fig. \[figtevcs\] that at even the MI (and certainly at any higher luminosity upgrade that might be envisioned in the future), the maximal reach is likely to be obtained via the electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos, provided of course that their decays lead to detectable signals. [^24] In contrast, we see from Fig. \[figlhccs\] that gluino (and, possibly, squark) production processes offer the best opportunity for SUSY searches at the LHC for gluino masses up to 1 TeV (recall that this is roughly the bound from fine-tuning considerations [@FINE]) even if squarks are very heavy.
Simulation of Supersymmetry Events {#sec:sim}
==================================
Once produced, sparticles rapidly decay into other sparticles until the decay cascade terminates in a stable LSP. It is the end products of these decays that are detectable in experiments and which, it is hoped, can provide experimental signatures for supersymmetry. The evaluation of these signatures obviously entails a computation of the branching fractions for the decays of all the sparticles, and further, keeping track of numerous cascade decay chains for every pair of parent sparticles. Many groups have constructed computer programs to calculate these decay processes. For any set of MSSM parameters [^25] (or alternatively, for a SUGRA parameter set (\[eq:sugra\])), a public access program known as ISASUSY (ISASUGRA) which can be extracted from the Monte Carlo program ISAJET [@ISAJET] lists all sparticle and Higgs boson masses as well as their decay modes along with the corresponding partial widths and branching fractions.
Event generator programs provide the link between the theoretical framework of SUSY which provides, say, cross sections for final states with quarks and leptons, and the long-lived particles such as $\pi$, $K$, $\gamma$, $e$, $\mu$ [*etc.*]{} that are ultimately detected in real experiments. Many authors have combined sparticle production and decay programs to create parton level event generators which may be suitable for many purposes. More sophisticated generators include other effects such as parton showers, heavy flavour decays, hadronization of gluons and quarks, a model of the underlying event, [*etc.*]{} These improvements have significant impact upon detailed simulations of, for instance, the jets plus isolated multi-lepton signal from squark and gluino production at the LHC. General purpose SUSY event generators available today are: ISAJET [@ISAJET], SPYTHIA [@Mrennagen] and SUSYGEN [@Kats] ($e^+e^-$ collisions only). A detailed discussion of these programs and their virtues and shortcomings is beyond the scope of these Lectures. We will instead refer the interested reader to the literature [@GEN] and to the documentation that accompanies these codes.
Observational Constraints on Supersymmetry {#sec:CONSTRAINTS}
==========================================
The non-observation of any supersymmetric signal at either LEP [@LEPSUSY] or at the Tevatron [@ETMBND; @DILEPBND; @DZEROSTOP] provides the most direct lower limits on sparticle masses. Indirect limits may come from virtual effects of SUSY particles on rare processes ([*e.g.*]{} flavour changing neutral currents or proton decay) or from cosmological considerations such as an over-abundance of LSP’s, resulting in a universe that would be younger than the age of stars. While these indirect limits can be important, they are generally sensitive to the details of the model: non-observation of loop effects could be a result of accidental cancellation with some other new physics loops (so care must be exercised in extracting limits on sparticle masses); proton decay [@PDK] is sensitive to assumptions about GUT scale physics while the cosmological constraints [@COSM] can be simply evaded — the price is the loss of a promising dark matter candidate — by allowing a tiny violation of $R$-parity conservation which would have no impact on collider searches. We do not mean to belittle these constraints which lead to important bounds in any [*given*]{} framework (for instance, minimal SUGRA $SU(5)$), but should also recognise that these bounds are likely to be more model-dependent than direct constraints from collider experiments. It is, however, only for reasons of time that we will confine ourselves to direct limits from colliders.
The cleanest limits on sparticle masses come from experiments at LEP. The agreement [@LEPC] of $\Gamma_Z$ with its expectation in the SM gives [@WIDTH] essentially model-independent lower limits of 30-45 GeV on the masses of charginos, squarks, sneutrinos and charged sleptons whose couplings to $Z^0$ are fixed by gauge symmetry. These limits [^26] do not depend on how sparticles decay. Likewise, the measurement of the invisible width of the $Z^0$ which gives the well-known bound on the number of light neutrino species, yields a lower limit on $m_{\tnu}$ only 2-5 GeV below $\frac{M_Z}{2}$ if the sneutrino decays invisibly via $\tnu \to
\nu\tz_1$, even if only one of the sneutrinos is light enough to be accessible in $Z^0$ decays. [^27] In contrast, the bounds on neutralino masses are very sensitive to the model parameters because for large $|\mu|$, as we have already pointed out, the neutralino may be dominantly a gaugino with strongly suppressed couplings to the $Z^0$.
LEP experimentalists also perform direct searches for sparticles whose decays frequently lead to extremely characteristic final states. [@CHEN] For instance, slepton (squark) pair production followed by the direct decay of the sfermion to the LSP leads to a pair of hard, acollinear leptons (jets) together with $\pslt$. Chargino production can lead to events with acollinear jet pairs, a lepton + jet + $\pslt$ and also acollinear leptons + $\pslt$. Such event topologies are very distinctive and do not occur in the SM if the centre of mass energy is below the $WW$ threshold. Thus the observation of just a handful of such events would suffice to signal new physics. During the past year the LEP energy has been increased in steps from $M_Z$ to 130-140 GeV to 161 GeV and beyond. Currently, the highest energy of LEP operation is 172 GeV. For $\sqrt{s}
> 2M_W$, $WW$ events contaminate the SUSY signal. Strategies for separating the signal from SM background are discussed in the next Section.
From a non-observation [@YIBIN] of any SUSY events in the data sample of 11 $pb^{-1}$ that has been accumulated at 172 GeV, lower limits $m_{\tw_1} > 84-86$ GeV, $m_{\te_R} \agt
70$ GeV (the bound on the smuon mass is a little weaker) have already been deduced. A $t$-squark below 63-75 GeV, depending on the stop mixing angle is also excluded, assuming $\tt_1 \to
c\tz_1$. Finally, assuming that the GUT unification condition for $M_1$ and $M_2$ is valid, the L3 and ALEPH collaborations have deduced a 95% lower limit, $m_{\tz_1}> 24.6$ GeV, if $m_{\tnu} \geq 200$ GeV. With a larger data sample (as will be expected in the next run) LEP2 experiments should be able to probe charged sparticles up to 80-90% of the kinematic limit.
The search for squarks and gluinos is best carried out at hadron colliders by searching for $\eslt$ events from $\tq\tq$, $\tg\tq$ and $\tg\tg$ production. The final states from the cascade decays of gluinos and squarks leads to events consisting of several jets plus possibly leptons and $\eslt$. For an integrated luminosity of about 10-20 $pb^{-1}$ on which the analyses of the Run IA of the CDF and D0 experiments are based, the classic $\eslt$ channel offers the best hope for detection of supersymmetry. The non-observation of $\eslt$ events above SM background expectations (after cuts to increase the signal relative to background) allows Tevatron experimentalists [@ETMBND] to infer a lower limit of 173 GeV on $m_{\tg}$. This bound improves to 229 GeV if squarks and gluinos are assumed to have the same mass. Since then, the CDF and D0 experiments have collectively accumulated about $\sim$ 200 $pb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, and should begin to be sensitive to various multilepton signatures which we will discuss when we address prospects for SUSY searches in the future. We should mention though that already with the data sample of Run I, non-observation of any events in the $dileptons + jets +\eslt$ channel allows these collaborations to infer bounds [@DILEPBND] very close to bounds from the $\eslt$ searches. The D0 Collaboration has also excluded [@DZEROSTOP] $\tt_1$ with a mass between 60 and 90 GeV, assuming $\tt_1 \to c\tz_1$ and that $m_{\tt_1}-m_{\tz_1}$ is sizeable.
Before closing this section, we briefly remark about potential constraints from “low energy” experiments, keeping in mind that these may be sensitive to model assumptions. The measurements of the inclusive $b \to s\gamma$ decay by the CLEO experiment [@CLEO] and its agreement with SM expectations [@BSGSM] constrain [@BSGSUSY] the [*sum*]{} of SUSY contributions to this process. [^28] Supersymmetry also allows for new sources of CP violation [@CPV] in gaugino masses or $A$-parameters. These phases, which must be smaller than $\sim 10^{-3}$ in order that the electric dipole moment of the neutron not exceed its experimental bound, are set to zero in the MSSM.
Finally, we note that because SUSY, unlike technicolour, is a decoupling theory, the agreement of the LEP data with SM expectations is not hard to accommodate. We just have to make the sparticles heavier than 100-200 GeV. This would, of course, make it difficult to accommodate “anomalies” in the LEP data unless some sparticles are rather light. The anomalies of yesteryear, however, seem to be fading away.
Searching for Supersymmetry at Future Colliders and Supercolliders {#sec:Future}
==================================================================
$e^+e^-$ Colliders
------------------
We saw in the last Section that the LEP2 collider has been successfully operated above the $WW$ threshold. During the next run due to begin in July 1997, experiments should accumulate $\sim 100$ $pb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at $\sqrt{s}=184$ GeV, and so, should be able to probe charginos and sleptons up to about 85-90 GeV. The signals for sparticles are much the same as discussed in the last Section. The significant difference is that while SM backgrounds can be easily removed below the $WW$ threshold, the separation of the SUSY signal from $W$-pair production requires more effort. This should not be very surprising since the $W$ is a heavy particle and its decays can lead to both acollinear dilepton + $\eslt$ as well as $jets+\ell +\eslt$ and $jets + \eslt$ event topologies. Another possible complication to be kept in mind as we search for heavier sparticles is that cascade decay channels may begin to open up. This should not pose too much of a problem, however, since the energy has been increased in stages. For example, one would expect to see chargino production before the production of sleptons which are heavy enough to decay to charginos sets in.
Signals for sparticle production at LEP2 have been studied in great detail [@CHEN; @DION; @GRIVAZ; @LEPREP] assuming that sparticles decay directly to the LSP. Below the $WW$ threshold, they are readily detectable in exactly the same way as at LEP. Above that, the production of $W^+W^-$ pairs, which has a very large cross section $\sim$18 $pb$ (compared to 0.2 $pb$ for smuons and $\sim 10$ $pb$ for charginos with mass about $M_W$) is a formidable background. The situation is not as bad as it may appear on first sight. For $WW$ events to fake sleptons, both $W$’s have to decay to the particular flavour of leptons, which reduces background by two orders of magnitude. Further rejection of background may be obtained by noting that while slepton events are isotropic, the leptons from $W$ decay exhibit strong backward-forward asymmetry. Thus by selecting from the sample of acollinear $\mu^+\mu^-$ events those events where the fast muon in the hemisphere in the $e^-$ beam direction has the opposite sign to that expected from a muon from $W$ decay, it is possible to reduce the background by a factor of five, with just 50% loss of signal.
The strategy for charginos is more complicated [@GRIVAZ] and will not be detailed here. We will only mention that here the clean environment of electron-positron colliders plays a crucial role. The idea is to make use of the kinematic differences between the two-body decay of the $W$ into a massless neutrino, and the three body decay of the chargino into the massive LSP. Using the cuts detailed in Ref. [@GRIVAZ], it should be possible to detect charginos up to within a few GeV from the kinematic limit in the mixed lepton plus jet channel.
Neutralino signals, as we should by now anticipate, are sensitive to model parameters. A recent analysis [@BAEREE; @LEPREP] within the framework of the SUGRA models describes strategies to optimize these signals, and also separate them from other SUSY processes. This analysis also discusses signals from cascade decays of sparticles.
Higher energy electron-positron colliders will almost certainly be linear colliders, since synchroton radiation loss in a circular machines precludes the possibility of increasing the machine energy significantly beyond that of LEP2. Several laboratories are evaluating the prospects for construction of a 300-500 GeV collider, whose energy may later be increased to 1 TeV, or more: these include the Next Linear Collider (NLC) program in the USA, the Japanese Linear Collider (JLC) program in Japan, the TESLA and CLIC programs in Europe, and VLEPP in the former Soviet Union. The search for the lightest charged sparticle, be it the chargino or the slepton (or perhaps the $\tt_1$) should proceed along the same lines [@JLC; @MUR; @CONF; @FUJII] as at LEP2 and discovery should be possible essentially all the way to the kinematic limit. Of course, because production cross sections rapidly decrease with energy, a luminosity of 10-30 $fb^{-1}/yr$ will be necessary.
While these studies have conclusively demonstrated that the lightest of the “visible” sparticles will be easily discovered at the Linear Collider, cascade decays have to be incorporated for a study of the heavier sparticles. Recent studies [@BMT; @SNOWNLC] within the mSUGRA framework have examined the prospects for discovering various sparticles at a 500 GeV Linear Collider. It is shown that with an integrated luminosity of $\sim 20$ $fb^{-1}$, it should be possible to discover charged sleptons (and also sneutrinos if they decay visibly), charginos, $\tt_1$ and squarks [@FINNELL] essentially all the way up to the kinematic limit even if these do not directly decay to the LSP. A machine with a centre of mass energy of about 700-1000 GeV should be able to search for charginos up to 350-500 GeV, and so, assuming the gaugino mass unification condition, will cover the parameter space of weak scale supersymmetry.
It is also worth mentioning that one can exploit [@JLC; @MUR] the availability of polarized beams to greatly reduce SM backgrounds: for example, the cross section for $WW$ production which is frequently the major background is tiny for a right-handed electron beam. While the availability of polarized beams and the clean environment of $e^+e^-$ collisions clearly facilitates the extraction of the signal, we will see below that these capabilities play a really crucial role for the determination of sparticle properties which, in turn, serves to discriminate between models. The availability of polarization does not, however, appear to be crucial for SUSY discovery. [@BMT]
We should stress that $e^+e^-$ colliders are ideal facilities to search for Higgs bosons. [@SOPC] At LEP2, one can typically search for Higgs bosons with a mass up to about $\sqrt{s}-100$ GeV; an $e^+e^-$ collider operating at 300 GeV would be virtually guaranteed to find one of the Higgs bosons if the MSSM framework, with its weakly coupled Higgs sector, is correct, although it may not be possible to distinguish this from the Higgs boson of the SM. Indeed if no Higgs boson is discovered at a 500 GeV Linear Collider, many accepted ideas about unification of interactions may have to be re-evaluated. In contrast, we will see that if the LHC is operated only at its lower value of the design luminosity (10 $fb^{-1}/yr$), the discovery of a Higgs boson cannot be guaranteed even with relatively optimistic (but not unrealistic) assumptions about detector capabilities. It appears that several years of LHC operation with a luminosity of 100 $fb^{-1}/yr$ are necessary to reasonably ensure the discovery of at least one of the MSSM Higgs bosons.
Future Searches at Hadron Colliders
-----------------------------------
[*Tevatron Upgrades*]{}
The CDF and D0 experiments have together already collected an integrated luminosity of about 200 $pb^{-1}$, to be compared with 10-20 $pb^{-1}$ for the data set on which the $\eslt$ analyses described in the last Section were based. It is thus reasonable to explore whether an analysis of this data can lead to other signatures for supersymmetry. Of course, the size of the data sample will increase by yet another order of magnitude after about a year of MI operation, and by significantly more if the TeV33 upgrade, with its design luminosity of $\sim 10-25~fb^{-1}/yr$, comes to pass.
[*Gluinos and Squarks:*]{} While the increase in the data sample will obviously result in an increased reach via the $\eslt$ channel [@KAMON; @SNOWTEV], we have already seen that the cascade decays of gluinos and squarks lead to novel signals ($n$ jets plus $m$ leptons plus $\eslt$) via which one might be able to search for SUSY. Since the gluino is a Majorana particle, it decays with equal likelihood to positive or negative charginos: the leptonic decays of the chargino can then lead to events with two isolated same-sign (SS) charged leptons [@BKP; @BGH; @BTW] together with jets plus $\eslt$.
If instead of one of the charginos we have a leptonically decaying neutralino, trilepton event topologies result. While other topologies will also be present, the SS and $3\ell$ events are especially interesting because (after suitable cuts [@RPV; @BKTRAP]) the SM [*physics*]{} backgrounds [^29] are estimated to be 2.7 $fb$ and 0.7 $fb$, respectively, for $m_t=175$ GeV. The corresponding signal cross sections, together with the cross sections in other channels, are illustrated in Fig. \[figRPV\] which has been obtained using ISAJET 7.13. These include signals from all sparticle sources, not just gluinos and squarks. We see that while the cross sections in the relatively background-free $3\ell$ and SS event topologies are indeed tiny, Tevatron experiments should just about be reaching the sensitivity to probe SUSY via these channels. Although the experimental groups have yet to analyse their data for these rare signals, it is reassuring that they have performed the analysis of the multijet plus dilepton plus $\eslt$ channel and obtain bounds [@DILEPBND] similar to those from the $\eslt$ analysis. This may be viewed as evidence that these multi-lepton analyses are feasible.
Before closing, we remind the reader that for large values of $\tan\beta$ charginos and neutralinos preferentially decay into the third generation particles. In fact, we have seen that they may even exclusively decay to the stau family. In this case, multilepton signals may be greatly reduced, although there are potentially new signatures [@BCDPT] involving $b$-jets and $\tau$-leptons via which to search for SUSY. Prospects for these searches are currently under investigation.
[*Charginos and Neutralinos:*]{} The electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos, we have seen, offers yet another channel for probing supersymmetry, the most promising of which is the hadron-free trilepton signal from the reaction $p \bar{p} \to \tw_1\tz_2 X$, where both the chargino and the neutralino decays leptonically. In fact, we saw in Fig. \[figtevcs\] that for very large integrated luminosities, this channel potentially offers the maximal reach for supersymmetry (since the opposite sign (OS) dilepton signal from $\tw_1 \overline{\tw_1}$ production suffers from large SM backgrounds from $WW$ production). It was first emphasized by Arnowitt and Nath [@AN] that, with an integrated luminosity of $\sim 100~pb^{-1}$, this signal would be observable at the Tevatron even if resonance production of $\tw_1\tz_2$ is suppressed. A subsequent analysis [@BT] showed that the signal may even be further enhanced in some regions of parameter space due to enhancements in the $\tz_2$ leptonic branching fractions, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:decays\]. Detailed Monte Carlo studies [@BKTWINO; @KAMON; @BCKT; @MRENNA; @SNOWTEV] including effects of experimental cuts were performed to confirm that Tevatron experiments should indeed be able to probe charginos via this channel. Indeed analyses [@CDFWINO] by the CDF and D0 collaborations, from a non-observation of a signal in this channel, have obtained upper limits on the trilepton cross section. The resulting limit on the chargino mass is below that obtained from LEP. This analysis may be viewed as leading to the best (direct) lower limit on $m_{\tz_2}$ over some ranges of model parameters. It is possible that in the future Tevatron experiments will probe parameter regions that may not be accessible at LEP2.
We stress that the trilepton signal, which depends on the neutralino branching fractions, is sensitive to the model parameters, and it is not possible to simply state the reach in terms of the mass of the chargino. For favourable values of parameters, experiments at the MI should be able to probe charginos heavier than 100 GeV, corresponding to $m_{\tg} \agt 300-350$ GeV (at TeV33, up to $\sim$500-600 GeV where the two-body spoiler decays of $\tz_2$ become accessible, and for light sleptons, even up to 600-700 GeV); on the other hand, there are other regions of parameter space where the leptonic branching fraction of the neutralino is strongly suppressed [@BCKT; @MRENNA], and there is no signal for charginos as light as 45-50 GeV even at the TeV33 upgrade of the Tevatron. The signal may also be suppressed [@BCDPT] because charginos and neutralinos decay exclusively into stau (and $\tnu_{\tau}$). Thus, while this channel can probe significant regions of the parameter space of either the MSSM or SUGRA, the absence of any signal in this channel will not allow one to infer a lower limit on $m_{\tw_1}$.
[*Top Squarks:*]{} We have seen that $\tt_1$, the lighter of the two top squarks, may be rather light so that it may be pair-produced at the Tevatron even if other squarks as well as the gluino are too heavy. If its decay to chargino is allowed, the leptonic decay of one or both stops leads to events with one or two isolated leptons together with jets plus $\eslt$ — exactly the same event topologies as for the top quark search. Thus $t\bar{t}$ production is the major background [@BDGGT] to the $t$-squark search. Because $\sigma(t\bar{t}) \sim 10 \sigma(\tt_1\bar{\tt_1})$ for a top and stop of the same mass, stop signals are detectable at the Tevatron only if the stop is considerably lighter than the top. In an early analysis [@BST], it was shown that with an integrated luminosity of around 100 $pb^{-1}$, the stop signal should be detectable at the Tevatron if $m_{\tt_1} \alt 100$ GeV, provided $b$-jets can be adequately tagged. [^30] Since then, LEP experiments have obtained strong bounds on the chargino mass, leaving only a small range of parameters where this analysis is applicable. The D0 collaboration [@D0STOP] have searched their data sample of $\sim
75$ $pb^{-1}$ for $\tt_1\bar{\tt_1} \to b\tw_1 b\tw_1 \to bb e^+e^-$ events and found that an order of magnitude larger data sample is needed to attain the sensitivity that is needed for this search. [^31]
If the chargino is heavy, the stop will instead decay via $\tt_1 \to c
\tz_1$ and stop pair production will be signalled by dijet plus $\eslt$ events, and hence looks like the squark signal, but without any cascade decays. [@BST] An analysis by the D0 collaboration [@DZEROSTOP] excludes 60 GeV $<m_{\tt_1}<$90 GeV if the LSP mass is smaller than 25-50 GeV.
Mrenna [*et. al.*]{}, [@MRENNA] using cuts optimized to detect heavier stops, find that, with an integrated luminosity of 2 $fb^{-1}$, it should be possible to explore stops as heavy as 160 GeV if they decay via the chargino mode. They claim a reach of 200 GeV with a data sample of 25 $fb^{-1}$ that may be available at TeV33. If chargino is too heavy for the decay $\tt_1 \to b\tw_1$ to be accessible but the stop mass is in the 180-250 GeV range, the three body decay $\tt_1 \to bW\tz_1$ may be kinematically accessible. Since its branching ratio is sensitive to model parameters, [@WOEHRMAN] one has to examine how this decay compares to the loop decay $\tt_1 \to c\tz_1$ in order to assess the viability of this signal.
[*Sleptons:*]{} The best hope for slepton detection appears [@SLEP] to be via the clean OS dilepton plus $\eslt$ channel. But even here, there is a large irreducible background from $WW$ production as well as possible contamination of the signal from other SUSY sources such as chargino pair production. It was concluded that at the MI it would be very difficult to see sleptons from off-shell $Z$ production, [*i.e.*]{} if $m_{\tell} \agt 50$ GeV. Sleptons in this mass range are obviously already excluded by LEP experiments. At TeV33, experiments would probe sleptons with masses up to about 100 GeV, given an integrated luminosity of 25 $fb^{-1}$.
[*SUSY Searches at the LHC*]{}
While it is certainly possible that SUSY may be discovered at a luminosity upgrade of the Tevatron, we have seen that there are parameter ranges where a SUSY signal may evade detection even if sparticles are not very heavy. In order to cover the complete parameter-space of weak scale SUSY either a linear collider operating at a centre of mass energy $\sim 0.7- 1$ TeV or the LHC is necessary.
We see from Fig. \[figlhccs\] that, at the LHC, squarks and gluinos dominate sparticle production up to gluino masses beyond 1 TeV. It is thus reasonable to focus most attention on these although, of course, signals should be looked for in all possible channels. For reasons of brevity, and because the ideas involved in LHC searches are qualitatively similar to those described above, we will content ourselves with just presenting an overview of the LHC reach, and refer the interested reader to the vast amount of literature that already exists for details.
As before, the cascade decays of gluinos and squarks result in $n$-jet plus $m$-leptons plus $\eslt$ events [@BTW2; @ATLAS; @CMS] where $m=0$ corresponds to the classic $\eslt$ signal. Of the multilepton channels, the SS and $m \geq 3$ channels suffer the least from SM backgrounds. It is worth keeping in mind that at the LHC, many different sparticle chains contribute to a particular event topology, and further, that the dominant production mechanism for any particular channel depends on the model parameters. For instance, gluino pair production (with each of the gluinos decaying to a chargino of the same sign) is generally regarded as the major source of SS dilepton events; notice, however, that the reaction $pp \to \tb_L\bar{\tb}_L X \to t{\tw_1}^- \bar{t}{\tw_1}^+ X$ may also be a copious source of such events, since now the leptons can come either from top or chargino decays (recall that we had noted that $\tb_L$ may be relatively light). It is, therefore, necessary to simultaneously generate all possible sparticle processes in order to realistically simulate a signal in any particular event topology. This is possible using ISAJET. However, this raises another issue which is especially important at the LHC. If we see a signal in any particular channel, can we uncover its origin? We will return to this later, but for now, focus ourselves on the SUSY reach of the LHC.
The ATLAS collaboration [@ATLAS] at the LHC has done a detailed analysis of the signal in the $\eslt$ as well as in the SS dilepton channels. They found that gluinos as light as 300 GeV should be easily detectable in the $\eslt$ channel. [^32] Then requiring rather stiff cuts, $\eslt > 900$ GeV, $p_T(jet_1,jet_2,jet_3)>200$ GeV, $p_T(jet_4)>100$ GeV along with a cut $S_T>0.2$ on the transverse sphericity, they find that with an integrated luminosity of 10 $fb^{-1}$, it should be possible to search for gluinos with a mass up to 1.3 TeV (2 TeV) for $m_{\tq}=2m_{\tg}$ ($m_{\tq}=m_{\tg}$). This reach is altered by about $\pm300$ GeV if the integrated luminosity is changed by an order of magnitude. Very similar results for the reach in the $\eslt$ channel have also been obtained [@BCPT] within the context of the SUGRA framework, although the event selection criteria used are quite different. In the same-sign dilepton channel, the ATLAS collaboration [@ATLAS] concludes that the reach of the LHC will be 900-1400 GeV (for $m_{\tq}=2m_{\tg}$) or 1100-1800 GeV (for $m_{\tq}=m_{\tg}$), where the lower (higher) number corresponds to a luminosity of 1 $fb^{-1}$ (100 $fb^{-1}$).
Prospects for SUSY detection in the SS and other multilepton channels (with or without real $Z$ bosons) have also been discussed. [@BTW2] An analysis of the multilepton signals within the context of SUGRA models has also been performed. [@BCPT2] The greatest SUSY reach is obtained in the $1\ell$ channel. The reason is that a large fraction of events from a heavy gluino or squark contain at least one lepton from cascade decays. By exploiting the presence of hard jets and large $\eslt$ in SUSY events, these authors have been able to devise cuts to reduce SM backgrounds from $W \to \ell\nu$ and $t\bar{t}$ production to a manageable level. Assuming an integrated luminosity of 10 $fb^{-1}$, a gluino mass reach of $\sim$2.3 (1.6) TeV is claimed for $m_{\tg} \simeq m_{\tq} \ (1.5m_{\tq})$. More importantly, it has been shown that for $\mhf \leq 400$-500 GeV ($m_{\tg}\leq
1$-1.3 TeV), there should be an observable signal in several (OS, SS, $3\ell$) channels if $\tan\beta \alt 10$. Otherwise, any signal in the $\eslt$ or $1\ell$ channel cannot be attributed to gluino and squark production in the mSUGRA framework. For very large values of $\tan\beta$, sparticle decay patterns may be considerably modified, and the situation needs to be reassesed. We do not, however, expect SUSY would evade detection at the LHC.
Within the SUGRA framework, the LHC should, in the clean trilepton channel, be able [@LHCWINO; @PHD] to probe $\tw_1\tz_2$ production all the way up to where spoiler modes of $\tz_2$ become accessible if $\mu <
0$ and $\tan\beta$ is not too large. Then it is possible to find a set of cuts that cleanly separate the $\tw_1\tz_2$ event sample from both SM backgrounds as well as other sources of SUSY events. This will prove to be important later. For positive values of $\mu$, signals are readily observable for rather small and large values of $m_0$; in the intermediate range 400 GeV $ \alt m_0 \alt 1000$ GeV, this signal is suppressed because of the suppression of the leptonic $\tz_2$ branching fraction emphasized earlier.
As at Tevatron upgrades, the OS dilepton channel offers [@AMET; @SLEP] the best opportunity for slepton searches. At the LHC, it should be possible to detect sleptons up to about 250-300 GeV, although excellent jet vetoing capability will be needed to detect the signal for the highest masses.
The SUSY reach of possible future hadron colliders is summarized in Table 1.
0.4cm
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------
Tevatron II Main Injector TeV33 LHC
Signal 0.1 fb$^{-1}$ 1 fb$^{-1}$ 10 fb$^{-1}$ 10 fb$^{-1}$
1.8 TeV 2 TeV 2 TeV 14 TeV
$\eslt (\tq \gg \tg)$ $\tg(210)/\tg(185)$ $\tg(270)/\tg(200)$ $\tg(340)/\tg(200)$ $\tg(1300)$
$l^\pm l^\pm (\tq \gg \tg)$ $\tg(160)$ $\tg(210)$ $\tg(270)$
$all \rightarrow 3l$ $(\tq \gg \tg)$ $\tg(180)$ $\tg(260)$ $\tg(430)$
$\eslt (\tq \sim \tg)$ $\tg(300)/\tg(245)$ $\tg(350)/\tg(265)$ $\tg(400)/\tg(265)$ $\tg(2000)$
$l^\pm l^\pm (\tq \sim \tg)$ $\tg(180-230)$ $\tg(320-325)$ $\tg(385-405)$ $\tg(1000)$
$all \rightarrow 3l$ $(\tq \sim \tg)$ $\tg(240-290)$ $\tg(425-440)$ $\tg(550^)$ $\stackrel{>}{\sim}\tg(1000)$
$\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow c \tz_1$ $\tilde{t}_1(80$–$100)$ $\tilde{t}_1 (120)$ $\tt_1(150)$
$\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b \tw_1$ $\tilde{t}_1(80-100)$ $\tilde{t}_1 (120)$ $\tt_1(180)$
$\Theta(\tilde{t}_1 \tilde{t}_1^*)\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ — — — $\tilde{t}_1 (250)$
$\tl \tl^*$ $\tl(50)$ $\tl(50)$ $\tl(100)$ $\tl(250$–$300)$
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------
: Estimates of the discovery reach of various options of future hadron colliders. The signals have mainly been computed for negative values of $\mu$. We expect that the reach in especially the $all \to 3\ell$ channel will be sensitive to the sign of $\mu$.
Several comments are worth noting:
- In some places, two sets of numbers are given for the reach. These correspond to results from different analyses more fully described in the review [@DPF] from where this Table is taken. Basically, the more conservative number also requires the signal to be larger than 25% of the background, in addition to exceeding the 5$\sigma$ level. Also, the two analyses do not use the same cuts.
- The multilepton rates in the Table are shown for negative values of $\mu$ and $\tan\beta=2$. For other parameters, especially for $\mu >
0$, the trilepton rates may be strongly suppressed due to a suppression of the $\tz_2$ branching fraction discussed above. Notice also that at TeV33, the reach in the leptonic channels exceeds that in the $\eslt$ channel. At the TeV33 upgrade, hadronically quiet trilepton events may be observable all the way up to the spoiler modes for favourable ranges of model parameters. It is, however, important to remember that supersymmetry may escape detection at these facilities even if sparticles are relatively light.
- At the LHC, gluinos and squarks are detectable to well beyond 1 TeV in the $1\ell$ and $\eslt$ channels, and up to 2 TeV if their masses are roughly equal. Thus the LHC should be able to probe the complete parameter space of weak scale SUSY, at least within the assumed framework. Moreover, there should be observable signals in the multilepton channels if a signal in the $\eslt$ channel is to be attributed to supersymmetry.
- Tevatron upgrades will not probe sleptons significantly beyond the reach of LEP2, whereas the LHC reach may be comparable to that of the initial phase of linear colliders.
- Tevatron upgrades should be able to detect $\tt_1$ with a mass up to 120 GeV at the MI [@BST], and up to 150-180 GeV at TeV33. [@MRENNA; @SNOWTEV] It has also been pointed out, assumming that $\tt_1 \to c\tz_1$ is its dominant decay, that it should be possible [@DN] to search for $\tt_1$ at the LHC via the two photon decay of the scalar $\tt_1\bar{\tt_1}$ bound state, in much the same way that Higgs bosons searches (to be discussed next) are carried out.
[*Higgs Bosons:*]{} At the LHC, MSSM Higgs bosons are dominantly produced [@HHG] by $gg$ fusion (via loops of quarks and squarks), and for some parameter ranges, also via $gg \to b\bar{b}H$ reactions. Vector boson fusion, which in the SM dominates these other mechanisms for large Higgs masses ($m\agt 900$ GeV) is generally unimportant, since the couplings of heavy Higgs bosons to $VV$ pairs is suppressed. Unfortunately, we do not have much time to discuss various strategies that have been suggested [@HIGGS] for the detection of the Higgs sector of SUSY. Over much of the parameter space, all the Higgs bosons except the lightest neutral scalar, $h$, are too heavy to be of interest, although for some ranges of MSSM parameters, signals from $H \to \gamma\gamma, \tau\bar{\tau}, \mu\bar{\mu}, 4\ell$ and $A\to \gamma\gamma, \tau\bar{\tau}, \mu\bar{\mu}$ may be observable. The two photon decay mode is the most promising channel for $h$ detection at the LHC. The regions of parameter space where there is some signal for an MSSM Higgs boson either at the LHC or at LEP2 have been nicely summarized in the technical report of the CMS Collaboration, [@CMS] assuming that sparticles are too heavy to be produced via Higgs boson decays. [^33] The most striking feature of their analysis is that despite optimistic detector assumptions, if the LHC is operated only at its low design luminosity option, there are regions of parameter space where [*there may be no signal for any of the Higgs bosons either at the LHC or at LEP2.*]{} Part of this hole may be excluded by analyses of rare decays such as $b\to s\gamma$ mentioned earlier.
It has been suggested [@GUN] that Higgs boson signals may also be detectable in this hole region via $t\bar{t} h$ production where a lepton from $t$ decay may be used to tag the event so that $h$ can then be detected via its dominant $b\bar{b}$ decay. This would require efficient $b$ tagging with the high luminosity option for the LHC. Whether this is technically possible is not clear at this time. A different analysis [@FROID] indicates that the with an integrated luminosity of 300 $fb^{-1}$ the LHC would be “guaranteed” to find at least one of the MSSM Higgs bosons over essentially the entire range of parameters not covered by LEP2 via signals in the $h \to \gamma\gamma$ and $A,H \to \tau\tau$ channels if the data from the ATLAS and CMS experiments are combined. It is instructive to note that there are substantial regions of parameter space where it would be possible to detect more than one Higgs boson of the MSSM.
It is clear that Higgs boson searches at the LHC pose a formidable experimental challenge. In contrast, these would be relatively easy at a linear collider, the first of many examples of the complementary nature of these facilities.
The SUSY Reach of Various Facilities: A Recapitulation
------------------------------------------------------
Because the mSUGRA model is completely determined by just four parameters, it provides a compact framework for comparing the prospects for SUSY detection via disparate SUSY processes and at different experimental facilities. Within this framework, the scale of sparticle masses is mainly determined by $m_0$ and $\mhf$ so that the $m_0-\mhf$ plane, for fixed values of $A_0$, $\tan\beta$ and $\sgn\mu$ provides a convenient panorama for comparing the capabilities of various future facilities, as shown in Fig. \[fig:SUGRA\]. Here, we have chosen $\tan\beta=2$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu> 0$. Except perhaps for very large values of $\tan\beta$, the qualitative features illustrated are only weakly sensitive to this choice.
The bricked (hatched) region is excluded by theoretical (experimental) constraints. [@BEAR] The region below the lines labeled MI and TeV33 is where experiments at the Tevatron should be able to discover SUSY, assuming an integrated luminosity of 2 and 25 fb$^{-1}$. The discovery region is a composite of several possible discovery channels, although the $\eslt$ and clean $3\ell$ channels dominate the reach. To help orient the reader, we have also shown contours for gluino and squark masses of 1 TeV.
The upper solid line of Fig. \[fig:SUGRA\] shows the boundary of the corresponding region at the LHC [@BCPT2] which essentially coincides with the discovery region in the $1\ell\ +$ jets $+\eslt$ channel. Similarly, the solid line labeled NLC500 denotes the reach of the NLC operating at $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV, as obtained using ISAJET [@BMT]. It consists of three parts: the horizontal portion at $\mhf \sim$ 300 GeV essentially follows the $m_{\tw_1}=250$ GeV contour, while the rising portion below $m_0=200$ GeV follows the $m_{\te_R}=250$ GeV contour. The reach drops when $m_{\te_R} \simeq m_{\tz_1}$ because the daughter electron becomes too soft. An observable signal from $e^+e^-
\to \tz_1\tz_2$ makes up the intermediate portion of the contour. The dashed-dotted contours mark the boundaries of the region where $\tw_1$ and/or $\te_R$ are kinematically accessible at NLC1000 or 1500. Although new backgrounds from two-to-three- and four-particle production processes have not been evaluated, we believe that this region closely approximates the reach of the NLC operating at these higher energies.
The following observations are worthy of emphasis:
- We again see that though TeV33 can probe an interesting region of parameter space, there is a significant range of parameters, consistent with qualitative upper bounds on sparticle masses from fine tuning arguments, where there is no observable signal. The discovery reach of TeV33 is not overwhelmingly larger than that of the Main Injector (MI).
- The large reach of the LHC is evident from this figure. We also see that the LHC provides a significant safety margin over the upper limits expected from fine-tuning arguments.
- For the purposes of assessing the SUSY reach (and for this purpose alone), we see that an $e^+e^-$ collider operating between $1-1.5$ TeV has a reach similar to that of the LHC.
Beyond SUSY Discovery: More Ambitious Measurements {#sec:amb}
==================================================
We have seen that if the minimal SUSY framework that we have adopted is a reasonable approximation to nature, experiments at supercolliders should certainly be able to detect signals for physics beyond the SM. If we are lucky, such signals might even show up at LEP2 or at Tevatron upgrades. We will then have to figure out the origin of these signals. If the new physics is supersymmetry, it is likely (certain at the LHC) that there will simultaneously be signals in several channels. While the observation of just one or two of these signals would convince the believers, others would probably demand stronger evidence. It is not, however, reasonable to expect that we will immediately detect all (or even several of) the super-partners. Thus, it is important to think about just what information can be obtained in various experiments, information that will help us to elucidate the nature of the underlying physics. Towards this end, we would like to be able to:
- measure any new particle’s masses and spins, and
- measure its couplings to SM particles; these would serve to pin down its internal quantum numbers.
More ambitiously, we may ask:
- Assuming that the minimal framework we have been using is correct, is it possible to measure the model parameters? Is it possible to actually provide tests for, say, the mSUGRA framework, and thus also test the assumptions about the physics at the GUT or Planck scale that are part and parcel of this picture?
- At hadron colliders, especially, where several new sparticle production mechanisms may be simultaneously present, [^34] is it possible to untangle these from one another?
- As mentioned in Sec. 1, like any other (spontaneouly broken) symmetry, supersymmetry, though softly broken, implies relationships between the various couplings in the theory. Is it possible to directly test supersymmetry by experimentally verifying these coupling constant relationships?
Mass Measurements
-----------------
[*$e^+e^-$ colliders:*]{} The clean environment of $e^+e^-$ colliders as well as the very precise energy of the beam allows for measurements of sparticle masses. We will briefly illustrate the underlying ideas with a simple example. It is easy to show that the total cross section for smuon production has the characteristic $P$-wave threshold dependence, $$\sigma(\tmu\bar{\tmu}) \propto (1-\frac{4{m_{\tmu}}^2}{s})^\frac{3}{2},$$ and further, that the energy distribution of the daughter muon from the decay of the smuon, assuming only direct decays to the LSP, is flat and bounded by [@ST] $$\frac{m_{\tmu}^2-m_{\tz_1}^2}{2(E+p)} \leq E_{\mu} \leq
\frac{m_{\tmu}^2-m_{\tz_1}^2}{2(E-p)},
\label{eq:ENDPT}$$ with $E$($p$) being the energy (momentum) of the smuon. We thus see that the energy dependence of the smuon cross section gives a measure of the smuon mass, while a measurement of the end points of the muon energy spectrum yields information about $m_{\tmu}$ as well as $m_{\tz_1}$.
Of course, theoretically these relations are valid for energy and momentum measurements made with ideal detectors without any holes and with perfect energy and momentum resolutions. In real detectors there would be smearing effects as well as statistical fluctutations. It has been shown, [@CHEN] taking these effects into account, that with an integrated luminosity of 100 $pb^{-1}$, experiments at LEP2 should be able to determine the smuon mass within 2-3 GeV. At Linear Colliders such as the JLC, an integrated luminosity of 20 $fb^{-1}$ will be sufficient [@MUR; @JLC; @FUJII] to determine the smuon and LSP masses to within 1-2 GeV. The availability of polarized beams is extremely useful to obtain pure signal samples.
If sleptons are heavy but charginos light, a study of the reaction $e^+e^- \to \tw_1\overline{\tw_1} \to
jj\tz_1+ \ell\nu\tz_1$ should allow the determination of $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ with a precision of $\alt 3$ GeV, both at LEP2 (where an integrated luminosity of about 1 $fb^{-1}$ would be necessary [@STRASSLER]) and at the JLC. A good jet mass resolution is crucial. Finally, it has also been shown [@FINNELL] that with the availability of beam polarization at linear colliders it should be possible to determine squark masses with a precision of $\sim 5$ GeV even if these decay via MSSM cascades, assuming that their decays to gluino are not allowed: in particular, it should be possible to determine the splittings between $L$- and $R$-type squarks with good precision.
Precision mass measurements are also possible [@BMT; @SNOWNLC] at Linear Colliders even if sparticles cascade decay. Since the end-points of the lepton energy spectrum in Eq. (\[eq:ENDPT\]) do not depend on the stability of the daughters, the end points of the electron energy spectrum from the process $e^+e^- \to \tnu_e\bar{\tnu_e} \to
e^-\tw_1^+e^+\tw_1^- \to e^+e^-\mu^{\pm}jj+\eslt$ provides an opportunity for simultaneous measurement of $m_{\tnu_e}$ and $m_{\tw_1}$. With a left-handed electron beam (conservatively assumed to be 80% polarized) these masses are shown to be measureable to better than 1.5%. A measurement of the $b$-jet energy in is a $e^+e^- \to
\tt_1\bar{\tt_1} \to b\tw_1 b\tw_1$ events has been shown to yield the stop mass to $6\%$ (better if $m_{\tw_1}$ is independently determined). For a discussion of other mass measurements including from three body decay of the chargino, we refer the reader to the original literature. [@BMT; @SNOWNLC].
[*Hadron Colliders:*]{} Can one say anything about sparticle masses from SUSY signals at hadron colliders? Despite the rather messy event environment, it is intuitively clear that this should be possible if one can isolate a single source of SUSY events from both SM backgrounds as well as from other SUSY sources: a study of the kinematics would then yield a measure of sparticle masses within errors determined by the detector resolution. We have already seen that it is indeed possible to isolate a relatively clean sample of $p\bar{p} \to \tw_1\tz_2 \to \ell\bar{\ell}\ell' +
\eslt$ events at the LHC. The end-point of the $m_{{\ell}\bar{\ell}}$ distribution, it has been shown, [@LHCWINO; @PHD] yields an accurate measure of $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}$.
At the 1996 Snowmass Workshop, an mSUGRA model parameter set $(m_0,\mhf, A_0,\tan\beta, \sgn\mu) = (200, 100, 0 , 2, -1)$ (all mass parameters are in GeV), which leads to a rather light sparticle spectrum, was chosen to facilitate a comparison of the capabilities of TeV33, NLC and the LHC for studying SUSY. We will refer to this as the Snowmass Point. The LHC subgroup [@SNOWLHC] showed that for this point at least, it is possible to isolate a very pure sample of gluino pair events. They identified an important decay chain $\tg \to b
\tb_1 \to bb\tz_2 \to bb\ell^+\ell^-\tz_1$ which has a combined branching fraction of 25%. Thus gluino pair production leads to very distinctive events with multiple $b$-jets and several leptons. Even allowing for $b$-tagging efficiency and other experimental cuts, they estimated that there should be $\sim$272K such events per LHC year! This enormous data sample enabled them to infer that a determination of the end point of the dilepton mass distribution will only be limited by the error in the absolute calibration of the electromagnetic calorimeter, which they estimated to be 50 MeV. These authors also went on to show how $m_{\tg}-m_{\tb_1}$ can be determined to 10% for this value of mSUGRA parameters.
A measurement of the gluino mass would be especially important at hadron colliders since gluinos cannot be pair produced by tree-level processes at $e^+e^-$ colliders. The best technique for this has been proposed by Paige [@PAIGE] also at the 1996 Snowmass Workshop. He showed that the distribution in the variable, $$M_{eff}=|p_{T1}|+|p_{T2}|+|p_{T3}|+|p_{T4}|+\eslt$$ defined as the scalar sum of the transverse energies of the four hardest jets plus $\eslt$, yields a measure of the gluino/squark mass scale defined as $M_{SUSY} = \min(m_{\tg},m_{\tu_R})$ to a precision of about 10%. The choice of $m_{\tu_R}$ to represent the squark mass scale is arbitrary. Since this method appears to require only a moderately clean SUSY sample, it should be possible to determine $M_{SUSY}$ for gluinos and squarks as heavy as 1.5 TeV after about three years of low luminosity LHC operation.
Hinchliffe [*et. al.*]{} [@HINCH] studied several different mSUGRA cases to assess the prospects for other SUSY measurements at the LHC. They showed, for instance, that it might be possible to measure the mass of $h$ produced in gluino and squark cascades via its $b\bar{b}$ decay. They estimate a precision of $\pm 1$ GeV on this measurement. For details about this, and techniques for other measurements, we refer the reader to this important study.
Determination of Spin at $e^+e^-$ colliders
-------------------------------------------
If sparticle production occurs via the exchange of a vector boson in the $s$-channel, it is easy to check that the sparticle angular distribution is given by, $\sin^2\theta$ for spin zero particles, and $E^2(1+\cos^2\theta)+m^2\sin^2\theta$ for equal mass spin $\frac{1}{2}$ sparticles. Thus if sparticles are produced with sufficient boost, the angular distribution of their daughters which will be relatively strongly correlated to that of the parent, should be sufficient to distinguish between the two cases. Chen [*et. al*]{} [@CHEN] have shown that, with an integrated luminosity of 500 $pb^{-1}$, it should be possible to determine the smuon spin at LEP2. A similar analysis [@JLC] has been performed for a 500 GeV linear collider.
Tests of the mSUGRA Framework and Determination of Model Parameters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin by recalling that within the mSUGRA GUT framework, the four parameters, $m_0$, $\mhf$, $\tan\beta$ and $A_0$, together with the sign of $\mu$ completely determine all the sparticle masses and couplings. Since the number of observables can be much larger than the number of parameters, there must exist relations between observables which can be subjected to experimental tests. In practice, such tests are complicated by the fact that there are experimental errors, and further, it may not be possible to cleanly separate between what, in principle, should be distinct observables; [*e.g.*]{} cross sections for $\eslt$ events from $\tg\tg$, $\tg\tq$ and $\tq\tq$ sources at the LHC.
Because of the clean experimental environment, the simplicity of the initial state and the availability of polarized beams, many tests can be most cleanly done at $e^+e^-$ colliders, where we have already seen that it is possible to determine sparticle masses with a precision of 1-2%. The determination of the selectron and smuon masses will allow us to test their equality $m_{\te_L}=m_{\tmu_L}$, $m_{\te_R}=m_{\tmu_R}$ at the percent level [@MUR; @JLC; @FUJII] — the same may be done with staus, though with a somewhat smaller precision. This is a test of the assumed universality of slepton masses. A comparable precision is obtained even if the sleptons do not directly decay to the LSP. [@BMT]
A different test may be possible if both $\tell_R$ and $\tw_1$ are kinematically accessible and a right-handed electron beam is available. It is then possible to measure $m_{\tz_1}$, $m_{\tw_1}$, $\sigma_R(\tell_R\bar{\tell_R})$ and $\sigma_R(\tw_1\overline{\tw_1})$ (note that the chargino cross section for right-handed electron beams has no contribution from sneutrino exchange!). These four observables can then be fitted to the four MSSM parameters $\mu$, $\tan\beta$ and the electroweak gaugino masses $M_1$ and $M_2$. In practice [@MUR; @JLC], while $\mu$ may be rather poorly determined if the chargino is dominantly a gaugino, $\frac{M_1}{M_2}$ is rather precisely obtained so that it should be possible to test the gaugino mass unification condition at the few percent level, given 50 $fb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. [^35] It may further be possible to determine $m_{\tnu_e}$ by measuring chargino production with a left-handed electron beam. This is of interest because the difference between the squared masses of the sneutrino and $\tell_L$ is a direct test of the $SU(2)_L$ gauge symmetry for sleptons. For further details and other interesting tests, we refer the reader to the original literature. [@MUR; @JLC; @FUJII]
One would naively assume that analogous tests are much more difficult at the LHC. This is because measurement of individual sparticle masses (as opposed to mass differences), which as we have just seen allows us to directly test various mSUGRA assumptions at Linear Colliders, appears to be difficult. One straightforward approach is to search for correlations amongst various signals that might be observed (along with bounds on signals that are not seen) at various colliders. To make these correlations apparent, it is convenient to display various signals as predicted by the model in the $m_0-\mhf$ plane for fixed sets of values of $\tan\beta$ and $A_0$. One would then attempt to zero in on the parameters by looking for regions of the plane for which the model predictions agree with the rates for all signals that are seen in experiments at the Tevatron, LEP2 and the LHC. One would also check that predictions for the rates for signals that are [*not*]{} seen are indeed below the sensitivity of these experiments. Such a plot would resemble Fig. \[fig:SUGRA\] except with many more contours.
A systematic study of how LHC data could serve to test the mSUGRA framework was begun by Baer [*et. al.*]{} [@BCPT2] A measurement of $m_{\tg}$ or $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}$ as discussed above would roughly fix $\mhf$, while a measurement of $m_{\tq}$ (or the gluino squark mass difference) would yield an estimate of $m_0$. A determination of the relative cross sections for different event topologies can also yield information about the underlying parameters. For instance, the ratio of the cross sections for multilepton plus jets plus $\eslt$ events and for multijet plus $\eslt$ events without leptons is significantly larger if the leptonic branching fractions of charginos and neutralinos is enhanced. Indeed such an observation would suggest that sleptons are relatively light (probably even light enough to be produced via cascade decays of gluinos and squarks) which, in turn, may lead us to infer that $m_0$ is not very large. It was shown [@BCPT2] that while $m_0$ and $\mhf$ may be roughly determined from LHC data, a determination of $\tan\beta$ or $A_0$ is difficult. The LHC subgroup study [@SNOWLHC] of the Snowmass Point showed that it should be possible to determine $m_0$, $\mhf$ and $\tan\beta$ with roughly the same precision as at Linear Colliders. [^36] In fact, their determination of $\mhf$ from the neutralino mass difference was more precise than the one obtained by the NLC Group. In contrast, the direct measurement of slepton masses yielded a better determination of $m_0$ at the NLC.
The reader may wonder whether the precision obtained by the LHC study is somehow special to the particular choice of parameters. To some extent, this is indeed the case. The sparticle spectrum for this point is so light that the SUSY event rate is enormous, so that it is possible to make extremely stringent cuts to isolate clean signal samples. Prospects for these measurements for other parameter choices were examined by Hinchliffe [*et. al.*]{} [@HINCH] It was found that $\mhf$ could typically be measured to a few percent — even for the extreme case of gluinos and squarks as heavy as 1 TeV, a precision of 10% was obtained. The precision with which other parameters can be extracted depends on the scenario. It was found that, for the most part, it is possible to obtain allowed ranges of $\tan\beta$ and $m_0$. Sometimes two solutions were obtained, in which case more detailed measurements would be necessary to discriminate between them. These studies underscore the capabilities of LHC experiments and contain the first steps towards an effective measurement strategy at the LHC.
At the LHC, it should be possible to [*falsify*]{} the mSUGRA framework (or, for that matter, any other framework specified by a small number of parameters) by a standard $\chi^2$ analysis. If it is not possible to find a consistent set of parameters that accommodates all the data (and we are convinced that our experimental friends have not made a mistake!) the assumed framework will need to be modified or discarded. If this turns out to be the case, the direct measurements of several sparticle masses (and as we shall see, some mixing angles) at Linear Colliders will directly point to the correct theoretical picture. The broader issue of how to proceed from LHC data to determine the underlying theory appears less obvious.
Identifying Sparticle Production Mechanisms at the LHC
------------------------------------------------------
At $e^+e^-$ colliders where the centre of mass energy is incrementally increased, it may be reasonable to suppose that it is unlikely (except, perhaps, for the sfermion degeneracy expected in the mSUGRA model) that several particle thresholds will be crossed at the same time. It would thus be possible to focus on just one new signal at a time, understand it and then proceed to the next stage. The situation at the LHC will be quite different. Several sparticle production processes will simultaneously occur as soon as the machine turns on, so that even if it is possible to distinguish new physics from the SM, the issue of untangling the various sparticle production mechanisms will remain. For example, even if we attribute a signal in the $\eslt + jets$ channel to sparticle production, how would we tell whether the underlying mechanism is the production of just gluinos or a combination of gluinos and squarks? [^37]
Some progress has already been made in this direction. We have already seen that the $\tw_1\tz_2$ source of trileptons can clearly be isolated from other SUSY processes. The opposite sign dilepton signal from slepton production is probably distinguishable from the corresponding signal from chargino pair production since the dileptons from slepton production always have the same flavour. [^38] To tell whether squarks are being produced in addition to gluinos, at least two distinct strategies have been suggested. The first makes use of the fact that there are more up quarks in the proton than down quarks. We thus expect many more $\tu_L\tu_L$ and $\tg\tu_L$ events as compared to $\td_L\td_L$ and $\td_L\tg$ events at the LHC. As a result, any substantial production of squarks in addition to gluinos will be signalled [@BTW2] by a charge asymmetry in the same-sign dilepton sample: cascade decays of gluinos and squarks from $\tg\tq$ and $\tq\tq$ events lead to a larger cross section for positively charged same sign dileptons than for negatively charged ones. This has since been confirmed by detailed studies by the ATLAS collaboration [@ATLAS] where the SS dilepton charge asymmetry is studied as a function of $\frac{m_{\tg}}{m_{\tq}}$, and shown to monotonically disappear as this ratio becomes small. Another method [@BCPT] for distinguishing gluino from squark [*and*]{} gluino production relies on the jet multiplicity in the $\eslt$ sample. The idea is to note that $\tq_R$, which are produced as abundantly as $\tq_L$, frequently decay directly to the LSP via $\tq_R
\to q\tz_1$ and so lead to only one jet (aside from QCD radiation). In contrast, gluinos decay via $\tg \to q\bar{q}\tw_i$ or $\tg \to
q\bar{q}\tz_i$, so that that gluino decays contain two, and frequently more, jets from their cascade decays. Thus the expected jet multiplicity is lower if squark production forms a substantial fraction of the $\eslt$ sample. Of course, since $\langle n_{jet} \rangle$ (from gluino production) depends on its mass, some idea of $m_{\tg}$ is necessary for this strategy to prove useful. A detailed simulation [@BCPT] shows that the mean value of the $n_{jet}$ distribution increases by about $\frac{1}{2}$ unit, when the squark mass is increased from $m_{\tq}=m_{\tg}$ by about 60-80%.
Cascade decays of gluinos and squarks can result in the production of the Higgs bosons of supersymmetry. It is, therefore, interesting to ask whether these can be detected in the data sample which has already been enriched in SUSY events. Neutral Higgs bosons might be detectable [@BTW2] via an enhancement of the multiplicity of central $b$-jets in the $\eslt$ or same sign dilepton SUSY samples. Some care must be exercised in drawing conclusions from this because such enhancements may also result because third generation squarks happen to be lighter than the other squarks.[^39] It has also been shown [@BCPT; @HINCH] that it may also be possible to reconstruct a mass bump in the $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distribution if there is a significant branching fraction for the decay $\tz_2 \to h\tz_1$ and $h$ is produced in events with no other $b$-jets, since otherwise we would have a large combinatorial background. The charged Higgs boson, if it is light enough, may be identifiable via the detection of $\tau$ lepton enhancements in SUSY events [@BTW2] or even in $t \to bH^+$ decays; [@FROID] it should, however, be kept in mind that such light charged Higgs bosons also contribute to the $b \to s\gamma$ decays.
We also saw that in the recent case studies for the LHC [@SNOWLHC; @HINCH] it was frequently possible to isolate specific SUSY production and decay chains by judicious choice of cuts. An example of this is gluino pair production which yielded a measurement of the mass difference, $m_{\tg}-m_{\tb_1}$, as discussed above. It appears that while the complexity and variety of potential SUSY signals precludes us from writing down a general algorithm that can be used to identify the production mechanisms that may be present in the LHC data sample, by studying the features of a [*given*]{} data set we will be able to infer a considerable amount. These sort of studies have only just begun, and considerable work remains to be done. In this respect, at least, it appears that the analysis of data from Linear Colliders will be simpler.
We stress that the complex cascade decay chains of gluinos and squarks may be easier to disentangle if we already have some knowledge about the masses and couplings of the lighter charginos and neutralinos that are produced in these decays. While it is indeed possible that $\tw_1$ may be discovered at LEP2 and that its mass is determined there, it is likely that we may have to wait for experiments at the Linear Collider to be able to pin down the couplings, and, perhaps, even for discovery of $\tw_1$ and $\tz_2$. [^40] In this case, a reanalysis of the LHC data in light of new information that may be gained from these experiments may prove to be very worthwhile: it may thus be necessary to archive this data in a form suitable for subsequent reanalysis. Once again, we see the complementary capabilities of $e^+e^-$ and hadron colliders.
Direct Tests of Supersymmetry
-----------------------------
We have already seen that supersymmetry, like any other symmetry, implies relationships [^41] between various dimensionless couplings in the theory even if it is softly broken. For example, the fermion-sfermion-gaugino (or, since the Higgs multiplet also forms a chiral superfield, the Higgs-Higgsino-gaugino) coupling is completely determined by the corresponding gauge coupling. A verification of the relation would be a direct test of the underlying supersymmetry. We emphasize that such a test would be essentially model independent as it relies only on the underlying global supersymmetry, and not on any details such as assumptions about physics at the high scale or even the sparticle content. In practice, such tests are complicated by the fact that the gauginos (or the Higgs bosons $h_u$ and $h_d$ and the corresponding Higgsinos, or for that matter, the sfermions $\tf_L$ and $\tf_R$) are not mass eigenstates, so that the mixing pattern has to be disentangled before this test can be applied. This will require an accurate measurement of several observables which can then be used to disentangle the mixing and also simultaneously to measure the relevant coupling.
Feng [*et. al.*]{} [@FMPT] have argued that such a test can be performed via a determination of chargino properties. As we have seen, the charged gaugino and the corresponding Higgsino can mix only if electroweak symmetry is broken. This is the reason why the off-diagonal terms in the chargino matrix of Eq. (\[eq:chargino\]) are equal to $-\sqrt{2}M_W\cos\beta$ and $-\sqrt{2}M_W\sin\beta$, respectively. Assuming that the chargino is a mixture of just one Dirac gaugino and one Dirac Higgsino, the most general mass matrix would contain four parameters: the two diagonal elements and the two off-diagonal ones. These latter can always be parametrized by $-\sqrt{2}M_W^{\chi}\cos\beta^{\chi}$ and $-\sqrt{2}M_W^{\chi}\sin\beta^{\chi}$. It is the SUSY constraint on the Higgs-Higgsino-gaugino coupling that forces $M_W^{\chi}=M_W$. A determination of four independent quantities that depend only on these parameters could then be used to see if the SUSY constraint $M_W^{\chi}=M_W$ is valid. How best to do this determination depends on what the underlying parameters are. Here we will merely say that these SUSY tests can be done at about the 30% level at a 500 GeV Linear Collider, and refer the reader to the original paper [@FMPT] for further information. [^42]
A more precise test has recently been suggested by Nojiri [*et. al.*]{} [@MIHOKO] These authors suggest that an accurate measurement of the cross section and angular distribution of electrons produced via $e^+e^- \to \te_R^+\te_R^-$ could lead to a 2% measurement of the electron-selectron-hypercharge gaugino coupling if an integrated luminosity of 100 $fb^{-1}$ is accumulated at Linear colliders. In any SUSY model, this coupling, at tree level, should be equal to the $U(1)_Y$ gauge coupling $g'$ up to a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient. It is instructive to note that a 2% measurement of this coupling begins to be sensitive to radiative corrections which, in turn, would be sensitive to sparticles that may be beyond the kinematic reach of the machine.
We are not aware of any proposal for an analogous test at the LHC.
Beyond Minimal Models {#sec:nonmin}
=====================
Up to now, we have mainly confined our analysis to the MSSM framework. Even then, as we saw in Sec. \[sec:framework\], the unmanageably large number of free parameters required us to make additional assumptions in order to obtain tractable phenomenology. It is clearly impractical to seriously discuss the phenomenology of the many possible extensions of the MSSM framework that have been considered. Here, we will first list some of the ways in which this framework may be modified, leaving it to the reader to figure out the implications for phenomenology. Thinking about this will also help to view our previous discussion in proper perspective. We will then select two of these modifications (for reasons explained below) and discuss their phenomenological implications in more detail.
The MSSM framework may be extended or modified in several ways, roughly arranged in order of increasing “non-minimality”.
1. We may give up the exact universality of the gaugino masses at the GUT scale. Threshold corrections due to unknown GUT, and perhaps even gravitational, interactions would certainly yield model-dependent corrections [@HALLGAUG] which preclude exact unification. It is also conceivable that there is, in fact, no grand unification at all, but the apparent unification of couplings inferred from LEP experiments is a result [@IBAN] of string type unification; in this case, the gaugino masses unify at the string scale which is generally somewhat larger than $M_{GUT}$. We have already noted that even in SUGRA type models, we do not really know the exact scale at which scalar masses unify.
We also remark that the additional assumption [@WSFN] of minimal kinetic energy terms is crucial for obtaining universal scalar masses. Any deviation from the assumed university of scalar masses will, at the very least, modify the conditions of radiative symmetry breaking. The pattern of scalar masses may also be modified by $D$-terms if the gauge group contains additional factors. Naively, one would think that if these additional symmetries are broken at a sufficiently large scale, this would have no impact upon low energy physics. This is not always the case. [@DTERM] These terms can significantly alter the pattern of sparticle masses, and hence, impact upon production and decays of sparticles. Detailed measurements of scalar masses and branching ratios in future experiments can potentially [@SNOWTH] lead to the discovery of new physics, at energy scales to which we may not have direct access at colliders during our lifetimes.
2. $R$-parity may be explicitly broken by superpotential interactions $g_1$ and $g_2$ in Eq. (\[eq:supL\]) and Eq. (\[eq:supB\]).
3. SUSY breaking may possibly occur at relatively low energies and not at $\sim 10^{10}$ GeV as in SUGRA type models where gravity is the messenger of SUSY breaking. Models [@NELS] where SUSY breaking occurs at relatively low energy ($\sim
10-100$ TeV) and is communicated by ordinary gauge interactions have recently received a lot of attention. In these Gauge Mediated Low Energy Supersymmetry Breaking (GMLESB) models the mass patterns, and hence the phenomenology, are considerably different from mSUGRA.
4. There could be additional chiral superfields even in the low energy theory: new generations (with heavy neutrinos), additional Higgs multiplets, or a right-handed sneutrino superfield. We certainly do not need new generations or new Higgs doublets, as they may spoil the apparent unification of couplings. Higgs fields in higher representations cause additional problems if they develop a VEV. Higgs singlets cannot be logically excluded, and are interesting because they allow for new quartic Higgs boson couplings, though one would have to understand what keeps them from acquiring GUT or Planck scale masses. A singlet right-handed sneutrino (note that this is [*not*]{} the superpartner of the usual neutrinos) is an interesting possibility since it occurs in $SO(10)$ GUT models, and also, because it allows for spontaneous breaking of $R$-parity conservation. [@VALLE]
5. Finally, we could consider models with extended low energy gauge groups — either left-right symmetric models [@MOHA] or models with additional $Z$ bosons. [@HR]
For want of time, we will confine ourselves to items (2) and (3) above. This is not because these extensions are necessarily more likely to be correct than the other. We consider $R$-parity violation because there are no sacred symmetry principles that forbid these interactions. We incorporated $R$-parity conservation only because we were motivated to do so for phenomenological reasons. The conservation of $R$-parity gave us valuable freebies (such as a candidate for cold dark matter) but this does not mean that it is necessarily right. We will soon see that it is possible to build perfectly acceptable models where $R$-parity is not conserved.
On another note, we will see that models where SUSY breaking occurs at the $PeV$ scale and is communicated to SM particles and their superpartners by gauge interactions are, like mSUGRA, very economic in the sense that the low energy theory can be simply parametrized. These models are very ambitious in that their goal is not only to include a mechanism for transmission of SUSY breaking, but also to obtain SUSY breaking dynamically. While this goal is yet to be realized in a compelling manner, they represent a viable alternative to the conventional picture. The resulting collider signatures, however, differ in important ways from mSUGRA expectations. From our point of view, this alone is reason enough to pay special attention to this framework.
$R$-parity Violation
--------------------
In some sense, including $R$-parity violating interactions results in the minimal extension of the MSSM because it does not require the introduction of any new particles. Notice, however, that a general analysis of this requires the introduction of 48 new parameters in the superpotential of Eq. (\[eq:supL\]) and (\[eq:supB\]): 3$\mu'$’s, 9 $\lambda$’s, 27 $\lambda'$’s and 9 $\lambda''$’s. There are relations amongst these couplings in theories with larger symmetries; [*e.g.*]{} GUTs. Many (but not all) products of the baryon- and lepton-number violating couplings are strongly constrained [@PROBIR] by the non-observation of proton decay. In fact, it is usually assumed that only one of $B$ or $L$ violation is possible, since (assuming sparticles are heavier than the proton) the only spin $\frac{1}{2}$ particles into which the proton can decay are leptons; [*i.e.*]{} the proton will be stable if either $B$ or $L$ is conserved. In phenomenological analyses, it is customary (and in light of the large number of new parameters, convenient) to assume that one of the couplings dominates. Even so, several of the couplings are strongly constrained.
In a very nice analysis, Barger [*et. al.*]{} [@BARGRVIOL] have studied the implications from various experiments — $\beta$-decay universality, lepton universality, $\nu_{\mu} e$ scattering, $e^+e^-$ forward-backward asymmetries and $\nu_{\mu}$ deep-inelastic scattering — for these new interactions. They find strong constraints on the lepton-number violating couplings, assuming [^43] that only one of the couplings is non-zero: for instance, they find that of the $\lambda$-type couplings, only $\lambda_{131}$ and $\lambda_{133}$ can exceed 0.2 (compare this with the electromagnetic coupling $e=0.3$) for a SUSY scale of 200 GeV, though several $\lambda'$ and many more of the $\lambda''$ interactions can exceed this value. Dimopoulos and Hall [@DH] have, from the upper limit on the mass of $\nu_e$, obtained a strong bound ($<
10^{-3}$) on $\lambda_{133}$. The same argument yields a stringent bound [@GOD] on $\lambda'_{133}$ and a less restrictive, but significant, bound on $\lambda'_{122}$. First generation baryon number violating interactions are strongly constrained from the non-observation of $n-\bar{n}$ oscillations or $NN \to K\bar{K} X$. [@ZWIRNER] Constraints [@PROBIR] from rare $B$ processes such as $B^+ \to
K^+\bar{K}^0$ as well as neutral $K$ and $D$ meson mixing limit $\lambda''$ couplings involving the third family. These couplings are also constrained by the precision measurements [@BHATT] of $Z^0$ properties at LEP.
The reason to worry about all this is that if $R$-parity is not conserved, both sparticle production cross sections as well as decay patterns may be altered. For instance, if $\lambda'$ interactions are dominant (with $i=1$), squarks can be singly produced as resonances [^44] in $ep$ collisions at HERA, [@DREINER] or in the case of $\lambda''$ interactions, at hadron colliders. [@HDE] The production rates will, of course, be sensitive to the unknown $R$-parity violating couplings. Likewise, if $R$-parity violating couplings are large compared to gauge couplings, these $R$-violating interactions will completely alter sparticle decay patterns.
Even if all the $\lambda$’s are too small (relative to gauge couplings) to significantly affect the production and decays of sparticles (other than the LSP), these interactions radically alter the phenomenology because the LSP decays visibly, so that the classic $\eslt$ signature of SUSY is no longer viable. Even so, sparticle detection should not be a problem in the clean environment of $e^+e^-$ colliders. In fact, LEP should be able to probe regions of parameters not explorable in the MSSM since signals from LSP pair production can now be detected. [@ALEPH]
The viability of SUSY detection at hadron colliders would clearly be sensitive to details of the model. Two extreme cases where the LSP decays either purely leptonically into $e$’s or $\mu$’s and neutrinos via $\lambda$-type couplings, or when it always decays into jets via $\lambda''$ couplings have been examined for their impact on Tevatron [@RPV; @DP] and LHC [@DGR; @BEARRPV] searches for supersymmetry. The signals, in the former case, are spectacular since the decays of each LSP yields two leptons in addition to any other leptons from direct decays of $\tw_1$ or $\tz_2$ produced in the gluino or squark cascade decays. With an integrated luminosity of 100 $pb^{-1}$ that has already been accumulated, experiments at the Tevatron should be able to probe gluinos as heavy as 500-600 GeV. In the other case where the LSP decays purely hadronically, gluino and squark detection is much more difficult than in the MSSM. The reason is that the $\eslt$ signal is greatly reduced since neutrinos are now the only sources of $\eslt$. In fact, if squarks are heavy, there may well be no reach in this channel even at the Main Injector. Further, the multilepton signals from cascade decays are also degraded because the jets from LSP decays frequently spoil the lepton isolation. Indeed if squarks are heavy, none of the SUSY signals would be observable in this run of the Tevatron; even the Main Injector will then not probe gluino masses beyond $\sim$200 GeV (350 GeV, if $m_{\tq}=m_{\tg}$).
At the LHC, attention had mainly been focussed [@DGR] on the same-sign dilepton signal from gluino pair production. In the case where the LSP decays purely leptonically, the gluino mass reach exceeds 1 TeV. A natural question to ask is what happens if the LSP only decays hadronically into three jets. In particular, is it possible that SUSY can escape detection in LHC experiments even though sparticle masses are below 1 TeV? In a recent study [@BEARRPV] using ISAJET, it was shown that even in this unfavourable case, experiments at the LHC would be able to detect SUSY signals in the $1\ell$, $\ell^+\ell^-$, $\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm}$ and $3\ell$ plus multijet channels if gluinos or squarks are lighter than 1 TeV. This study assumed that sparticle masses and mixing patterns are exactly as in the mSUGRA model, the only difference being that the LSP decayed into three quarks via the $\lambda''_{221}$ coupling. It thus seems unlikely that weak scale supersymmetry will escape detection at the LHC.
Gauge-Mediated Low Energy Supersymmetry Breaking
------------------------------------------------
The set-up in this class of models is similar in several respects to the SUGRA type models that we discussed in Sec. \[sec:sugra\]. Supersymmetry is again assumed to be dynamically broken in a hidden sector of the theory. This sector is coupled to a “messenger sector” (which then feels the effects of SUSY breaking) by a new set of gauge interactions. Some particles in the messenger sector are assumed also to have SM gauge interactions. These then induce soft SUSY breaking masses for the sfermions, gauginos and the Higgs bosons. The effective SUSY breaking scale for the observable sector is thus suppressed by $M_{mess}$ rather than $M_{Planck}$ as for gravity-mediated SUSY breaking. We thus expect this scale to be $\sim
\frac{\alpha}{4\pi} \times \mu_s^2/M_{mess}$, where $\mu_s$ is the induced SUSY breaking scale in the messenger sector, and $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant for the relevant SM gauge interaction. The effective SUSY breaking scale in the observable sector can be 100-1000 GeV even if $\mu_s$ and $M_{mess}$ are as small as tens to hundreds of TeV.
If the effective SUSY breaking scale as well as the particle content of the low energy theory is the same in GMLESB and mSUGRA models, what difference does all this make? The main difference is that the mass of the gravitino, $m_{\tG} \sim \frac{\mu_s^2}{M_{Planck}}$ is comparable to the weak scale in SUGRA type models, [^45] but is tiny if $M_{mess}$ is small. For instance, for $M_{mess} \sim 100$ TeV, $m_{\tG} \sim 1$ eV. But if gravitinos interact only with gravitational strength, why should we care? The point [@FAYET] is that gravitinos, like $W$ bosons, get their mass via the (super)-Higgs mechanism. As a result, the coupling of the longitudinal component of the gravitino of energy $E$ is enhanced by a factor $\frac{E}{m_{\tG}}$ in exactly the same way that the coupling of the longitudinal $W$ boson is enhanced by $\frac{E}{M_W}$. In other words, the effective “dimensionless” coupling of longitudinal gravitinos is $\sim\frac{E}{M_{Planck}} \times \frac{E}{m_{\tG}}$, where the first factor corresponds to the usual gravitational coupling and the second factor to the additional enhancement. For $E \sim 100$ GeV (corresponding to the weak scale) and $m_{\tG} = 1$ eV, it is easy to check that this coupling is about $10^{-6}$. The width of a particle of mass 100 GeV that decays into its superpartner and a longitudinal gravitino via this coupling is $\sim 10^{-10}$ GeV, corresponding to a lifetime of $\sim 10^{-13}$ seconds! [*Thus interactions of very light longitudinal gravitinos are obviously relevant for particle physics, and often even for collider phenomenology.*]{}
We do not have the time to delve into details of this class of models. [^46] We will, instead, focus our attention on the simplest version of this model which we will use to illustrate the differences in the phenomenology. We refer the reader to Dimopoulos [*et. al.*]{} [@THOMAS] for details of this framework as well as variants of the minimal model. This paper also spells out the underlying assumptions.
The messenger sector of the minimal GMLESB model consists of one set of “quark” and “lepton” superfields in the + representation of $SU(5)$ (the inclusion of a complete representation ensures that the successful prediction of $\sin^2\theta_W$ is not disturbed) coupled to a singlet via a superpotential $f = \lambda_1\hat{S}\hat{q}\hat{\bar{q}} +
\lambda_2\hat{S}\hat{\ell}\hat{\bar{\ell}}$. The scalar and auxiliary components of $\hat{S}$ acquire VEVs via their interactions with the hidden sector, the latter signalling the breakdown of SUSY. SM gauge interactions induce masses for the gauginos of the observable sector via one loop quantum corrections. If $\langle F
\rangle \ll \langle S \rangle^2$, these are given by, [@NELS] $$m_{\tilde{\lambda}_i}=\frac{\alpha_i}{4\pi}\Lambda,$$ where $\Lambda = \frac{\langle F \rangle}{\langle S \rangle}$. The chiral scalars feel the effects of SUSY breaking only via these gaugino masses, so that SUSY breaking squared scalar masses, which are induced as two-loop effects, are given by, $$m_{scalar}^2=2\Lambda^2 \left [ C_3(\frac{\alpha_3}{4\pi})^2 +
C_2(\frac{\alpha_2}{4\pi})^2
+\frac{3}{5}(\frac{Y}{2})^2(\frac{\alpha_1}{4\pi})^2\right ],$$ with $\alpha_1$ given in terms of the usual hypercharge coupling $g'$ by $\alpha_1=\frac{5}{3}\frac{g'^2}{4\pi}$, $C_3=\frac{4}{3}$ for colour triplets and zero for colour singlets while $C_2=\frac{3}{4}$ for weak doublets and zero for weak singlets. SUSY breaking $A$- and $B$-parameters are induced only at two-loop order and are small.
We see that the gaugino masses obey the GUT relation (\[eq:gaugino\]) although the underlying physics is quite different. It is also straightforward to see that squarks are heavier than gluinos in this minimal framework. The sfermion mass patterns are quite different from those in mSUGRA. The squarks are the heaviest, followed by $\tell_L$ followed by $\tell_R$: numerically, $m_{\tq}^2:m_{\tell_L}^2:m_{\tell_R}^2
\simeq 11.6:2.5:1.$ We should regard these masses as being defined at the scale $M_{mess}$ and evolve these to the weak scale as before. Of course, if $M_{mess} \sim 100$ TeV, the effect of the evolution on these masses is not as important as in mSUGRA. Radiative breaking nonetheless occurs as before because the Higgs boson mass parameters at the messeneger scale are much smaller than the corrseponding $t$ and $b$-squark masses. Since the $A$-parameter is only induced at higher loops, we can take $A$ to be zero at $Q=M_{mess}$. Also as before, we eliminate [^47] $B$ in favour of $\tan\beta$ so that the model is completely specified by the parameter set, $$(\Lambda, \tan\beta, M_{mess}, \sgn\mu)$$ We see that $\Lambda$ sets the scale for sparticle masses, and is thus the most important of these parameters. As in the mSUGRA framework, we expect that the phenomenology is not very sensitive to $\tan\beta$ or $\sgn\mu$. The messenger mass $M_{mess}$ only serves to determine the scale at which the mass relations are to be used as boundary conditions, so that any dependence on it is, presumably, logarithmic.
It is instructive to note that the gauge-mediation ansatz automatically guarantees that squarks (and also sleptons) with the same gauge quantum numbers will have the same mass. In particular, the first two generations of $\tq_L$ (also, separately, $\tq_R$) are degenerate [*without invoking the need for additional symmetries such as the global $U(N)$ that was needed in mSUGRA*]{}. These models are, therefore, advertised as naturally being free of flavour changing neutral current problems. That this is being somewhat oversold can be seen by noting that the messenger “leptons” and one of the MSSM Higgs doublets has the same quantum numbers. There is, therefore, no reason why the messenger “sleptons” cannot couple to the quarks in the same way as the usual Higgs scalar. Then, we will have more than one scalar with Yukawa coupling to the same quarks, which, as is well known, [@GLASHOW] leads to FCNC problems. Even in these models a discrete symmetry seems necessary to prevent these couplings. [^48] A definite disadvantage of this framework [*vis à vis*]{} mSUGRA is that we lose $\tz_1$ as a candidate for cold dark matter.
Phenomenologically, the major difference comes from the fact that $\tz_1$ which is frequently lighter than all sparticles other than the gravitino, is now unstable, and can decay via $\tz_1 \to \gamma\tG$, and possibly also via $\tz_1 \to Z\tG$ or $\tz_1 \to H_i\tG$ ($H_i=h,H,A$). The branching fraction for other sparticles to directly decay to the gravitino are small since, as we saw, the effective dimensionless gravitino coupling was much smaller than any of the gauge couplings. Thus heavy sparticles cascade decay to lighter sparticles exactly as in the MSSM (with masses and mixing angles fixed to be as given by the GMLESB model) until the next to lightest superparticle (NLSP) is reached. The NLSP is, however, unstable and, depending on the messenger scale, [@GMLESB; @BAGGER] may decay inside the detector. [^49] If this is $\tz_1$, it will decay via $\tz_1 \to \gamma\tG$; the gravitino escapes undetected, so that SUSY event topologies are characterized by multijet plus multilepton plus $\eslt$ [*together with two photons*]{} (not both of which will be necessarily detected in the experimental apparatus) in the final state. It is worth mentioning that the lifetime of $\tz_1$ can be rather long so that the photons need not emerge from the primary vertex in the event. In fact, the gap between the primary and secondary vertices can yield a measure of the messenger scale. At the LHC where event rate is generally not a problem, it may be experimentally easier to measure this gap via the subdominant decay $\tz_1
\to \tG e^+e^-$ of the neutralino.
The CDF experiment has seen one event which caused a considerable amount of excitement amongst the champions [@CHAMPS] of these models. Specifically, they saw an event with an isolated $e^+e^-$ pair together with a pair of hard, isolated photons and $\eslt$. This event was interpreted as the selectron pair production with the subsequent decay $\te \to e\tz_1 \to e \gamma \tG$ of each selectron. To see if this explanation is viable, Baer [*et. al.*]{} [@GMLESB] computed the cross sections in the various event topologies that would be expected at the Tevatron as a function of $\Lambda$ which, we remind the reader, sets the scale of sparticle masses. As in the mSUGRA framework, they found that multijet plus multileptons (plus photon) events occur at a significantly larger rate than clean multilepton events without jet activity. If $\Lambda$ is adjusted so that one $e^+e^-\gamma\gamma$ event is expected in the current run of the Tevatron, they showed that several tens of $\gamma\gamma$ plus multijet plus multilepton and isolated $\gamma$ plus multijet plus multilepton events should also have been present after experimental cuts. SM backgrounds to these characteristic event topologies are small, and it is difficult to imagine how these events could have escaped detection. This conclusion, it is argued, is valid even if the messenger sector is more complicated. The GMLESB explanation of the CDF event, therefore, appears to be unlikely. Indeed a very recent analysis by the D0 Collaboration [@GMD0] finds that the $\eslt$ spectrum for the $pp \to
\gamma\gamma + X$ channel at the Tevatron appears to be in complete agreement with SM expectation. In particular, there is no excess at the high $\eslt$ end as would be expected in the GMLESB framework.
Before closing, we should also mention that the NLSP need not necessarily be $\tz_1$. Since it is unstable, the cosmological constraints that we have discussed do not apply so that it may even be charged. In fact, for large values of $\tan\beta$, $\ttau_1$ is often the NLSP and decays via $\ttau_1 \to \tau\tG$. In this case, all SUSY events would contain multiple, isolated $\tau$ leptons in the final state instead of photons and collider signals would be correspondingly altered. [@DUTTA]
Concluding Remarks {#concl}
==================
We have seen that experiments at the LHC should be able to explore essentially the whole parameter space of weak scale supersymmetry if we require that sparticles provide the degrees of freedom that stabilize the electroweak symmetry breaking sector. While experiments at Tevatron upgrades or LEP2 will explore substantial regions of this parameter space, and maybe even discover sparticles, a non-observation of any signal should not be regarded as disheartening: the expected mass scale is several hundred GeV up to a TeV, and so may well not be accessible except at supercolliders. Electron-positron linear colliders, with a centre of mass energy of 500-1000 GeV should also be able to discover sparticles (almost certainly so if the frequently assumed unification condition for gaugino masses is correct). Linear colliders are the ideal facility for the discovery and subsequent detailed study of Higgs bosons. [^50]
The mSUGRA model that we have described in Sec. \[sec:sugra\] provides a consistent and calculable framework for SUSY phenomenology. It is consistent with all accelerator, astrophysical and cosmological data, with grand unification, and can incorporate (though not explain) the observed pattern of electroweak symmetry breaking. Furthermore, because SUSY is a decoupling theory in that virtual effects of sparticles become suppressed if their masses are much larger than $M_Z$, the observed agreement of the SM with LEP constraints is simply incorporated. These models also provide a natural candidate for cold dark matter.
We have seen, however, that the mSUGRA framework is based on extrapolation of the symmetries of physics at very high scales. It is important to keep in mind that one or more of its underlying assumptions may prove to be incorrect. This is especially important when considering the design of future high energy physics facilities. While it is reasonable to use the model as a guide, it is important to examine just how sensitively the various signals depend on these assumptions. The important thing, however, is that these assumptions will be testable in future experiments. For instance, even a partial determination of the pattern of sparticle masses, about which we will get information from experiments at the LHC and at Linear Colliders, will serve to guide us to the physics of SUSY breaking. We will be able to learn whether the ideas underlying mSUGRA, GMLESB, or other alternatives [@PESKIN; @SNOWTH] that we have not been able to discuss are correct. All experimental measurements — not just sparticle masses — will be useful for this purpose. We may learn about gaugino-Higgsino mixing via knowledge of their decay patterns, while a study of third generation sfermions may provide information [@MIH] about their intra-generational mixing (which again may serve to discriminate between models).
Experiments at supercolliders are essential both for a complete exploration of the entire parameter space, and for the elucidation of any new phenomena that might be discovered. Experiments at the LHC and TeV Linear Colliders will unambiguously discover or exclude weak scale supersymmetry. Together, these facilities will allow a comprehensive study of sparticle properties (if SUSY is discovered) which, in turn, will yield information about physics at higher energy scales. Even if SUSY turns out not to be The Answer, we will almost certainly learn something new, and probably unexpected, in these experiments.
Before closing, we should remind ourselves that SUSY theories, in spite of all the attention that they have received, are not a panacea. Supersymmetry really addresses a single (but very important) issue: how is electroweak symmetry broken? It does not shed [*any*]{} light on the other shortcomings of the SM. For example, SUSY has nothing to say about the pattern of fermion masses and mixings, the replication of generations, the choice of the gauge group or of the particle multiplets. While there are new sources of $CP$ violation in SUSY theories, it is fair to say that SUSY models do not really explain the origin of this. Finally, even in SUSY theories, the cosmological constant needs to be severely fine-tuned to be consistent with observation. Supersymmetric theories also cause new problems not present in the SM. We should ask:
- Why are baryon and lepton number conserved at low energy when it is possible to write dimension four $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ invariant interactions that allow for their non-conservation? Perhaps this tells us something about symmetries at the high scale.
- Why is the supersymmetric parameter $\mu \sim
M_{Weak}$?
- What is the origin of SUSY breaking and why are SUSY breaking parameters fifteen orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale?
- Why are $CP$ violation and FCNC from new SUSY sources so small?
We do not know the answers to these and probably several other questions, although many interesting suggestions exist in the literature. Perhaps clues to some of these questions lie in the unknown mechanism of SUSY breaking. We really need guidance from experiment in order to know which directions are fruitful for theory to pursue. We should, of course, always keep open the possibility that it is not supersymmetry, but some totally different mechanism that is responsible for stabilizing the electroweak scale. Only experiments can tell whether weak scale supersymmetry is realized in nature. What is clear, however, is that the exploration of the TeV scale will provide essential clues for unravelling the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking interactions. We must look to see what we find.
[**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**]{}
I thank Sergio Novaes and João Barata for inviting me to lecture at this School, and for the magnificent arrangements in Campos do Jordão. I am also grateful to Oscar Eboli for facilitating my trip to Brazil, as well as for arranging my visit to the University of São Paulo. I thank them all, and also many new friends, for their gracious hospitality. Memories of Tucupi and Rubaiyat are still fresh. I thank H. Baer, V. Barger, M. Drees and T. ter Veldhuis for their valuable comments on the manuscript. It is also a pleasure to thank numerous collaborators and colleagues for the many discussions on the subject of supersymmetry. Without their input, these Lectures would not have been possible. This research is supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG-03-94ER40833.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} For text book reviews of the Standard Model, see [ *e.g.*]{} F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, [*Quarks and Leptons*]{}, John Wiley (1984); L. Okun, [*Leptons and Quarks*]{}, North-Holland (1982); V. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips, [*Collider Physics*]{}, Addison-Wesley (1987), Updated Edition (1996). The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and the LEP Electroweak Working Group, CERN-PPE/95-172 (1995). See [*e.g.*]{} K. Hagiwara, Talk presented at XVII International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies, Beijing, China, August 1995, KEK-TH-461, hep-ph/9512425 (1995). See [*e.g.*]{} L. Susskind, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D20**]{}, 2619 (1979). D. Dicus and V. Mathur, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D7**]{}, 3111 (1973); B. Lee, C. Quigg and H. Thacker, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D16**]{}, 1519 (1977). For reviews, see R. Kaul, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**55**]{}, 449 (1981) and E. Fahri and L. Susskind, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**74**]{}, 277 (1981). For a review, see M. Peskin, Proc. International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High energy (Bonn,1981), W. Pfiel, Editor, p 880. Y. Golfand and E. Likhtman, [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**13**]{}, 323 (1971); D. Volkov and V. Akulov, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B46**]{}, 109 (1973). J. Wess and B. Zumino, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B70**]{}, 39 (1974). Other recent introductory lectures on supersymmetry the reader may use for different approaches and viewpoints include, R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, [*Lectures presented at the VII J. A. Swieca Summer School, Campos do Jordao, Brazil, 1993*]{} CTP-TAMU-52/93; J. Bagger in [*QCD and Beyond*]{}, Proceedings of the 1995 TASI, D. Soper, Editor (World Scientific, 1996); M. Drees, KEK-TH-501, hep-ph/9611409 (1996); S. Dawson, hep-ph/9612229 (1996); M. Dine, hep-ph/9612389 (1996). The CMS Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94-38 (1994). The ATLAS Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94-43 (1994). S. Kuhlman [*et. al.*]{} SLAC Report 485 (1996). JLC Group Report, “JLC-1”, KEK Report 92-16 (1992). See [*e.g.*]{} T. Barklow [*et. al.*]{} hep-ph/9704217 (1997) and T. Han, hep-ph/9704215 (1997). For text-book introductions to supersymmetry, see J. Wess and J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and Supergravity,*]{} (Princeton University Press, 1983); G. G. Ross, [*Grand Unified Theories*]{} (Benjamin/Cummings, 1985); P. West, [*Introduction to Supersymmetry and Supergravity*]{}, (World Scientific, 1986); R. N. Mohapatra, [*Unification and Supersymmetry*]{}, (Springer- Verlag, 1986); H. J. Müller-Kirsten and A. Wiedemann, [*Supersymmetry: An Introduction with Conceptual and Calculational Details*]{} (World Scientific, 1987). E. Witten, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B188**]{}, 513 (1982); R. Kaul, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B109**]{}, 19 (1982). S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B193**]{}, 150 (1981); N. Sakai, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C11**]{}, 153 (1981). R. Haag, J. Lopuszanski and M. Sohnius, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B88**]{}, 61 (1975). D. Olive, [*these Proceedings*]{}. A. Salam and J. Strathdee, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D11**]{}, 1521 (1975). P. Fayet and J. Illiopoulos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B51**]{}, 461 (1974). M. T. Grisaru, W. Siegel and M. Rocek, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B159**]{}, 429 (1979); S. Ferrara and O. Piguet, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B93**]{}, 261 (1975); J. Honerkamp [*et. al.*]{} [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B95**]{}, 397 (1975). K. Inoue, A. Kakuto and S. Takeshita, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**71**]{}, 348 (1984); M. Drees and X. Tata, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**206**]{}, [**B206**]{}, 259 (1988). L. O’Raifeartaigh, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B96**]{}, 331 (1975). P. Fayet, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B90**]{}, 104 (1975). L. Girardello and M. Grisaru, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B194**]{}, 65 (1982). For general reviews see, H. Haber and G. Kane, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**117**]{}, 75 (1985); [*Properties of SUSY Particles*]{}, L. Cifarelli and V. Khoze, Editors, World Scientific (1993); V. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips, in [*Recent Advances in the Superworld*]{}, J. Lopez and D. Nanopoulos, Editors (World Scientific, 1994). A. Salam and J. Strathdee, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B87**]{}, 85 (1975); P. Fayet, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B90**]{}, 104 (1975). J. Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane and S. Dawson, [*The Higgs Hunter’s Guide*]{}, (Addison-Wesley, 2nd printing, 1991). Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi, T. Yanagida, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**85**]{}, 1 (1991); J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, and F. Zwirner, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B257**]{}, 83 (1991); H.E. Haber, R. Hempfling, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**66**]{}, 1815 (1991). G. Kane, C. Kolda and J. Wells, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{}, 2686 (1993). See also references therein. N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B158**]{}, 295 (1979); M. Lindner, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C31**]{}, 295 (1986). J. Kamoshita, Y. Okada and M. Tanaka, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B328**]{}, 67 (1994). The Particle Data Group, R. M. Barnett [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{} Part 1 (1996). S. Wolfram, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B82**]{}, 65 (1979); C. B. Dover, T. Gaisser and G. Steigman, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**42**]{}, 1117 (1979). P. F. Smith [*et. al.*]{} [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B149**]{}, 525 (1979) and [**B206**]{}, 333 (1982); E. Norman [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**58**]{}, 1403 (1987); T. K. Hemmick [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D41**]{}, 2074 (1990). T. Moroi, Tohoku University Ph.D. thesis, TU-479 (1995). D. Freedman, S. Ferrara and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D13**]{}, 3214 (1976); S. Deser and B. Zumino, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B62**]{}, 335 (1976); D. Freedman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D14**]{}, 912 (1976). H. P. Nilles, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**110**]{}, 1 (1984) is a very nice early review of supergravity phenomenology. For a relatively recent review of model-building, see M. Drees and S. Martin, in [*Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and New Physics at the TeV Scale,*]{} edited by T. Barklow, S. Dawson, H. Haber and J. Siegrist (World Scientific, to be published), hep-ph/9504324 (1995). G. Farrar and S. Weinberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D27**]{}, 2732 (1983) and references therein. R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C. Savoy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B119**]{}, 343 (1982) R. Arnowitt, A. Chamseddine and P. Nath, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**49**]{}, 970 (1982) and [**50**]{}, 232 (1983); L. Ibañez, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B118**]{}, 73 (1982); H. P. Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B120**]{}, 346 (1983). L. Hall, J. Lykken and S. Weinberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D27**]{}, 2359 (1983) and references therein. See M. Dine, Ref.[@LECTURES]; J. Bagger, Ref.[@LECTURES] K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and H. Takeshita, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**68**]{}, 927 (1982) and [**71**]{}, 413 (1984). S. Martin and M. Vaughn, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B318**]{}, 331 (1993). B. Campbell, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**28**]{}, 209 (1983); F. Gabbiani and A. Masiero, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B322**]{}, 235 (1989). Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B309**]{}, 337 (1993); S. Dimopoulos, G. Giudice and N. Tetradis, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B454**]{}, 59 (1995). L. Ibañez and G. Ross, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B110**]{}, 215 (1982); L. Ibañez, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B118**]{}, 73 (1982); J. Ellis, D. Nanopoulos and K. Tamvakis, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B121**]{}, 123 (1983); L. Alvarez-Gaumé, J. Polchinski and M. Wise, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B221**]{}, 495 (1983). Analyses of supergravity mass patterns include, G. Ross and R. G. Roberts, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B377**]{}, 571 (1992); R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{}, 725 (1992); M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B369**]{}, 54 (1992); S. Kelley, J. Lopez, D. Nanopoulos, H. Pois and K. Yuan, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B398**]{}, 3 (1993); M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B404**]{}, 590 (1993); V. Barger, M. Berger and P. Ohmann, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 4908 (1994); G. Kane, C. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J. Wells, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 6173 (1994); D. J. Castaño, E. Piard and P. Ramond, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 4882 (1994); W. de Boer, R. Ehret and D. Kazakov, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C67**]{}, 647 (1995). L. Ibañez, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B303**]{}, 55 (1993) and [**B318**]{}, 73 (1993); see also K. Dienes, IAS preprint, IASSNS-HEP-95/97, hep-th/9602045 (1996) ([*Phys. Rep.*]{}, in press). See [*e.g.*]{} N. Polonsky and A.. Pomarol, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 2292 (1994). T. Banks and L. Dixon, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B307**]{}, 93 (1988). See [*e.g.*]{} F. Quevedo, [*Lectures on Supersting Phenomenology,*]{} presented at [*V Latin American Workshop on Particles and Fields*]{}, Puebla, Mexico, November 1995, CERN-TH/96-65, hep-ph/9603074 (1996). R. Barbieri and L. Hall, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B338**]{}, 212 (1994). H. Baer [*et. al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B161**]{}, 175 (1985); G. Gamberini. [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C30**]{}, 605 (1986); G. Gamberini, G. Giudice, B. Mele and G. Ridolfi, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B203**]{}, 453 (1988); R. M. Barnett, J. Gunion and H. Haber, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D37**]{}, 1892 (1988); A. Bartl, W. Majerotto, B. Mösslacher and N. Oshimo, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C52**]{}, 477 (1991). H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Karatas and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D36**]{}, 96 (1987). H. Baer, A. Bartl, D. Karatas, W. Majerotto and X. Tata, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A4**]{}, 4111 (1989). K. Hikasa and M. Kobayashi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D36**]{}, 724 (1987). W. Porod and T. Wöhrmann, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 2907 (1997). H. Baer [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 2148 (1994). H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D42**]{}, 1568 (1990); see also, E. Ma and G. G. Wong, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A3**]{}, 1561 (1988); R. Barbieri [*et. al.*]{} [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B301**]{}, 15 (1988). H. Baer and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D47**]{}, 2739 (1993). H. Baer, C-H. Chen, C. Kao and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 1565 (1995). S. Mrenna, G. Kane, G. D.Kribbs and J. D. Wells, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 1168 (1996). H. Baer, D. Dicus, M. Drees and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D36**]{}, 1363 (1987). A. Bartl, H. Fraas and W. Majerotto, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C30**]{}, 411 (1986), [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C41**]{}, 475 (1988) and [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B278**]{}, 1 (1986); A. Bartl, H. Fraas, W. Majerotto and B. Mösslacher, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C55**]{}, 257 (1992). H. Baer, C-H. Chen, M. Drees, F. Paige and X. Tata, Hawaii preprint UH-511-870-97, hep-ph/9704457 (1997). H. Komatsu and H. Kubo, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B157**]{}, 90 (1985) and [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B263**]{}, 265 (1986). H. Haber and D. Wyler, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B323**]{}, 267 (1989). P. Harrison and C. Llewellyn-Smith, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B213**]{}, 223 (1983) and [**B223**]{}, 542 (E) (1983); G. Kane and J. P. Leveille, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B112**]{}, 227 (1982); S. Dawson, E. Eichten and C. Quigg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D31**]{}, 1581 (1985); H. Baer and X. Tata, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B160**]{}, 159 (1985). W. Beenakker, R. Hopker, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 2905 (1995); [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C69**]{}, 163 (1995) and DESY preprint DESY-96-150, hep-ph/9610490 (1996). H. Baer, D. Dzialo-Karatas and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D42**]{}, 2259 (1990); see also S. Dawson, E. Eichten and C. Quigg, Ref. [@SQGLPROD]. R. Barbieri and G. Giudice, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B306**]{}, 63 (1988); G. Anderson and D. Castaño, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 1693 (1995). F. Paige and S. Protopopescu, in [*Supercollider Physics*]{}, p. 41, ed. D. Soper (World Scientific, 1986); H. Baer, F. Paige, S. Protopopescu and X. Tata, in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics at Current Accelerators and Supercolliders*]{}, ed. J. Hewett, A. White and D. Zeppenfeld, (Argonne National Laboratory, 1993), hep-ph/9305342 (1993). S. Mrenna, Argonne National Laboratory preprint, ANL-HEP-PR-96-63, hep-ph/9609360 (1996). S. Katsanevas and S. Melachroinos, SUSYGEN. This program can be generalized to allow simulations of models with an additional Higgs singlet. LEP2 Event Generators Working Group, M. Mangano, G. Ridolfi [*et. al.*]{}, hep-ph/9602203. J-F. Grivaz, in Proceedings of the [*International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics*]{}, Brussels, Belgium, 1995, J. Lemone, C. Vander Velde and F. Verbeure, Editors (World Scientific, 1996) S. Abachi [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{}, 618 (1995); J. Wightman, in Proceedings of the [*International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics*]{}, Brussels, Belgium, 1995, Ref. [@LEPSUSY]; F. Abe [*et. al.*]{} Fermilab-Pub-97/031-E (1997). F. Abe [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 2006 (1996); D. Abachi [*et. al.*]{} Fermilab-Conf-96/254-E (1996). S. Abachi [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 2222 (1996). R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{}, 725 (1992); J. Hisano, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B402**]{}, 46 (1993); J. Lopez, D. Nanonopoulos, and H. Pois, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D47**]{}, 2468 (1993). H. Goldberg, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**50**]{}, 1419 (1983); J. Ellis, K. Olive, D. Nanopoulos, J. Hagelin and M. Srednicki, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B328**]{}, 453 (1984). For discussions in the context of the mSUGRA model, see [*e.g.*]{} M. Drees and M. Nojiri, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D47**]{}, 376 (1993); H. Baer and M. Brhlik, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 597 (1996) and references therein. H. Baer, M. Drees and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D41**]{}, 3414 (1990); J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi and F. Zwirner, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B237**]{}, 423 (1990); M. Drees and X. Tata, [*Phys Rev.*]{}, [**D43**]{}, 2971 (1991); A. Sopczak, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A10**]{}, 1057 (1995). S. P. Ahlen [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B195**]{}, 603 (1987); D. Caldwell [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**61**]{}, 510 (1988) and [**65**]{}, 1305 (1990); D. Reusser [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B235**]{}, 143 (1991). M. Mori [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D48**]{}, 5505 (1993) and references therein. M. Chen, C. Dionisi, M. Martinez, and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**159**]{}, 201 (1988). Y. Pan, presented at [*PHENO 97, Recent Developments in Phenomenology*]{}, Madison, WI, March 1997. M. S. Alam [*et. al.*]{} (CLEO Collaboration) [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 2885 (1995). N. Deshpande [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**59**]{}, 183 (1987); S. Bertolini [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**59**]{}, 180 (1987); A. Anlauf, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**340**]{}, 245 (1994); M. Ciucini [*et. al.*]{} [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B415**]{}, 403 (1994); A. Buras [*et. al.*]{} [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B424**]{}, 374 (1994); M. Misiak and M. Münz, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B344**]{}, 308 (1995); A. Ali and C. Greub, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B361**]{}, 146 (1995); K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Münz, hep-ph/9612313 (1996). S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and G. Ridolfi, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B353**]{}, 591 (1991); for a recent study, see H. Baer and M. Brhlik, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 3201 (1997) and references therein. T. Goto [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 4273 (1997). The literature on this is vast. See [*e.g.*]{} M. Dugan, B. Grinstein and L. Hall, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B255**]{}, 413 (1985) for the underlying ideas. C. Dionisi [*et al*]{}., in [*ECFA Workshop on LEP 200*]{} (Aachen, 1987), CERN 87-08, Vol. II, p. 380. J.-F. Grivaz, in [*Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop of the INFN Eloisatron Project*]{}, L. Cifarelli and V.A. Khoze, Editors (World Scientific 1993). G. Giudice [*et. al.*]{} Report of LEP2 Working Group on Searches for New Physics, hep-ph/9602207. H. Baer, M. Brhlik, R. Munroe and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 5031 (1995). T. Tsukamoto, K. Fujii, H. Murayama, M. Yamaguchi and Y. Okada, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 3153 (1995). J-F. Grivaz in [*Physics and Experiments with Linear Colliders*]{}, Saariselkä, Finland, ed. by R. Orava, P. Eerola, and M. Nordberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992); R. Becker and C. Vandervelde in [*Physics and Experiments with Linear $e^+e^-$ Colliders*]{}, Waikaloa, Hawaii, ed. by F. Harris, S. Olsen, S. Pakvasa and X. Tata (World Scientific, 1993); see also, S. Orito, [*ibid.*]{} K. Fujii in in Proceedings of the Workshop on [*Physics and Experiments with Linear Colliders*]{}, Morioka-Appi, Iwate, Japan, A. Miyamoto [*et. al.*]{} Editors (World Scientific, 1996) H. Baer, R. Munroe and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}, 6735 (1996). Report of NLC Subgroup of the Supersymmetry Working Group, Snowmass 1996, M. Danielson [*et. al.*]{} (1996). J. Feng and D. Finnell, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 2369 (1994). A. Sopczak, [*Presented at the IX International Workshop on High Energy Physics, Moscow, Sep 1994*]{}, hep-ph/9504300; P. Janot in [*Physics and Experiments with Linear $e^+e^-$ Colliders*]{}, Waikaloa, Hawaii, ed. by F. Harris, S. Olsen, S. Pakvasa and X. Tata (World Scientific, 1993). T. Kamon, J. Lopez, P. McIntyre and J. T. White, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 5676 (1994). Report of Tevatron Subgroup of the Supersymmetry Working Group, Snowmass 1996, S. Mrenna [*et. al.*]{} (1996) V. Barger, Y. Keung and R. J. N. Phillips, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 166 (1985). R. M. Barnett, J. Gunion and H. Haber, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B315**]{}, 349 (1993). H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D41**]{}, 906 (1990). H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 2180 (1995). H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D48**]{}, R2978 (1993). R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A2**]{}, 331 (1987). H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D48**]{}, 5175 (1993). L. Nodulman, in Proceedings of the [*International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics*]{}, Brussels, Belgium, 1995, Ref. [@LEPSUSY]. H. Baer, M. Drees, R. Godbole, J. Gunion and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D44**]{}, 725 (1991). H. Baer, J. Sender and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 4517 (1994). S. Abachi [*et. al.*]{} Fermilab Pub-96/449-E, hep-ex/9612009. H. Baer, C-H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 3283 (1994). H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D45**]{}, 142 (1992). H. Baer, C-H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 2746 (1995). H. Baer, C-H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 6241 (1996). H. Baer, C-H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 4508 (1994); see also, R. Barbieri, F. Caravaglios, M. Frigeni and M. Mangano, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B367**]{}, 28 (1991). C-H. Chen, Ph.D thesis, FSU-HEP-950720. F. del Aguila and Ll. Ametller, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B261**]{}, 326 (1991). See H. Baer [*et. al.*]{} in Ref. [@DMART] M. Drees and M. Nojiri, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 4595 (1994). V. Barger, M. S. Berger, A. Stange and R. J. N. Phillips, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D45**]{}, 4128 (1992); H. Baer, M. Bisset, C. Kao and X. Tata. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D46**]{}, 1067 (1992); J. Gunion and L. Orr, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D46**]{}, 2052 (1992); Z. Kunszt and F. Zwirner, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B385**]{}, 3 (1992); G. Kane [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 213 (1996). For recent reviews, see J. Gunion, A. Stange and S. S. D. Willenbrock in Ref. [@DMART]; A. Djouadi, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A10**]{}, 1 (1995). H. Baer, M. Bisset, D. Dicus, C. Kao and X. Tata. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D47**]{}, 1062 (1993). H. Baer, M. Bisset, C. Kao and X. Tata. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 316 (1994). J. Dai, J. Gunion and R. Vega, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B315**]{}, 355 (1993). D. Froidevaux, F. Gianotti, L. Poggioli, E. Richter-Was, D. Cavalli and S. Resconi, ATLAS Internal Note, PHYS. No. 74 (1995). H. Baer, C-H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}, 5866 (1996). T. Schimert and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D32**]{}, 721 (1985). J. L. Feng and M. J. Strassler, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 4661 (1995). Report of LHC Subgroup of the Supersymmetry Working Group, Snowmass 1996, A. Bartl [*et. al.*]{} (1996). F. Paige, to appear in 1996 Snowmass Proceedings, hep-ph/9609373 (1996). I. Hinchliffe [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 5520 (1997). K. Hikasa and Y. Nakamura, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C70**]{}, 139 (1996); [*ibid.*]{} [**C71**]{}, 356 (1996) (E). J. Feng, H. Murayama, M. Peskin and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 1418 (1995). M. Nojiri, K. Fujii and T. Tsukamoto, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}, 6756 (1996). See [*e.g.*]{} R. Barbieri and L. Hall, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**68**]{}, 752 (1992); L. Hall and U. Sarid, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{}, 2673 (1993). S. K. Soni and H. A. Weldon [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B126**]{}, 215 (1983). M. Drees, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B181**]{}, 279 (1986); for recent studies, see Y. Kawamura, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 1337 (1995); H-C. Cheng and L. Hall, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 5289 (1995); C. Kolda and S. Martin, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 3871 (1996). Report of the Theory Subgroup of the Supersymmetry Working Group, Snowmass 1996, J. Amundson [*et. al.*]{} hep-ph/9609374 (1996). M. Dine and A. Nelson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D48**]{}, 1277 (1993); M. Dine, A. Nelson and Y. Shirman, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 1362 (1995); M. Dine, A. Nelson, Y. Nir and Y. Shirman, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 2658 (1996); M. Dine, Y. Nir and Y.Shirman, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 1501 (1997). See [*e.g.*]{} A. Masiero and J. Valle, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B253**]{}, 273 (1990). See [*e.g.*]{} R. N. Mohapatra, Ref. [@REV] J. Hewett and T. Rizzo, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**183**]{}, 193 (1989). C. Carlson, P. Roy and M. Sher, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B357**]{}, 99 (1995). V. Barger, G. Giudice and T. Han, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D40**]{}, 2987 (1989). S. Dimopoulos and L. Hall, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B207**]{}, 210 (1987); R. Godbole, P. Roy and X. Tata, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B401**]{}, 67 (1992); G. Bhattacharya and D. Choudhury, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A10**]{}, 1699 (1995). F. Zwirner, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B132**]{}, 103 (1983); R. Barbieri and A. Masiero, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B267**]{}, 679 (1986). For a review, see G. Bhattacharya, Pisa Preprint, IFUP-TH-52/96, hep-ph/9608415 and references therein. M. Drees, APCTP preprint, APCTP-97-03, hep-ph/9703332 (1997). J. Butterworth and H. Dreiner, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B397**]{}, 3 (1993). S. Dimopoulos, R. Esmailzadeh and L. Hall, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D41**]{}, 2099 (1990). D. Buskulic [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B349**]{}, 238 (1995). D. P. Roy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B283**]{}, 270 (1992). H. Dreiner, M. Guchait and D. P. Roy, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D49**]{}, 3270 (1994). H. Baer, C-H. Chen and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 1466 (1997). J. Ellis, K. Enqvist and D. Nanopoulos, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B147**]{}, 99 (1984); [*ibid*]{}. [**B151**]{}, 357 (1985). P. Fayet, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B70**]{}, 461 (1977). See [*e.g.*]{} H. Murayama, LBNL-40286, hep-ph/9705271 (1997) and references therein. S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas and J. Wells, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B488**]{} 39, (1997). K. Babu, C. Kolda and F. Wilczek, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{}, 3070 (1996). H. Baer, M. Brhlik, C-H. Chen and X. Tata, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 4463 (1997). S. Glashow and S. Weinberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D15**]{}, 1958 (1977). J. Bagger, K. Matchev, D. Pierce and R. Zhang [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 3188 (1997). S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, M. Dine and S. Thomas, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 3494 (1996); S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas and J. Wells, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}, 3283 (1996); S. Ambrosanio [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 3498 (1996) and [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}, 5395 (1996); K. Babu [*et. al.*]{} Ref. [@BABU] S. Abachi [*et. al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 2070 (1997). D. Dicus, B. Dutta and S. Nandi, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 3055 (1997) and Texas Preprint DOE-ER-40757-097, hep-ph/9704225 (1997). V. Barger, M. Berger, J. Gunion and T. Han, Wisconsin preprint, MAD/PH-96-930, hep-ph/9602415 (1996). M. Peskin, Ref. [@FUJII] and [*Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl.*]{} [**123**]{}, 507 (1996). M. Nojiri, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 6281 (1995).
[^1]: Lectures presented at the IX Jorge A. Swieca Summer School, Campos do Jordão, Brazil, February 1997.
[^2]: Sometimes physicists have entertained the possibility that observed deviations between experiment and theoretical predictions point toward new physics. Frequently, the effects discussed are at the $2-3\sigma$ level. It should, however, be remembered that the chance of a large number of independent measurements deviating by $\geq
2\sigma$ is significant; [*e.g.*]{} the chance that ten independent measurements all yield agreement within $2\sigma$ is just 60%. Moreover, the assessment of theoretical and experimental errors is not straightforward. Here we conservatively assume that there is no significant deviation between experimental observations and SM predictions.
[^3]: For the bosonic fields, the required steps are identical to the ones above; the verification with $\psi$ involves judicious use of Fierz rearrangement and the relations (7).
[^4]: There are additional quadratic divergences in the two point function from the tadpoles of Fig. \[fig1\] which, as we have just seen, separately cancel.
[^5]: Since $\psi_R$ is not independent of $\psi_L$, we only have to specify how $\psi_L$ transforms.
[^6]: We are oversimplifying at this point. The Lagrangian for the kinetic terms as well as the one in (21) involves the auxiliary fields $\CF$ (see Eq. (3), as an example of this). It is only after the auxiliary fields are eliminated that we end up with a sum of (21) and (23).
[^7]: In general, a real superfield has more than three non-vanishing components. In a SUSY gauge theory, however, the gauge parameter itself can be chosen as the scalar component of a chiral superfield. By a judicious choice of this gauge-parameter superfield, all but three of the components of the original real superfield can be gauged away. This choice is not supersymmetric, and vanishing components are resurrected by a SUSY transformation. A combination of a SUSY and a gauge transformation leaves the form of the gauge field unaltered.
[^8]: What is really shown is that radiative corrections can only induce $D$-terms, and not $F$-terms. If off-diagonal bilinear $D$-terms are induced by radiative corrections, “new” superpotential interactions may be generated. We should also caution that some $D$-terms can be rewritten as $F$-terms. Such terms may also be radiatively generated. Generally, these involve non-renormalizable interactions. However, there are interesting cases [@FTERMS] where renormalizable superpotential interactions may be generated in the effective low energy theory obtained by integrating out super-heavy fields.
[^9]: We warn the reader that the term MSSM does not have a standard usage in the literature. Therefore, one should always pay attention to explicit and implicit assumptions that are made by each group of authors analysing the MSSM.
[^10]: Specifically, this makes it easy to embed these fields into the and representations of $SU(5)$ if the theory is embedded in a GUT.
[^11]: We will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how many parameters there would be if we allowed inter-generation mixing.
[^12]: For the MSSM fields, it is easy to check that $R = (-1)^{2S+L+3B}$, where $L$ and $B$ denote the lepton- and baryon-number, respectively and $S$ is the spin. Since the MSSM conserves $B$, $L$ and angular momentum, $R$ is conserved. Spontaneous $R$ violation via a VEV of a doublet sneutrino is excluded by the measurement of the $Z$ width at LEP.
[^13]: Without the assumption of $R$-parity conservation there would also be mixing between the $\hat{h}$ and $\hat{L}$ supermultiplets. Such a mixing, which is absent in the MSSM, can have significant phenomenological impact.
[^14]: If an eigenvalue of the mass matrix for any state $\psi$ turns out to be negative, one can always define a new spinor $\psi^{'}=\gamma_5\psi$ which will have a positive mass. For neutralinos, $\psi^{'}$ should be defined with an additional factor $i$ to preserve its Majorana nature after the $\gamma_5$ transformation.
[^15]: Moroi [@MOROI] has pointed out that late decay of this effective LSP can potentially spoil the successful predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
[^16]: An example of this would be $e^+e^- \to
\tmu_R\tmu_R$, if $\tmu_R \to \mu \tz_1$ all the time. In this case, the SUSY reaction can be completely described by $m_{\tmu_R}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$.
[^17]: Here the term minimal refers to a technical assumption: the canonical choice of kinetic energy terms for matter and gauge fields. In this case, there is a global $U(N)$ symmetry in a model with $N$ chiral super-multiplets. However, since supergravity is a non-renormalizable theory, in principle, kinetic terms may also arise from higher dimensional operators, and need not take the canonical form.
[^18]: These running masses evaluated at the sparticle mass, or more crudely, at a scale $\sim M_Z$, are not identical to, but are frequently close to the physical masses which are given by the pole of the renormalized propagator. [@POLE]
[^19]: This is a non-trivial observation since alternative mechanisms to suppress FCNC based on different symmetry considerations have been proposed. [@NS]
[^20]: We warn the reader that there is a folk theorem that says that effective field theories for the classical ground states of superstring theories cannot have continuous global symmetries except for Peccei-Quinn type symmetries associated with axion-like fields; [*i.e.*]{} all other continuous symmetries (except, possibly, an accidental symmetry of lower dimensional operators) are gauge symmetries. If this is the case, then the introduction of a global symmetry to obtain universal SUSY breaking parameters as discussed above would be questionable. This theorem has, however, been proven [@BANKS] using 2D superconformal theory on the string world sheet. It is presently unclear whether such a proof would survive the recent theoretical developments where non-perturbative effects play a critical role. The reader may, of course, take the view that the mSUGRA model is not derived from string theory, in which case these considerations are not relevant. It is, perhaps, also worth mentioning [@FERNANDO] that while many supersting models lead to non-universal SUSY breaking parameters at the string scale, universal soft-breaking parameters are at least possible in the so-called dilaton dominated scenario. I am grateful to Fernando Quevedo for discussions about global symmetries in string theory.
[^21]: The Yukawa coupling of the upper (lower) member of the weak doublet is given by $f_f =
\frac{gm_f}{\sqrt{2}M_W\sin\beta} (\frac{gm_f}{\sqrt{2}M_W\cos\beta})$, where $m_f$ is the mass of the fermion $f$ which may be either a quark or a lepton.
[^22]: The decay to Higgs does not yield leptons, whereas the decay to $Z$ has additional backgrounds from SM $Z$ sources.
[^23]: Formulae for three body decays of charginos and neutralinos have been listed by Bartl [*et. al.*]{} [@BARTL] Their conventions do not match with ours, so care must be exercised in transcribing them into a common notation. These formulae do not include effects of Yukawa interactions which have recently been computed. [@BCDPT]
[^24]: This conclusion crucially depends on the validity of the gaugino mass unification condition Eq. (\[eq:gaugino\]) which implies that gluinos are much heavier than $\tw_1$ and $\tz_2$.
[^25]: The current version of ISAJET (v. 7.29) allows the reader to input independent soft SUSY breaking masses for each of the sfermion multiplets as well as independent masses for the three gauginos. Unless the user explicitly specifies, ISAJET assumes that sfermions of the first two generations with the same gauge quantum numbers have the same soft SUSY breaking masses; it also incorporates gaugino mass unification as the default. In addition the user has to specify $\mu$, $\tan\beta$, $m_A$ along with the three third generation $A$-terms. In other words, all thirty MSSM parameters but the six $A$-terms for the first two generations, which are usually irrelevant for phenomenology can be independent inputs. This allows for simulation of a large variety of theoretical scenarios.
[^26]: The same considerations also exclude spontaneous $R$-violation via a vev of a doublet sneutrino because the associated Goldstone boson sector would then have gauge couplings to $Z^0$ and make too large a contribution to $\Gamma_Z$.
[^27]: Experiments searching for neutrino-less double beta decay are designed to detect the recoil of the nucleus. If stable sneutrinos are the LSP and their density is large enough to form all of the galactic dark matter their flux would be high enough to be detectable via elastic scattering from nuclei in these experiments. As a result, sneutrinos with masses between 12-20 GeV and about 1 TeV are excluded. [@NONU] The Kamiokande experiment [@KAM], from a non-observation of high energy solar neutrinos produced by the annihilation of gravitationally accumulated sneutrinos in the sun exclude 3 GeV$\leq m_{\tnu} \leq $25 GeV. These limits, when combined with the LEP bounds clearly disfavour the sneutrino as the stable LSP.
[^28]: The related process $b \to s\ell\bar{\ell}$ has also been discussed. [@GOTO]
[^29]: In addition, there are always detector-dependent instrumental backgrounds from misidentification of jets or isolated pions as leptons, mismeasurement of the sign of the lepton charge [*etc.*]{} that a real experimentalist has to contend with.
[^30]: M. Mangano (private communication) has also performed this analysis with a more detailed simulation and more realistic assumptions about $b$-tagging capabilities.
[^31]: The sensitivity would be improved when channels involving $e$ and $\mu$ are analysed and combined. Enhanced $b$-tagging capability that should be available during the next run will also improve the sensitivity.
[^32]: The capability of LHC experiments to detect a signal from relatively light gluinos is important to ensure that there is no window of masses where SUSY signals may escape detection at both the Tevatron MI and the LHC.
[^33]: This is not necessarily a good assumption. The branching fractions for the SUSY decays can be quite substantial for large regions of parameter space, and can reduce the signals via which the Higgs bosons are usually searched for and increase the parameter space hole referred to below. [@BISSET1] Sometimes, however, they lead to novel signals for Higgs boson searches which can then refill [@BISSET2] some of the hole region. Of course, for almost all cases where SUSY Higgs decays are important, it should also be possible to detect the sparticles at the LHC. It is only Higgs boson detection that may be more difficult.
[^34]: Since the energy of any linear collider is likely to be increased in several steps to the TeV scale, one may hope that this will be less of a problem there. The lighter sparticles will be discovered first. Knowledge about their properties thus obtained should facilitate the untangling of the more complex decays of heavier sparticles.
[^35]: Feng and Strassler [@STRASSLER] have shown that, with 1 $fb^{-1}$ of data, a test of this relation at the 20% level may also be possible at LEP2.
[^36]: For this study, it was reasonable to assume that the lighter Higgs boson mass (which is 68 GeV) would be measured at LEP2. This constraint helps to pin down the value of $\tan\beta$ for this set of input parameters.
[^37]: Here, we tacitly assume that squarks will not be much lighter than gluinos.
[^38]: The extent to which this channel is contaminated by other SUSY sources has not been explicitly checked.
[^39]: These may be directly produced with large cross sections or may lead to enhancement of gluino decays to third generation fermions as discussed in Sec. \[sec:decays\].
[^40]: This could especially be the case if the spoiler decay modes of the neutralino are accessible.
[^41]: These relations are corrected by radiative corrections which are generally expected to be smaller than a few percent. [@HIK]
[^42]: A somewhat different test of SUSY which yields a similar precision when the chargino is mainly gaugino-like has also been discussed in this study. J. Feng and N. Polonsky have observed that this latter test becomes an order of magnitude more precise if the sneutrino mass is independently known to a few GeV.
[^43]: Constraints from non-observation of $\mu \to e\gamma$ or $\mu \to 3e$ decays and $\mu N
\to e N$ processes are much stronger if, say, both $e$ and $\mu$ number violating interactions are large.
[^44]: The H1 and ZEUS experiments at the HERA collider have reported an excess of events in high energy $e^+p \to e^+ +X$ scattering at very high values of $Q^2$. Many theorists have suggested that this may be an indicator of some novel physics, a popular interpretation being an $s$-channel resonance in positron-quark scattering. This could be a spin zero particle with lepton and quark quantum numbers, the lepto-quark, or a scalar quark with $\lambda'$ type $R$-violating interactions. It is not clear, however that the results of the two experiments are mutually any more compatible [@DRHERA] than the reported deviation from the SM. Unfortunately, it will take a couple of years for the situation to be clarified.
[^45]: We ignore the possibility that it can be fine-tuned to be much smaller. [@ELLIS]
[^46]: Recently, there have been several attempts to merge the hidden and messenger sectors together so that we do not require three artificially separated sectors. We refer the interested reader to the literature. [@MURAYAMA]
[^47]: This may not yield a small value of $B$ at the messenger scale. If we incorporate the constraint $B(M_{mess}) \simeq 0$, then we will find that $\tan\beta$ is large. [@BABU] We do not include this constraint for reasons discussed elsewhere. [@GMLESB]
[^48]: Recall, however, our discussion about continuous global symmetries in Sec. \[sec:sugra\].
[^49]: If the NLSP lives long enough so that it decays outside the detector, collider phenomenology will be essentially the same as in the MSSM.
[^50]: Although we have not discussed muon colliders in these Lectures, it is worth mentioning that because of the larger value of $m_{\mu}$, MSSM (and SM) Higgs boson can be produced as $s$-channel resonances at these machines. It has been shown [@VERNON] that at a 500 GeV muon collider, $h$ should be distinguishable from the SM Higgs boson over a wide range of parameters, and further, that it should be possible to discover $H$ and $A$ if their mass is smaller than $\sqrt{s}$. The integrated luminosity, beam resolution, as well as machine and detector features that are needed for these measurements have been delineated in this study to which we refer the interested reader.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the energy-momentum tensor for a conformally coupled scalar field in de Sitter space-time is investigated through the Krein-Gupta-Bleuler construction. This construction has already been successfully applied to the de Sitter minimally coupled massless scalar field and massless spin-2 field to obtain a causal and fully covariant quantum field on the de Sitter background. We also consider the effects of boundary conditions. In this respect, Casimir energy-momentum tensor induced by Dirichlet boundary condition on a curved brane is evaluated.'
author:
- 'S. Rahbardehghan$^1$ and H. Pejhan$^2$[^1]'
title: |
The Krein-Gupta-Bleuler Quantization in de Sitter Space-time;\
Casimir Energy-Momentum Tensor for a Curved Brane
---
*$^1$Department of Physics, Islamic Azad University, Central Branch, Tehran, Iran*
*$^2$Department of Physics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran*
Introduction
============
The recent cosmological observations, which are strongly in favour of a positive acceleration of the present universe, can be well approximated by the de Sitter (dS) universe [@Riess]. Furthermore, de Sitter space-time plays an essential role in the inflationary scenario of the very early universe [@Hawking; @Linde]. So, its metric becomes important at large-scale universe. The quantum field theory on dS space-time is also of considerable interest. De Sitter space is maximally symmetric curved space-time and offers the opportunity of controlling the transition to the flat space-time by the so-called contraction procedure, in which one can quantize fields and obtain simple exact solutions. However, even for this very simple space-time, this is not the case always. Allen has shown that, for the dS minimally coupled massless scalar field, which plays a central role in the inflationary models [@Linde2] and the linear quantum gravity in dS space, the covariant canonical quantization cannot be constructed over the Hilbert space because no invariant vacuum exists [@Allen]. Actually, the problem is originated due to the presence of a constant solution, the so-called zero mode problem; although this zero mode has positive norm, being part of the Hilbertian structure of the one particle sector is impossible. More accurately, regarding the conformal time, the action of the de Sitter group on this mode generates all the negative frequency solutions of the field equation. Therefore, the constructed Fock space over the Hilbert space (generated by any complete set of modes including the zero mode; ${\cal{H}}_{+}=\{\sum_{k\geq0} \alpha_k\phi_k; \sum_{k\geq0}|\alpha_k|^2<\infty \}$, $\phi_k$ is defined in [@Gazeau]) is not closed under the action of the dS group.
The failure of the usual canonical quantization in which the Fock space is constructed over the Hilbert space (the scalar product is positive) had also occurred in quantum electrodynamics. It is prevalently accepted that the origin of that impossibility is the invariance of the Lagrangian under a gauge transformation. It is proved that preserving covariance and gauge invariance in canonical quantization can be performed solely by exploiting the Gupte-Bleuler formalism.[^2] Interestingly, the zero mode problem is deeply analogous to the QED case, for the Lagrangian $${\cal{L}}=\sqrt{|g|}\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi,$$ of the free massless field is invariant under $\phi\rightarrow\phi + \lambda$ ($\lambda$ is a constant function), which is similar to a gauge transformation. So, it would not be surprising if a canonical quantization of the Gupta-Bleuler type, would perform identically for dS massless minimally coupled scalar field; the set $\cal{N}$ of constant functions will serve as the space of gauge states, while $\cal{K}$ is a space of positive frequency solutions of the field equation equipped with the degenerate (but positive) Klein-Gordon inner product. However, the covariant quantum field cannot be constructed through a degenerate space of solutions [@Renaud]. Thus, by admitting $\cal{K}$ as an invariant subspace, a non degenerate invariant space of solutions $K$ must be built. These spaces, together with $\cal{N}$, are ingredients of the so-called Gupta-Bleuler triplet ${\cal{N}}\subset{\cal{K}}\subset K$. It is proved that $K$ is a Krein space, the direct sum of a Hilbert space and an anti-Hilbert space (a space with definite negative inner product). Indeed, the crucial point is originated in the fact that for the dS minimally coupled field a covariant decomposition, $ K = {\cal{H}}_{+} \oplus {\cal{H}}_{-}$, does not exist (though concerning the scalar massive field, such a decomposition exists, where ${\cal{H}}_{+}$ is the usual physical states space satisfying ${\cal{H}_{+}^*}={\cal{H}}_{-}$) [@Gazeau]. It is shown [@Gazeau; @Renaud] that through the Krein-Gupta-Bleuler (KGB) structure, one can obtain a fully covariant construction of the minimally coupled quantum field on the de Sitter space-time. This field is interestingly free of infrared divergence.[^3] The KGB method, therefore, provides a proposal to calculate graviton propagator on the dS background in the linear approximation, without any pathological behavior for largely separated points [@Takook1691; @Behroozi; @Dehghani; @Garidi032501; @Pejhan2052; @TakookRouhani; @Rahbardehghan].
Motivated by these capabilities, in this paper another popular subject in this curved space-time, the interaction of fluctuating quantum fields with the background gravitational field and boundary conditions (Casimir effect), is investigated through the KGB structure. This effect demonstrates non-trivial charactristics of the quantum vacuum and has significant indications on all measures, from subnuclear to cosmological. In this regard and due to the importance of the braneworld scenarios in cosmology and particle physics ($\mbox{e.g.}$ see [@Wasserman; @Randall]), we perform the calculation of the Casimir energy-momentum tensor in de Sitter space-time for a conformally coupled scalar field subjected to Dirichlet boundary condition on a curved brane.
The layout of the paper is as follows. In Sec. (2), we study the energy-momentum tensor for a conformally coupled scalar field in de Sitter space-time. Then in Sec. (3), the Casimir energy-momentum tensor in the presence of a curved brane as a boundary condition is computed. Finally we have enclosed the paper with a brief conclusion.
Covariant Renormalization of the Energy-Momentum Tensor\
through the KGB Structure
========================================================
To start, consider the $4+1$ dimensional (4+1-D) dS static coordinates, $x^i=(t,r,\theta,\vartheta,\phi)$, $$\label{dS} ds^2_{dS}=g_{ik}dx^i dx^k =(1-\frac{r^2}{\alpha^2})dt^2 - \frac{dr^2}{1-\frac{r^2}{\alpha^2}} - r^2d\Omega^2_3,$$ and a conformally coupled massless scalar field, $\phi(x)$, on this background that satisfies the equation $$\label{dS;Eq} (\nabla_l\nabla^l + \zeta R)\phi(x)=0, \;\;\zeta=\frac{3}{16}$$ in which $d\Omega^2_3$ is the line element on the $3$ dimensional unit sphere in Euclidean space, and the parameter $\alpha$ defines the dS curvature radius, $\nabla_l$ and $R$ are, respectively, the covariant derivative and the Ricci scalar for the corresponding metric. The inner product for the solutions space is defined as $$\label{inner}(\phi_1,\phi_2)=-i\int_\Sigma\phi_1\,{\mathop{\partial_\mu}\limits^\leftrightarrow}\,\phi^*_2d\Sigma^\mu,$$ where $d\Sigma^\mu=d\Sigma n^\mu$, and $d\Sigma$ is the volume element in a given space-like hypersurface, and $n^\mu$ is the time-like unit vector normal to this hypersurface. There exists a complete set of mode solutions of Eq. (\[dS;Eq\]) which are orthonormal in the product (\[inner\]), i.e. $$(\phi_k,\phi_{k'})=\delta _{kk'}, \;\; (\phi_k^*,\phi_{k'}^*)= -\delta _{kk'}, \;\; (\phi_k,\phi_{k'}^*)= 0, \label{eq:ortho}$$ the set of $\{\phi_k ,\phi_k^*\}$ are, respectively, positive and negative norm states.
As already discussed, in order to have a fully covariant quantization scheme in dS space-time, utilizing the Krein-Gupta-Bleuler structure is unavoidable. In this construction, the field acts on a space of states having the structure of a Fock space but containing both positive and negative norm vectors. Actually, respecting the field equation (\[dS;Eq\]) and its complete set of mode solutions (\[eq:ortho\]), the field operator $\varphi$ would be as follows $$\label{123} \varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big( \sum_k (a_k \phi_k + a^\dagger_k \phi^*_k) + \sum_k (b^\dagger_k \phi_k + b_k \phi^*_k) \Big),$$ $a_k |0\rangle=0,\; b_k |0\rangle=0$ determine the Fock vacuum state $|0\rangle$, while $a_k^\dag |0\rangle=|1_k\rangle,\; \; b_k^\dag |0\rangle= |\bar 1_k\rangle$ are the physical and un-physical states. Note that, $[a_k, a^\dagger_{k'}] = \delta_{kk'},\; [b_k, b^\dagger_{k'}] = -\delta_{kk'}$ and the other commutation relations are zero.
With these definitions, it turns out that the field itself is not an observable: this is as expected and can be seen by calculating the mean value. The components of the energy-momentum tensor on the other hand are observables. To see the point, consider the operator $T_{\mu\nu}$ which obviously is not positively definite as an operator on the full space of states. In order to compute expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor, $\langle \vec{k}|T_{\mu\nu}| \vec{k}\rangle$, in which $|\vec{k}\rangle$ is the excited physical state $$|\vec{k}\rangle \equiv |{k}_1^{n_1}...{k}_j^{n_j}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n_1!...n_j!}}(a_{k_1}^\dag)^{n_1}...(a_{k_j}^\dag)^{n_j}|0\rangle,$$ one should generally begin with $$\langle \vec{k}|\partial_\mu\varphi(x)\partial_\nu\varphi(x)|\vec{k}\rangle = \sum_k \partial_\mu\phi_k(x)\partial_\nu\phi_k^\ast(x) - \partial_\mu\phi_k^\ast(x)\partial_\nu\phi_k(x) + 2 \sum_i n_i \Re \Big(\partial_\mu\phi_{k_i}^\ast(x)\partial_\nu\phi_{k_i}(x)\Big).$$ In analogy with the conventional approach, the first term is responsible for the appearance of infinite divergences in the theory. However, in the KGB approach, the unusual presence of the second term with the minus sign which comes from the terms of the field including $b_k$ and $b_k^\dag$, can automatically remove this term. Therefore, we have $$\langle \vec{k}|\partial_\mu\varphi(x)\partial_\mu\varphi(x)|\vec{k}\rangle = 2 \sum_i n_i \partial_\mu\phi_{k_i}^\ast(x)\partial_\mu\phi_{k_i}(x).$$ Correspondingly, there exists an automatic renormalization of the $T_{\mu\nu}$’s (no infinite term appears). A straightforward result of this construction, which assures a reasonable physical interpretation of the model, is the positivity of the energy for any physical state $|\vec{k}\rangle$; $\langle \vec{k}|T_{00}| \vec{k}\rangle\geq0$ ($ = 0 \Leftrightarrow |\vec{k}\rangle=|0\rangle$).
In addition, this procedure fulfills the so-called Wald axioms:
- [The causality and covariance is assured since the field is.]{}
- [For physical states, with respect to the above calculation, it turns out that the formal results are preserved.]{}
- [The foundation of the above computation is as follows (note that $[b_k,b_k^\dag]=-1$) $$a_ka_k^\dag+a_k^\dag a_k+b_kb_k^\dag+b_k^\dag b_k=2a_k^\dag a_k+2b_k^\dag b_k,$$ Which provides a reordering equivalent when the method is applied to physical states (on which $b_k$ vanishes).]{}
The method, therefore, presents an interesting property linked to the vacuum energy issue in curved space-time. To have a deeper insight into the subject from the viewpoint of the KGB approach, let us reconsider the field equation (\[123\]) in a more explicit form as follows $$\varphi = \sum_k \left(A_k \phi_k + A_k^\dag \phi^*_k\right), \;\;\; \mbox{in which}\; A_k\equiv\frac{a_k+b^\dagger_k}{\sqrt{2}}. \label{fieldcurved1}$$ Note that, the operators $A_k$ no longer verify $A_k|0\rangle=0$. Nevertheless, by using the operator ${\cal{D}}_k = A_k A_k^\dag + A_k^\dag A_k$, one can determine the Fock vacuum state as (the point is $[b_k,b_k^\dag]=(\phi_k^\ast,\phi_k^\ast)=-1$) $$\langle 0|{\cal{D}}_k|0\rangle =0, \;\;\;\forall k.\label{counter}$$ Interestingly, it is proved that this equation is independent of Bogolubov transformations [@HawkingRadiation]. So in this method, in contrast to the usual approach where the vacuum is determined through the modes and it is usually said that the choice of the modes is equivalent to the choice of the vacuum, the Fock vacuum is unique and therefore does not specify the physical space of states. However, this does not mean that the Bogolubov transformations which only modify the set of physical states are no longer valid in this construction. Any physical state depends on the selected space-time and also on the observer; the physical states of an accelerated observer in Minkowski space are different from those of an inertial observer (Unruh effect) [@Garidi]. While, the same representation of the field can be employed for both cases (it is invariant under Bogolubov transformations). Indeed, instead of having a multiplicity of vacua, we have several possibilities for the space of physical states, so the usual ambiguity about vacua is not suppressed but displaced.
Note that, due to the automatic renormalization of the $\langle T_{\mu\nu} \rangle$ through this construction, the expected value of all components of the energy-momentum tensor vanish in the vacuum, and hence there is no conformal anomaly in the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. From this point of view, this renormalization scheme seems to be very different from the other ones which all present this anomaly. Of course, it is not very surprising that our field, which is covariant and conformally covariant in a rather strong sense [@Renaud], does not present any conformal anomaly which, after all, can appear only by breaking the conformal invariance.
In the next section, with respect to the importance of braneworld scenarios, we calculate the Casimir energy-momentum tensor for a curved brane through the KGB method.
Considering the Theory in the Presence of Boundary Condition
============================================================
In this section, by considering the de Sitter space-time as the gravitational background, we evaluate the Casimir energy-momentum tensor for the conformally coupled scalar field, see (\[dS;Eq\]) and (\[123\]), subjected to Dirichlet boundary condition on the hypersurface $S$ (we will determine the explicit form of the hypersurface in the next few lines). Technically, to make the maximum use of the flat space-time calculations, we present the dS line element (\[dS\]) in the form conformally related to the Rindler metric. Regarding the coordinate transformation; $ x^i \rightarrow {x'^i}= (\eta,\sigma,X'),\; X'=({x'^2},x'^3,x'^4)$, $$\label{1} \eta=\frac{t}{\alpha}, \;\; \sigma= \frac{\sqrt{\alpha^2-r^2}}{\Omega},\;\; (\mbox{in which}\;\Omega=1-\frac{r}{\alpha}\cos\theta)$$ $$\label{2} x'^2=\frac{r}{\Omega}\sin\theta\cos\vartheta,\;\; x'^3=\frac{r}{\Omega}\sin\theta\sin\vartheta\cos\phi,\;\;x'^4=\frac{r}{\Omega}\sin\theta\sin\vartheta\sin\phi.$$ the dS line element (\[dS\]) takes the form $$\label{3} ds^2_{dS}=g'_{ik}dx'^idx'^k = \Omega^2 (\sigma^2d\eta^2- d\sigma^2- dX'^2 ),$$ that is manifestly conformally related to the Rindler space-time $$\label{4} ds^2_{dS}= \Omega^2ds^2_{R},\;\; ds^2_{R}= \bar{g}_{ik}dx'^idx'^k= \sigma^2d\eta^2- d\sigma^2- dX'^2,\;\; g'_{ik}= \Omega^2 \bar{g}_{ik}.$$
As the boundary condition, we take an infinite plane moving by uniform acceleration normal to itself which can be determined by the coordinate $\sigma=b$ in the right Rindler wedge. Note that, the curves $\sigma=\mbox{constant}$, $X'=\mbox{constant}$ are worldlines of constant proper acceleration $\sigma^{-1}$ and the surface $\sigma=b$ represents the trajectory of the barrier which has a proper acceleration $b^{-1}$. In the dS static coordinates the boundary $S$ is presented by the following curved brane $$\label{5} \sqrt{\alpha^2 - r^2}= b(1-\frac{r}{\alpha}\cos\theta).$$
As a Rindler counterpart one can consider the vacuum energy-momentum tensor induced by $S$ (as Dirichlet boundary condition is conformally invariant, the Dirichlet scalar in the curved bulk corresponds to the Dirichlet scalar in a flat space-time). Accordingly, the problem under consideration would be a conformally trivial situation; a conformally invariant field on background of the conformally flat space-time. So, instead of evaluating Casimir energy-momentum tensor directly on dS background, with regard to the standard transformation formula for the VEV of the energy-momentum tensor in conformally related problems [@Birrell], one can generate the results for dS space-time from the corresponding results for the Rindler space-time.
In this regard and in the beginning, we should pursuit quantizing procedure in Minkowski space-time for the massless scalar field, $\Box\phi(x)=0$, for which the inner product of a pair of its solutions is defined by $$(\phi_1,\phi_2)=-i\int (\phi_1(x) \, {\mathop{\partial_\mu}\limits^\leftrightarrow } \,\phi^*_2(x)) d^3 x.$$ As already discussed, the field operator in the KGB quantization would be $\varphi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\varphi}_+ + {\varphi}_-)$, in which $$\begin{aligned}\label{fk}
\varphi_+(x)=\int d^3 \vec{k}\;[a(\vec{k})\phi(\vec{k},x)+a^\dag(\vec{k})\phi^\ast(\vec{k},x)],\\
\varphi_-(x)=\int d^3 \vec{k}\;[b(\vec{k})\phi^\ast(\vec{k},x)+b^\dag(\vec{k})\phi(\vec{k},x)],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_+(x)$ and $\varphi_-(x)$ are, respectively, physical and un-physical part of the field operator. $\phi (\vec{k},x)=({4\pi\omega})^{-1/2}{e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}-i\omega t}}$ and $[a(\vec{k}), a^\dagger(\vec{k}')] = \delta (\vec{k}-\vec{k}'),\;\; [b(\vec{k}), b^\dagger(\vec{k}')] = -\delta (\vec{k}-\vec{k}')$, the other commutation relations are zero. The Fock vacuum state $|0\rangle$ is defined by $a(\vec{k}) |0\rangle=0,\; b(\vec{k}) |0\rangle=0$.
Due to the presence of un-physical states in the KGB structure, when interacting fields are investigated, the unitarity of the S-matrix must be preserved. This would be obtained by the following procedure, which is the so-called unitarity condition [@Garidi]; let $\Pi_+$ be the projection over ${\cal{H}}_+$ $$\Pi_+ = \sum_{\{\alpha_+\}} |\alpha_+><\alpha_+|,\;\;\;\;\; |\alpha_+>\;\in {\cal{H}}_+.$$ So, considering the field operator, one has $$\label{unicon} \Pi_+ \varphi \Pi_+ |\alpha > = \left\{\begin{array}{rl} &\varphi_+ |\alpha >, \;\;\;\;\;\; \mbox{if}\; |\alpha>\;\in {\cal{H}}_+ \vspace{2mm}\\\vspace{2mm} &0,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{if}\; |\alpha>\;\in {\cal{H}}_{-} \\\end{array}\right.$$ Correspondingly, in place of a standard selection for the Lagrangian potential term, $V(\varphi)$, we consider the restricted form of $V$ to the positive energy modes as $V'(\varphi)\equiv V(\Pi_+\varphi\Pi_+)$. As a result, vacuum influences in the theory only include the interacting vacuum.
Therefore, with regard to the unitarity condition, the influence of applying physical boundary condition on the field operator is only upon the physical states. Accordingly, when physical boundary conditions are present, the field operator would be as $$\label{effected} \varphi(x)=\sum_d [a({\vec{k}}_d) \phi(\vec{k}_d,x)+a^\dag({\vec{k}}_d)\phi^\ast(\vec{k}_d,x)] + \int d^3 \vec{k}\; [b(\vec{k})\phi^\ast (\vec{k},x)+b^\dag (\vec{k})\phi (\vec{k},x)],$$ here $\vec{k}_d$ are the eigen-frequencies of the system under consideration.
Before calculating the energy-momentum tensor in view of the accelerated (Rindler) coordinates (defined by the coordinate transformation: $t=\sigma\sinh\eta$, $x=\sigma\cosh\eta$, which cover the region $|x|>|t|$ of Minkowski space), the construction of the Feynman Green function of the KGB method, $G(x,x')$, in the Rindler space is required. In this regard, it is easily seen that with respect to the quantum field of the theory, (\[effected\]), it can be decomposed into two parts, physical and un-physical parts (the point is $(\phi_k,\phi_{k'}^*)= 0$ and $[a(k), b^\dagger(k')] = [a(k),b(k')] = 0$). Accordingly, we have $$\label{G} G(x,x')= G_{+}(x,x') + G_{-}(x,x').$$ Here, the physical part of the theory which is subjected to Dirichlet boundary condition is determined by $G_{+}(x,x')$, while $G_{-}(x,x')$ refers to the un-physical part of the theory which according to its definition would be $G_{-}(x,x')= - G_{0}(x,x')$, where $G_{0}(x,x')$ is the Feynman propagator for a free massless scalar field on the entire Minkowski manifold and the sign “$-$” is due to $[b_k,b_k^\dag]=(\phi_k^\ast,\phi_k^\ast)=-1$. The corresponding propagators for the Dirichlet and the free field ones have been computed, respectively, in Refs. [@Candelas] and [@Candelas']. So, for our considered case we have $$\label{DP} G_{+}(x,x')= G_{0}(x,x') - \frac{i}{\pi}\int \frac{d\nu}{2\pi} \exp [-i\nu(\eta-\eta')]\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}\exp [ik\cdot (x-x')] \frac{K_{i\nu}(e^{i\pi}kb)}{K_{i\nu}(kb)} K_{i\nu}(k\sigma) K_{i\nu}(k\sigma'),$$ $$\label{DP'}G_{-}(x,x') \Big(= - G_{0}(x,x')\Big) = -\frac{i}{\pi}\int \frac{d\nu}{2\pi} \exp [-i\nu(\eta-\eta')] \int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}\exp [ik\cdot (x-x')] K_{i\nu}(k\sigma_>) K_{i\nu}(e^{i\pi}k\sigma_<),$$ in which $K_{i\nu}(k\sigma)$ is the modified Bessel function of imaginary order.
Now respecting the Feynman Green function (\[G\]), the VEV of the energy-momentum tensor in view of the accelerated observer in Minkowski space-time would be $$\label{st} <0|T_\mu^\nu|0>^{Rindler}=-i\lim_{x'\rightarrow x} (\frac{2}{3}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^{\nu'}- \frac{1}{3}{\nabla_{\mu}}\nabla^{\nu}- \frac{1}{6}g_\mu^\nu\nabla_{\alpha}\nabla^{\alpha'})G(x,x').$$ Considering (\[DP\]) and (\[DP’\]) and after a straightforward calculations, we have $$\label{diagT} <T_\mu^\nu>^{Rindler}=\mbox{diag}(A,B,C,C),$$ where $$\label{abg}
\left\{\begin{array}{rl} \begin{aligned}
A(\sigma)&=\frac{1}{12\pi^3}\int_0^{\infty} d\nu\int_0^{\infty} dk\;k\frac{K_{i\nu}(e^{i\pi}kb)}{K_{i\nu}(kb)}\left[ k^2K_{i\nu}^{'2}(k\sigma)+\frac{2k}{\sigma}K_{i\nu}(k\sigma)K'_{i\nu}(k\sigma)+\left( \frac{5\nu^2}{\sigma^2}+k^2 \right)K_{i\nu}^2(k\sigma) \right],\\
B(\sigma)&=-\frac{1}{12\pi^3}\int_0^{\infty} d\nu\int_0^{\infty} dk\;k\frac{K_{i\nu}(e^{i\pi}kb)}{K_{i\nu}(kb)}\left[ 3k^2K_{i\nu}^{'2}(k\sigma)+\frac{2k}{\sigma}K_{i\nu}(k\sigma)K'_{i\nu}(k\sigma)+3\left( \frac{\nu^2}{\sigma^2}-k^2 \right)K_{i\nu}^2(k\sigma) \right],\\
C(\sigma)&=-\frac{1}{12\pi^3}\int_0^{\infty} d\nu\int_0^{\infty} dk\;k\frac{K_{i\nu}(e^{i\pi}kb)}{K_{i\nu}(kb)}\left[ -k^2K_{i\nu}^{'2}(k\sigma)+\left( \frac{\nu^2}{\sigma^2}+2k^2 \right)K_{i\nu}^2(k\sigma) \right].
\end{aligned}
\end{array}\right.$$ It is trace-free, $A+B+2C=0$, and conserved, $A=\frac{d}{d\sigma}(\sigma B)$. We should emphasize that, in Ref. [@Candelas] by P. Candelas *et al*., the above regularized result was obtained by subtracting the value that it would have if evaluated relative to the Minkowski vacuum. In our method, however, the VEV of the energy-momentum tensor is automatically regularized.
From now on, therefore, in analogy with the procedure that was proposed in [@Candelas] to evaluate the above integrals, one can find:
- The asymptotic form, $\sigma/b \rightarrow\infty$, for $T_{\mu}^{\nu}$ in the frame of an observer with proper acceleration $\sigma^{-1}$ as follows $$\label{MM} <T_\mu^\nu>^{Rindler}\sim \frac{-1}{2\pi^2\sigma^4} \int_0^\infty \frac{\nu^3 d\nu}{e^{2\pi\nu}-1}diag(-1,\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}),$$ Which present a negative energy density with a Planckian spectrum with the temperature $T=(2\pi\sigma)^{-1}$, corresponding to the absence from the vacuum of black-body radiation. This result is independent of the particular boundary conditions and of the acceleration of the barrier in the sense that it depends only on the acceleration $\sigma^{-1}$ of the local Killing trajectory. It means that regarding the gravitational analogy, at sufficiently large distances to the barrier, VEV of the energy-momentum tensor depends purely on the local gravitational field.
Note that, when $\sigma$ is analogous to $b$, one would expect the deviation from a black-body spectrum since the temperature corresponds to a wavelength comparable with the distance from the barrier. So, the effects of the boundary conditions become important; the rate at which these effects decline far from the barrier can be found by proceeding to the next order in the asymptotic expansion of $T_\mu^\nu$. It turns out that the terms dependent on the boundary condition are of order $(\sigma^4\mbox{ln}^3\sigma)^{-1}$ $$\label{appT} T_\mu^\nu=[ -(480\pi^2 \sigma^4)^{-1}-(144\sigma^4\mbox{ln}^3\sigma/b)^{-1}]\mbox{diag}(-1,\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3})+{\cal {O}}[(\sigma^4 \mbox{ln}^4\sigma/b)^{-1}]\;\;\;\;\;(\sigma/b\longrightarrow\infty)$$
- [At the moderate distance, further analytical simplification cannot be applied to the integral representations (\[abg\]). Therefore, the numerical quadrature should be used to evaluate $T_\mu^\nu$ in this intermediate region. It is found that the energy density is always negative and decreases monotonically towards the barrier [@Candelas].]{}
- [In the limit of small separation from the barrier, $\sigma/b\longrightarrow1$, boundary conditions are not effective and it is again possible to compute the explicit asymptotic forms for the energy-momentum tensor which has been shown to vary as the inverse cube of the distance from the barrier, and is therefore unbounded. $$\label{appabg}
\left\{\begin{array}{rl} \begin{aligned}
A &=[360\pi^2b(\sigma-b)^3]^{-1}+{\cal {O}}[(\sigma/b-1)^{-2}],\\
B &=-[720\pi^2b^2(\sigma-b)^2]^{-1}+{\cal {O}}[(\sigma/b-1)^{-1}],\\
C &=-[720\pi^2b(\sigma-b)^3]^{-1}+{\cal {O}}[(\sigma/b-1)^{-2}].
\end{aligned}
\end{array}\right.$$]{}
Note that, the above results are relevant to the right Rindler wedge. By imposing the replacements $I_{i\nu}\longrightarrow K_{i\nu}, K_{i\nu}\longrightarrow I_{i\nu}$ in Eq. (\[abg\]), one can straightforwardly obtain the expression for the boundary part of the vacuum energy-momentum tensor in the region $\sigma<b$.
The vacuum energy-momentum tensor on the static de Sitter space Eq. (\[dS\]), therefore, can be easily obtained by the standard transformation law between conformally related problems as follows $$\label{dST} <T_\mu^\nu>^{dS}= \Omega^{-5} <T_\mu^\nu>^{Rindler}.$$ Now considering Eq. (\[G\]), one can easily realize that $G(x,x')$ is finite for $\sigma>b$ since the singular parts of $G_{+}$ and $G_{-}$ cancel as $x'\longrightarrow x$. However, if $x$ is a point on this brane then $$G(x,x')= G_{+}(x,x') + G_{-}(x,x')=-G_{0}(x,x'),$$ for $G_+$ vanishes at the barrier due to the choice of Dirichlet boundary condition. If we now let $x'\longrightarrow x$, we find that $G(x,x')$ exhibits the same singularity as the Minkowski space propagator $i\left[ 4\pi^2(x-x')^2 \right]^{-1}$. Regarding this reasoning $T_\mu^\nu$ could, *a priori*, diverge as $(\sigma -b)^{-4}$. However, when the acceleration of the barrier is reduced to zero, $b\longrightarrow \infty$, the energy-momentum tensor must vanish. So, the reproduction of the result for a single barrier at rest entails the leading behavior of $T_\mu^\nu$, as is found, be at worst of order $\left[ b(\sigma-b)^3 \right]^{-1}$ [@Candelas]. Note that, in order to have a finite $T_\mu^\nu$ there, accurate cancellations are required, which do not occur for massless scalar field subjected to Dirichlet boundary condition. Nevertheless, selecting such a field, apart from the braneworld models motivation, is due to the relevant important considerations of this field which greatly encourage one to pursuit this path to study the electromagnetic field.
*Remarks on the renormalization:* It is worth to mention that in the standard QFT (the Fock space is built on a Hilbert space), any prescription for renormalizing the energy-momentum tensor, which is consistent with Wald axioms, must yield precisely the trace, modulo the trace of a conserved local curvature term [@Wald]. And for the studied case in this paper, a conformally coupled quantum field on the conformally flat background, as has been proved in [@Birrell], the gravitational part of the energy-momentum tensor is entirely determined by the trace anomaly. The above calculations, however, reveal that the manifestation of the gravitational background (the trace anomaly), which corresponds to the situation without boundaries, does not appear. It is not surprising since the KGB structure preserves covariant and conformally covariant in a rather strong sense, therefore the trace anomaly, which can appear only through the conformal anomaly (breaking the conformal invariance when quantum corrections are included), vanishes. In this respect, we should also underline that although the trace anomaly is absent, Wald axioms are well preserved in the context of the KGB construction. Moreover, the covariant automatic renormalization of the energy-momentum tensor, as a significant achievement of this theory, can be helpful in further studying of quantum field theory in curved space-time, where the usual scheme of renormalization includes complexity and somewhat ambiguity.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we discussed the bulk Casimir effect for a conformal scalar field when the bulk represents 5-D de Sitter space-time with one 4-D dS brane, which may be similar to our universe. Due to the fact that the braneworld corresponds to a 5-D manifold with a 4-D dynamical boundary, it is obvious that, regarding the 5-D quantum field theory, the non-trivial vacuum energy should appear. Furthermore, in the context of the brane QFT, the non-trivial brane vacuum energy also emerges. In this regard, the bulk Casimir effect should conceivably serve as the cornerstone in the construction of the consistent braneworlds. Indeed, it gives contribution to both the brane and the bulk cosmological constants. Therefore, one expects that it can be helpful in the resolution of the cosmological constant problem. Indeed, as almost commonly accepted, this problem is mainly a question about quantum gravity, since classically it would be more or less natural to just decide - as Einstein did - that we do not like the cosmological constant, and set it to zero. Accordingly, in the investigation and resolution of the cosmological constant problem the inclusion of the dynamics of quantum gravity would be a crucial step [@Govaerts; @Witten].
Accordingly, the Krein-Gupta-Bleuler structure is considered in this paper to perform the computations. The authors would like to emphasize the fact that the method not only fulfills the so-called Wald axioms but also is consistent with the de Sitter linear gravity requirements; the causality and the covariance of the theory are assured and contrary to what happened in previous treatments of this problem, the model does not suffer from infrared divergences [@Takook1691; @Behroozi; @Dehghani; @Garidi032501; @Pejhan2052; @TakookRouhani; @Rahbardehghan]. Here, it is also worth to mention that, as accurately discussed in Ref. [@Garidi], considering the unitarity condition (see (\[unicon\]) and related discussion) when interaction is present - in the Minkowskian limit - the behaviour of the method, more precisely, the so-called radiative corrections are the same as the usual QFT. Indeed, in the flat limit, vanishing of the free field vacuum energy in the KGB structure is the only difference between our approach and the usual one. In this regard, we also showed that utilizing the method does not destroy black holes thermodynamics and it is able to retrieve the very result for Hawking radiation even regarding the fact that $<0|T_\mu^\nu|0>$ of the free theory is zero [@HawkingRadiation]. In this respect, we hope that the current study based on the Krein-Gupta-Bleuler construction can be extended to the related issues, such as calculation of the Casimir force, due to quantum gravity in dS space.
[a]{}
A.G. Riess et al. \[Supernova Search Team Collaboration\], Astro. J 116, 1009 (1998); S. Perlmutter et al. \[Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration\], Astro. J 517, 567 (1999); U. Seljak, A. Slosar, and P. McDonald, JCAP 014, 610 (2006); A.G. Riess et al., Astro. J 98, 659 (2007).
*The Very Early Universe* edited by G.W. Gibbons, S.W. Hawking, and S.T.C. Siklos (Cambridge University Press, London, 1983).
A.D. Linde, *Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology*, Harwood Academic, Chur, (1990).
A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 116, 335 (1982).
B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D 32, 3136 (1985); B. Allen, A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3771 (1987).
J.P. Gazeau, J. Renaud, and M.V. Takook, Class Quant. Grav. 17, 1415 (2000).
B. Binegar, C. Fronsdal and W. Heidenreich, J. Math. Phys. 24, 2828 (1983).
J.P. Gazeau, J. Math. Phys. 26, 1847 (1985).
S. De Biévre and J. Renaud, Phys. Rev. D 57, 10 (1998).
M.V. Takook, Mod. Phys. Lett. A. 16, 1691 (2001).
S. Behroozi, S. Rouhani, M.V. Takook and M.R. Tanhayi, Phys. Rev. D 74, 124014 (2006).
M. Dehghani, S. Rouhani, M.V. Takook and M.R. Tanhayi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064028 (2008).
T. Garidi, J.P. Gazeau, S. Rouhani and M.V. Takook, J. Math. Phys 49, 032501 (2008).
M.V. Takook, H. Pejhan, M.R. Tanhayi, Eur. Phys. Jour. C 72, 2052 (2012).
M.V. Takook and S. Rouhani, *Quantum Linear Gravity in de Sitter Universe I: On Gupta-Bleuler vacuum state*, arXiv:1208.5562.
S. Rahbardehghan, H. Pejhan, M. Elmizadeh, Eur. Phys. Jour. C 75, 119 (2015).
S.-H. Henry Tye, Ira Wasserman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1682 (2001).
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999).
H. Pejhan and S. Rahbardehghan, arXiv:1408.4531 *Krein Quantization Approach to Hawking Radiation*.
T. Garidi, E. Huguet and J. Renaud, J. Phys. A 38, 245 (2005).
N.D. Birrell, P.C.W. Davies, Cambridge University Press, (1982), *Quantum Field in Curved Space*.
P. Candelas and D. Deutsch, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 79, 354 (1977).
P. Candelas and D.J. Raine, J. Math. Phys 17, 2101 (1976).
R.M.Wald, Phys. Rev. D 17, 1477 (1978).
J. Govaerts and S. Zonetti, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084016 (2013).
E. Witten, arXiv:hep-ph/0002297 *The Cosmological Constant From The Viewpoint Of String Theory*.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: In this formalism, $V_g$ stands for the space of gauge states (longitudinal photon states), while the space of positive frequency solutions of the field equation which satisfy the Lorentz condition is defined by $V$. Meanwhile, $V'$ is allotted to the all positive frequency solutions space which includes un-physical states. These spaces verify $V_g\subset V\subset V'$. The Fock space is constructed over $V'$, which is not a Hilbert space, but an indefinite inner product space; the Klein-Gordon inner product determines the Poincaré and locally and conformally invariant indefinite inner product on $V'$. It should be noted that, all three spaces carry representations of the Poincaré group but $V_g$ and $V$ are not covariantly complemented. The quotient space $V/V_g$ of states up to a gauge transformation is the space of physical one-photon states (for more mathematical details, one can refer to [@BinegarGUPTA; @GazeauGUPTA]).
[^3]: Let us recall that the infrared problem on Minkowski space-time is due to the existence of solutions of arbitrary small frequencies. One could think that this problem, and the symmetry breaking associated with it, will disappear on the de Sitter space-time because the frequencies are now discretized since the space-time is spatially compact. But this is not quite true in the sense that, as we have just seen, the covariance of the theory forces one to include the null frequency solution itself in the normal mode decomposition of the field. This is of course in perfect agreement with Allen’s result cited above.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Ming-Xia Li[$^{\mbox{1}}$]{}, Zhi-Qiang Jiang[$^{\mbox{1}}$]{}, Wen-Jie Xie[$^{\mbox{1}}$]{}, Salvatore Miccichè[$^{\mbox{2}}$]{}, Michele Tumminello[$^{\mbox{3}}$]{},\
Wei-Xing Zhou[$^{\mbox{1}}$]{} & Rosario N. Mantegna[$^{\mbox{2,4}}$]{}
title: '**A comparative analysis of the statistical properties of large mobile phone calling networks**'
---
$^1$School of Business, School of Science, and Research Center for Econophysics, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China, $^2$Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Edificio 18, I-90128 Palermo, Italia, $^3$Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Aziendali e Statistiche, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Edificio 13, I-90128 Palermo, Italia, $^4$Center for Network Science and Department of Economics, Central European University, Nador utca 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary.
([*[Received 25 February 2014; Accepted XXX; Published XXX]{}*]{})
> [**Mobile phone calling is one of the most widely used communication methods in modern society. The records of calls among mobile phone users provide us a valuable proxy for the understanding of human communication patterns embedded in social networks. Mobile phone users call each other forming a directed calling network. If only reciprocal calls are considered, we obtain an undirected mutual calling network. The preferential communication behavior between two connected users can be statistically tested and it results in two Bonferroni networks with statistically validated edges. We perform a comparative analysis of the statistical properties of these four networks, which are constructed from the calling records of more than nine million individuals in Shanghai over a period of 110 days. We find that these networks share many common structural properties and also exhibit idiosyncratic features when compared with previously studied large mobile calling networks. The empirical findings provide us an intriguing picture of a representative large social network that might shed new lights on the modelling of large social networks.**]{}
In the past two decades, the number of mobile phone users in China increased dramatically. There were 47.5 thousand users in 1991. This number increased to 84.5 million in 2000. In October 2013, it was released by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China that there were 1.216 billion mobile phone users. The number of people using mobile phones is certainly less than that number, because it is not uncommon that a person owns two or more mobile phone numbers. Nevertheless, the actual population of mobile phone users is huge. Hence, the records of mobile phone users provide us great opportunities to study human’s mobility patterns, communication dynamics, and social structure.
Gonz[á]{}lez [*[et al.]{}*]{} studied 16,264,308 displacements between successive mobile phone calls of 100,000 individuals randomly selected from a sample of more than 6 million anonymized mobile phone users over a six-month period in a European country and found that the density function follows a shifted power law with an exponential cutoff [@Gonzalez-Hidalgo-Barabasi-2008-Nature]. An analysis of human movements based on the trajectories of 464,670 dollar bills obtained from a bill-tracking system in the United States shows that jumps in human trajectories are distributed as a power law [@Brockmann-Hufnagel-Geisel-2006-Nature]. In contrast, there is evidence showing that intra-urban human mobility does not follow a power law but an exponential distribution according to mobile phone records [@Kang-Ma-Tong-Liu-2012-PA] and taxi trips data [@Peng-Jin-Wong-Shi-Lio-2012-PLoS1; @Liang-Zheng-Lv-Zhu-Xu-2012-PA; @Liang-Zhao-Dong-Xu-2013-SR]. It is crucial to point out that, when compared to human’s mobility patterns at the aggregate level, individuals’ patterns might not be homogeneous but exhibit different features [@Yan-Han-Wang-Zhou-2013-SR]. In addition, different data from different regions may also give different results [@Jiang-Yin-Zhao-2009-PRE]. Intriguingly, human’s mobility patterns are largely predictable [@Song-Qu-Blumm-Barabasi-2010-Science; @Lu-Bengtsson-Holme-2012-PNAS; @Simini-Gonzalez-Maritan-Barabasi-2012-Nature]. It is unmistakable to foresee that mobile phone data will play a more significant role along the progress of constructing smart cities.
Understanding the temporal patterns of human’s communication dynamics is essential in the tracking and management of information spreading and social contagion. According to the analysis of durations between two consecutive calls [@Gonzalez-Hidalgo-Barabasi-2008-Nature; @Candia-Gonzalez-Wang-Schoenharl-Madey-Barabasi-2008-JPAMT; @Karsai-Kaski-Kertesz-2012-PLoS1; @Karsai-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2012-SR; @Jiang-Xie-Li-Podobnik-Zhou-Stanley-2013-PNAS] and short-message correspondences [@Hong-Han-Zhou-Wang-2009-CPL; @Wu-Zhou-Xiao-Kurths-Schellnhuber-2010-PNAS; @Zhao-Xia-Shang-Zhou-2011-CPL], it is well documented that the distribution of inter-communication durations has a fat tail and human interactions exhibit non-Poissonian characteristics. The non-Poissonian communication patterns are also observed in other situations such as email communications [@Barabasi-2005-Nature; @Malmgren-Stouffer-Motter-Amaral-2008-PNAS] and letter correspondences [@Oliveira-Barabasi-2005-Nature; @Li-Zhang-Zhou-2008-PA; @Malmgren-Stouffer-Campanharo-Amaral-2009-Science].
Mobile phone communication data also provide a useful channel for the study of social structure from the perspective of complex networks [@Palla-Barabasi-Vicsek-2007-Nature; @Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-Lazer-Kaski-Kertesz-Barabasi-2007-PNAS; @Jo-Pan-Kaski-2011-PLoS1; @Kumpula-Onnela-Saramaki-Kaski-Kertesz-2007-PRL]. For instance, we can infer friendship network structure by using mobile phone data, offering an alternative method to the standard self-report survey [@Eagle-Penland-Lazer-2009-PNAS]. The investigation of temporal motifs in the calling networks unveils the existence of temporal homophily in the sense that similar individuals tends to participate in mutual communications [@Kovanen-Kaski-Kertesz-Saramaki-2013-PNAS]. The topological properties of a large calling network constructed from European data have been investigated in detail [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], which enhanced our understanding of human social networks and shed new light on modelling weighted large-scale social networks.
In this paper, we investigate the statistical properties of four calling networks (directed calling network (DCN), mutual calling network (MCN), statistically validated directed calling network (SVDCN) and statistically validated mutual calling network (SVMCN), see [*Methods*]{} section for the details of network construction) constructed from the detailed call records of more than nine million different mobile phone numbers from a mobile service provider in China. The DCN is a calling network, in which all mobile phone users in our data set are treated as nodes and a directed link is drawn from a call initiator to a call receiver. The MCN is a bidirectional calling network in which an edge is only drawn between any two mobile users with reciprocal calls. We also extract from DCN and MCN two Bonferroni networks SVDCN and SVMCN in which the links are filtered by a statistical validation test [@Tumminello-Micciche-Lillo-Piilo-Mantegna-2011-PLoS1].
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
[**Size distribution of isolated components and the small-world effect.**]{} Since we can only access the calling records of one mobile service provider, the constructed networks are fragmented into isolated subnetworks or “components”. The original calling network (DCN) contains 236,738 components and its statistically validated calling network (SVDCN) has 468,138 components. There are 3,456,437 nodes and 16,269,689 edges in the giant component of the DCN (GCDCN) and 1,044,522 nodes and 1,440,366 edges for the giant component of the SVDCN, respectively. In contrast, there are 260,799 components in the mutual calling network (MCN) and 198,323 components in the statistically validated mutual calling network (SVMCN). The giant component of the MCN, denoted GCMCN, has 1,978,680 nodes and 4,677,642 edges, while the giant component of the SVMCN has 526,234 nodes and 765,213 edges. We summarize this information in Table \[Table:SumStat\].
CN $N_{\mathrm{node}}$ $N_{\mathrm{edge}}$ $N_{\mathrm{Comp}}$ $N_{\mathrm{GC,node}}$ $N_{\mathrm{GC,edge}}$
------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ -- -- -- -- --
DCN 4,032,884 16,753,635 236,738 3,456,437 16,269,689
SVDCN 2,410,757 2,453,678 468,138 1,044,522 1,440,366
MCN 2,615,247 5,065,397 260,799 1,978,680 4,677,642
SVMCN 1,042,751 1,099,254 198,323 526,234 765,213
: Sizes of the four calling networks and their giant components. $N_{\mathrm{node}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{edge}}$ are respectively the number of nodes and edges of a calling network. $N_{\mathrm{Comp}}$ is the number of components of a calling network. $N_{\mathrm{GC,node}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{GC,edge}}$ are respectively the number of nodes and edges of the giant component of a calling network.[]{data-label="Table:SumStat"}
Panels (a) and (b) of Fig. \[Fig1:Components\] show the empirical distributions of component size $s$, which is defined as the number of nodes in a component for the four communication networks. In Fig. \[Fig1:Components\], the giant components are not included. It is found that the four distributions exhibit an asymptotic power-law decay $$p(s) \sim s^{-(1+\alpha)},
\label{Eq:PDF:s}$$ where the tail exponent $\alpha$ is $2.89$ for the DCN, $2.60$ for the SVDCN, $2.75$ for the MCN, and $2.58$ for the SVMCN. The statistical validated networks SVDCN and SVMCN have a shallower slope and therefore a wider distribution of component sizes than the DCN and MCN. This observation is due to the fact that the giant component of each original network has been segmented by removing the edges that are not statistical validated as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1:Components\](c). We also find that the component size distributions of the statistically validated networks of GCDCN and GCMCN have power-law tails and both tail exponents are $\alpha=2.54$.
We now turn to investigate the local structure of DCN and MCN through their ego networks [@Karsai-Kaski-Kertesz-2012-PLoS1]. For a randomly chosen source node, its ego network of distance $\ell$ contains all the nodes whose distance to the source node is no longer than $\ell$. An example of ego network extracted from the GCMCN is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1:Components\](c).The number of nodes of an ego network of distance $\ell$, $N_s(\ell)$, is plotted as a function of $\ell$ in Fig. \[Fig1:Components\](d) and (e) for several random chosen source nodes and their average. It can be seen that the number of nodes increases exponentially when $\ell \leq 6$ and saturates to the size of the whole network with a slower growth rate when $\ell > 6$. Hence, the two giant components GCDCN and GCMCN exhibit a small-world effect [@Watts-Strogatz-1998-Nature].
[**Degree distribution.**]{} Since the DCN and the SVDCN are directed, we investigate their in-degree and out-degree distributions as shown in Fig. \[Fig2:DegreePDF\](a). All the four probability distributions can be well fitted by an exponentially truncated power law [@Clauset-Shalizi-Newman-2009-SIAMR]: $$p(k) = ak^{-\gamma_k}e^{-k / k_c},
\label{Eq:DegreePDF}$$ where $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{out}} = 1.52$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{out}} = 34.65$ for the out-degree distribution of the DCN, $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{in}} = 1.49$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{in}} = 40.36$ for the in-degree distribution of the DCN, $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{out}} = 2.90$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{out}} = 23.96$ for the out-degree distribution of the SVDCN, and $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{in}} = 2.76$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{in}} = 27.12$ for the in-degree distribution of the SVDCN. Figure \[Fig2:DegreePDF\](b) plots the in-degree and out-degree distributions of the giant components of the DCN and the SVDCN, denoted GCDCN and GCSVDCN in the legend. These distributions can also be nicely fitted by the exponentially truncated power law of Eq. (\[Eq:DegreePDF\]). The estimated parameters are $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{out}} = 1.42$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{out}} = 34.60$ for the out-degree distribution of the GCDCN, $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{in}} = 1.38$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{in}} = 33.71$ for the in-degree distribution of the GCDCN, $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{out}} = 2.00$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{out}} = 10.00$ for the out-degree distribution of the GCSVDCN, and $\gamma_k^{\mathrm{in}} = 1.98$ and $k_c^{\mathrm{in}} = 10.37$ for the in-degree distribution of the GCSVDCN.
According to Fig. \[Fig2:DegreePDF\](a) and (b), the corresponding distributions of a network and its giant component are very similar and share quite a few features. The first feature is that there is no evident difference between the in-degree and out-degree distributions for all the four networks. However, the distribution of an original network exhibits a much heavier tail than its statistically validated network. For instance, the average degree of the two giant components (GCMCN and GCSVMCN) are $\langle{k}^{\mathrm{GCMCN}}\rangle = 4.73$ and $\langle{k}^{\mathrm{GCSVMCN}}\rangle = 2.91$, which means that a mobile phone user on average reciprocally exchanges calls with more than 4 people of whom about 3 people are frequent contacts. However, there are outliers with very large in-degrees and out-degrees that cannot be modelled by the exponentially truncated power law. In addition, there are users characterized by a very large number of out-calls and a small or average number of in-calls. Most of these outliers are not typical mobile phone users but hot lines or “robots” [@Jiang-Xie-Li-Podobnik-Zhou-Stanley-2013-PNAS]. After filtering out the edges that do not pass the statistical validation, the number of outliers reduces significantly in the distributions of Bonferroni networks.
In Fig. \[Fig2:DegreePDF\](c) and (d), we present the degree distributions of the MCN, of the SVMCN, and of the two giant components of these two networks (GCMCN and GCSVMCN). These four networks are not directed since the edges stand for reciprocal calls between any two users. These degree distributions can also be well fitted by the exponentially truncated power law of Eq. (\[Eq:DegreePDF\]). The estimated parameters are $\gamma_k = 1.46$ and $k_c = 20.81$ for the MCN, $\gamma_k = 1.20$ and $k_c = 4.27$ for the SVMCN, $\gamma_k = 1.40$ and $k_c = 21.00$ for the GCMCN, and $\gamma_k = 0.40$ and $k_c = 3.35$ for the GCSVMCN. For comparison, we note that the degree distribution for the European GCDCN has a shifted power-law form $p(k) = a (k +k_0)^{-\gamma_k}$ with $k_0 = 10.9$ and $\gamma_k = 8.4$ [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-Lazer-Kaski-Kertesz-Barabasi-2007-PNAS]. Most of the features of the MCN networks are similar to those of the DCN networks. An interesting difference is that the right-end tails become much narrower, because the reciprocal calling criterion for the construction of MCN has the ability to filter out most of those abnormal calls associated with hot lines and robots which are often unidirectional.
[**Degree-degree correlation.**]{} The mixing patterns of complex networks have significant implications on the structure and function of the underlying complex systems [@Newman-2002-PRL]. Most social networks are reported to be assortative, i.e., people with many contacts are connected to others who also have many contacts. This may lead to a positive degree-degree correlation in the network, suggesting that the degree of a node positively correlates to the average degree of its neighborhood. The average nearest neighbors degree of a node $i$ is defined as $k_{nn,i} = (1/k_i) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_i} k_j$, where $\mathcal{N}_i$ is the neighbor nodes set of $i$. In the calculation of $k_{nn}$ for the DCN and the SVDCN, we do not consider the direction of the edges. By averaging this value over all nodes in the network for a given degree $k$, one can calculate the average nearest neighbors degree denoted by $\langle k_{nn}|k\rangle$. A network is said to be assortatively mixed if $\langle k_{nn}|k\rangle$ increases with $k$ and disassortatively mixed if it decreases as a function of $k$.
In Fig. \[Fig3:DegreeCorr\](a) and (b), we show the dependence of $\langle k_{nn}|k\rangle$ as a function of $k$ for the giant components of the four networks. We find that $\langle k_{nn}|k=1\rangle>\langle k_{nn}|k=2\rangle$ for all curves. This observation was also present in the investigation of a large European dataset [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP]. For $k$ values larger than 2, the $\langle k_{nn}|k\rangle$ function exhibits an evident increasing trend to reach a maximum. After the maximum, there is a decreasing region for large $k$. We notice that the overall shape of the two curves for the two MCN networks is qualitatively similar to that observed in the investigation of the European dataset [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP]. A closer scrutiny of the GCDCN curve unveils an approximate plateau for the largest degrees. This can be partly explained by the fact that the nodes with the largest degrees usually correspond to hot lines or robots who receive calls from or call to diverse people. Figure \[Fig3:DegreeCorr\](a) shows that mobile phone users with a “reasonable” number of contacts form an assortative network, while users with an abnormally large number of contacts exhibit a disassortative mixing pattern.
We also compute two weighted average nearest neighbors degrees defined as $k^N_{nn,i}=\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}k_jw^N_{ij}/s^N_i$ and $k^D_{nn,i}=\sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i}k_jw^D_{ij}/s^D_i$ to measure the degree-degree correlations [@Barrat-Barthelemy-PastorsSatorras-Vespignani-2004-PNAS; @Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], where $w^N_{ij}$ is the number of calls between $i$ and $j$, $s^N_i$ is the total number of calls between $i$ and her contacts, $w^D_{ij}$ is the call duration between $i$ and $j$, and $s^D_i$ is the total call duration between $i$ and her contacts. In the calculation of $k^N_{nn,i}$ and $k^D_{nn,i}$ for the DCN and the SVDCN, we do not consider the direction of the edges. We average these two weighted degrees over all users with the same degree $k$ to get $\langle k^N_{nn,i}|k\rangle$ and $\langle k^D_{nn,i}|k\rangle$. We show in Fig. \[Fig3:DegreeCorr\](c) and (d) the weighted average nearest neighbour degrees for the four giant components of the four networks. We note that there is no significant difference between the two curves with number and duration weights for each network. The weight-based curves in Fig. \[Fig3:DegreeCorr\](c) and (d) exhibit almost the same behaviors as the unweighted results in Fig. \[Fig3:DegreeCorr\](a) and (b).
[**Edge weight distribution.**]{} For a calling network, we have defined two kinds of weight for each edge between two users. For the DCN and the SVDCN, the number-based edge weight $w^N_{ij}$ is the number of calls occurred between user $i$ and user $j$ and the duration-based edge weight $w^D_{ij}$ is the total time elapsed during users $i$ and $i$ talk to each other through their mobile phones. Following Ref. [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], we focus on the giant components of the four networks. For the GCSVMCN, two connected users talked with each other on average $\langle w^N\rangle \thickapprox 23.98$ times and $\langle w^D\rangle \thickapprox 2234$ seconds ($37$ minutes). Figure \[Fig4:EdgeWeightPDF\] shows the distributions of the giant components of the four networks.
Figure \[Fig4:EdgeWeightPDF\](a) shows that the distribution for the GCSVDCN exhibits an obvious kink at $w^N\approx120$. It is not clear why there is such a kink. We can use a bi-power-law distribution to fit the data $$\begin{aligned}
p(w) \sim w^{-\alpha_1}, & 1<w<120\\
p(w) \sim w^{-\alpha_2}, & w>120
\label{Eq:EdgeWeightPDF:GCSVDCN}\end{aligned}$$ where the two power-law exponents are $\alpha_1 = 1.79$ and $\alpha_2 = 2.97$. In contrast, the distribution for the GCDCN can be fitted by an exponentially truncated power law $$p(w) = aw^{-\gamma_w}e^{-w / w_c},
\label{Eq:EdgeWeightPDF}$$ where $\gamma_w^N = 1.60$ and $w^N_c = 140.1$. The two distributions in Fig. \[Fig4:EdgeWeightPDF\](b) can also be fitted by Eq. (\[Eq:EdgeWeightPDF\]), except for the region defined by $w^N<10$. The estimated parameters are $\gamma_w^N = 1.35$ and $w^N_c = 174.1$ for the GCMCN and $\gamma_w^N = 1.37$ and $w^N_c = 120.45$ for the GCSVMCN. We note that, rather than using the maximum likelihood estimation as in [@Clauset-Shalizi-Newman-2009-SIAMR], the least-squares regression approach is adopted to fit the curves throughout this work. Indeed the method proposed in [@Clauset-Shalizi-Newman-2009-SIAMR] cannot be applied straightforwardly to truncated power-laws.
The distributions of duration-based edge weight $w^D$ for the giant component of the four networks are shown in Fig. \[Fig4:EdgeWeightPDF\](c) and (d). The distributions for the original network and its corresponding statistically validated network are very similar. There is a maximum in each distribution occurring for a value, which is close to 100 seconds. These distributions cannot be well fitted by the exponentially truncated power law expressed in Eq. (\[Eq:EdgeWeightPDF\]), nor a power law.
[**Correlations between edge weights.**]{} One would expect that there is a positive correlation between the weights of call number $w^N_{ij}$ and call duration $w^D_{ij}$. In Fig. \[Fig5:WeightCorr\](a) and (b), we illustrate the scatter plots of duration-based weights $w^D_{ij}$ and number-based weights $w^N_{ij}$ of a random sample of 5000 edges selected in the giant component of the MCN and the SVMCN. The two weights are strongly correlated as expected. The Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient $r$ between $w^N_{ij}$ and $w^D_{ij}$ is $r(w^N_{ij},w^D_{ij}) = 0.660$ for the GCMCN and $r(w^N_{ij},w^D_{ij}) = 0.726$ for the GCSVMCN, indicating the existence of a strong positive correlation. The relationship between the two link weights can also be characterized by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient $\rho$, which is a non-parametric measure of the statistical dependence between two variables. We obtain that $\rho(w^N_{ij},w^D_{ij}) = 0.8802$ for the GCMCN and $\rho(w^N_{ij},w^D_{ij}) = 0.864$ for the GCSVMCN. Since Spearman’s correlation is higher than Pearson’s correlation, the correlation has a nonlinear component in spite of the presence of a linear trend in the association between $w^N_{ij}$ and $w^D_{ij}$. The results for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN are similar.
To analyze in more detail the correlation, we equally partition the interval $[\min(w^N), \max(w^N)]$ into 30 intervals by logarithmic binning and assign each link into one of the 30 groups. We obtain the call number weight $w^D$ as a function of call duration weight $w^N$ by calculating the mean and standard deviation of $w^N$ and $w^D$ in each group. Specifically, we plot $\langle w^D/w^N\rangle$ as a function of $w^N$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN in Fig. \[Fig5:WeightCorr\](c) and for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN in Fig. \[Fig5:WeightCorr\](d). The average duration of a call is close to 200 seconds for all the networks and it is almost independent of the number of calls. We observe that the statistical validated networks have lower $\langle w^D/w^N\rangle$ values and lower fluctuations. Another interesting feature is that the call duration fluctuates more for small or large number of calls.
[**Node strength distribution.**]{} For each user, we define two node strengths based on the number and duration of calls. The number-based node strength $s^N_i = \sum_{j\in{\mathcal{N}}_i} w^N_{ij}$ is the total number of calls the user made, while the duration-based node strength $s^D_i = \sum_{j\in\mathcal{N}_i} w^D_{ij}$ is the total duration of calls the user performed. For the directed networks, we can further distinguish incoming and outgoing node strengths.
The distributions of number-based node strength are shown in Fig. \[Fig6:NodeStrengthPDF\](a) and (b) for the giant components of the four networks. The distributions for the GCDCN, the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN can be fitted by an exponentially truncated power law function $$p(s) \sim s^{-\gamma_s}\exp(-s / s_c).
\label{Eq:NodeStrengthPDF}$$ The fitted curves are shown as dashed red lines in Fig. \[Fig6:NodeStrengthPDF\](a) and (b). We estimate that $\gamma_s^{N, {\mathrm{out}}} = 1.15$, $s^{N, {\mathrm{out}}}_c = 332.11$, $\gamma_s^{N, {\mathrm{in}}} = 1.15$ and $s^{N, {\mathrm{in}}}_c = 403.89$ for the GCDCN, $\gamma_{s}^N = 0.9$ and $s^N_c = 470.5$ for the GCMCN, and $\gamma_s^N = 0.77$ and $s^N_c = 179$ for the GCSVMCN. For the GCSVDCN, the distribution curves are not smooth and the fitting would be of poor quality.
The distributions of duration-based node strength are shown in Fig. \[Fig6:NodeStrengthPDF\](c) and (d) for the giant components of the four networks. These distributions share a very similar shape, which is reminiscent of the inter-call durations at the population level [@Candia-Gonzalez-Wang-Schoenharl-Madey-Barabasi-2008-JPAMT; @Karsai-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2012-SR; @Jiang-Xie-Li-Podobnik-Zhou-Stanley-2013-PNAS]. For the directed networks, there is no difference between incoming and outgoing call durations. Figure \[Fig6:NodeStrengthPDF\](d) shows that the statistical validation method is able to filter out the nodes with very short or very long mutual call durations.
[**Correlations between node strength.**]{} For nodes, besides the degree-degree correlation, we also study the correlation between node strength. The number-based and duration-based correlation of node strengths are calculated as follows: $s^N_{nn} = (1 / k_i) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_i} s^N_j$ and $s^D_{nn} = (1 / k_i) \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_i} s^D_j$. The results for the giant components of the four networks are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig7:NodeStrengthCorr\](a)-(d). In the figure, all curves show a very slow increase for small $s^D$ and $s^N$ values and then a more pronounced increase for large values of $s$. For small $s < s_x$, independence can be observed, whereas a dependence of the form $\langle s_{nn}|s\rangle \sim s^{\alpha}$ is observed for large $s^D$ and $s^N$ values. For strong ties with $w^D > 2 \times 10^4$, which form $1.6\%$ of all edges of the original giant component, the strength of both adjacent nodes depends almost on the weight of this single edge ($s_i = w_{ij} = s_j$). This explains the linear trend in the strength-strength correlation of the original GC network ($\alpha^{D,{\mathrm{MCN}}} \approx 1$). In contrast, we find that $\alpha^{N,\mathrm{MCN}} \approx 0.5$ when $s^{N,\mathrm{MCN}} > 200$, $\alpha^{D,\mathrm{MCN}} \approx 1$ when $s^{D,\mathrm{MCN}} > 10^4$, $\alpha^{N,\mathrm{SVMCN}} \approx 0.5$ when $s^{N,\mathrm{SVMCN}} > 50$, and $\alpha^{D,\mathrm{SVMCN}} \approx 0.67$ when $s^{D,\mathrm{SVMCN}} > 200$.
Similar to Fig. \[Fig5:WeightCorr\](c) and (d), we calculate and plot $\langle s^D/s^N\rangle$ as a function of $s^N$ for the giant components in Fig. \[Fig7:NodeStrengthCorr\](e) and (f). It is found that all the curves exhibit a slight decreasing trend both in the mean and in the standard deviation as a function of node strength. In addition, the curves for the statistically validated networks are lower than their original counterparts.
[**Cross-correlations between node strength, edge weight and node degree.**]{} We now turn to the cross-correlations between node strength, edge weight and node degree. Figure \[Fig8:xCorr:w:s:k\](a) and (b) plot the dependence of the node strengths on the node degree for the giant components of the four networks. The curves have a power law dependence: $\langle s|k\rangle \sim k^{\alpha}$. The best fitting power-law exponents are the following: $\alpha^{N,{\mathrm{out}}} = \alpha^{N,{\mathrm{in}}} \approx 1.0$ and $\alpha^{D,{\mathrm{out}}} = \alpha^{D,{\mathrm{in}}} \approx 0.85$ for the GCDCN, $\alpha^{N,{\mathrm{out}}} = \alpha^{N,{\mathrm{in}}}\approx 1.1$ and $\alpha^{D,{\mathrm{out}}} = \alpha^{D,{\mathrm{out}}} \approx 0.95$ for the GCSVDCN, $\alpha^{N} \approx 0.95$ and $\alpha^{D} \approx 0.86$ for the GCMCN, and $\alpha^{N} \approx 1.01$ and $\alpha^{D} \approx 1.23$ for the GCSVMCN. For the GCMCN, the average call durations of individuals who have high degrees are slightly less than that of individuals with low degrees. These results confirm that the statistical validation procedure filters out communications occurring between users linked by underlying social relationships. We also observe that $\alpha^N > \alpha^D$ for the GCMCN, suggesting that individuals who talk to a large quantity of users appear to spend less time per callee than those who spend less time on phone.
We present the correlation between strength product $s_is_j$ and degree product $k_ik_j$ in Fig. \[Fig8:xCorr:w:s:k\](c) and (d). Also in this case we observe a clear power-law dependence $\langle s_is_j | k_ik_j \rangle \sim \langle k_ik_j \rangle^\beta$. According to Ref. [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], if $\langle s_i \rangle = k_i \langle w \rangle$, one would expect that $\langle s_is_j | k_ik_j \rangle = \langle w \rangle^2 \langle k_ik_j \rangle$. Differently than expected, we obtain that $\beta^{N} \approx 1.12$ and $\beta^{D} \approx 1$ for the GCDCN, $\beta^{N} \approx 1.35$ and $\beta^{D} \approx 1.48$ for the GCSVDCN, $\beta^{N} \approx 0.9$, $\beta^{D} \approx 0.8$ for the GCMCN, and $\beta^{N} \approx 1.2$ and $\beta^{D} \approx 1$ for the GCSVMCN. The discrepancy of $\beta\neq1$ indicates that there are correlations between node degree and the weights of the edges adjacent to the node.
We also study the correlation between edge weight and node degree product (Fig. \[Fig8:xCorr:w:s:k\](e) and (f)) and the correlation between edge weight and node strength product (Fig. \[Fig8:xCorr:w:s:k\](g) and (h)). The $\langle w^D_{ij} | k_ik_j \rangle$ curve and the $\langle w^N_{ij} | k_ik_j \rangle$ curve are very similar for each network, and there are evident difference between the $\langle w_{ij} | k_ik_j \rangle$ curves of an original network and its statistically validated network. However, the dependence of the $\langle w_{ij} | k_ik_j \rangle$ curves on the degree product $k_ik_j$ is weak. In contrast, the $\langle w_{ij} | s^N_is^N_j \rangle$ curves increase rapidly and exhibit roughly power laws: $\langle w_{ij}|s_is_j\rangle \sim (s_is_j)^\delta$, where $\delta^{N}\approx0.43$ and $\delta^{D}\approx0.44$ for the GCDCN, $\delta^{N}\approx0.42$ and $\delta^{D}\approx0.47$ for the GCSVDCN, $\delta^{N} \approx 0.3$ and $\delta^{D}\approx0.45$ for the GCMCN, and $\delta^{N} \approx 0.4$ and $\delta^{D} \approx 0.5$ for the GCSVMCN.
[**Clustering coefficients.**]{} Clustering coefficient is an important metric of complex networks. It represents the local cohesiveness around a node. The clustering coefficient of node $i$ is defined as $C_i = 2 t_i / [k_i(k_i - 1)]$, where $t_i$ is the number of triangles of node $i$ with its neighbours. For the directed networks (DCN and SVDCN), we treat edges as undirected. We find that the average clustering coefficients of the giant components of the four networks are 0.11 (DCN), 0.02 (SVDCN), 0.12 (MCN), and 0.11 (SVMCN). The relatively small values of the average clustering coefficients suggest that tree-shaped subgraphs are quite frequent in the local structure of the four networks. Indeed, the clustering coefficient of about 72.5% of the users is zero. It is worth noting that the clustering coefficients of the communication networks of European users are also small [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP]. We also observe that the average clustering coefficient in the SVDCN is smaller than in the DCN network. This observation reflects the fact that the statistical validation approach, while minimizing the presence of links not related to an underlying social relationship, may also remove edges with meaningful social relationships. See the Methods section for a more detailed discussion of this aspect.
Panels (a) and (b) of Fig. \[Fig9:ClusteringCoeff\] show the dependence of $\langle{C|k}\rangle$ on $k$ for the four networks. Surprisingly, we do not observe a power-law decay as observed for the European users [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP]. On the contrary, high-degree users have a relatively high clustering coefficient. This can be partially explained by the fact that one main promotion strategy of the mobile phone service provide is to make contract with institutions with lower communication prices. The users with more contacts are usually “secretaries” and their contacts also call each other frequently. Figure \[Fig9:ClusteringCoeff\](c) and (d) present the dependence of average weighted clustering coefficient $\langle{\tilde{C}|s}\rangle$ [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP] on $s$ for the four networks. The increasing trend in these curves is also observed in the European case [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP].
[**Topological overlap of two connected nodes.**]{} The topological overlap of the neighborhood of two connected nodes $i$ and $j$ is estimated by considering the relative overlap of their common neighbors [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], $$\label{EQ:Overlap}
O_{ij} = \frac{n_{ij}}{k_i + k_j - 2 - n_{ij}}$$ where $k_i$ and $k_j$ are the degrees of the two nodes and $n_{ij}$ is the number of neighbors common to both nodes $i$ and $j$. Overlap is the fraction of common neighbors that a pair of connected nodes has, which is different from the edges-clustering coefficient reflecting the probability that a pair of connected vertices has a common neighbor [@Radicchi-Castellano-Cecconi-Loreto-Parisi-2004-PNAS]. In the calculation of overlap for the directed networks, we ignore the direction of edges and treat the directed networks as undirected networks.
Fig. \[Fig10:Overlap:w\](a) illustrates the average overlap $\langle O | w^N \rangle$ as a function of the number-based edge weight $w^N$ for the four networks. The two curves for the MCN and the SVMCN are similar, while the curve for the DCN is higher than that for the SVDCN indicating that a significant fraction of common neighbors have been removed by the statistical validation method. In addition, all the curves exhibit an increasing trend and the two blue curves seemingly decrease after $w^N\approx2000$. The curve for the MCN is very different from the European case with a bell shape curve with a maximum at $w^N\approx50$ [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP]. Fig. \[Fig10:Overlap:w\](b) illustrates the average overlap $\langle O | w^D \rangle$ as a function of duration-based edge weight $w^D$ for the four networks. Similar to the European case [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], all the average overlap curves $\langle O | w^D \rangle$ increase up to $w^D \approx 2\times10^4$, whereas after that they decline quickly. In Fig. \[Fig10:Overlap:w\](c) and (d), we show the average overlap $\langle O | P_c(w^N) \rangle$ and $\langle O | P_c(w^D) \rangle$ against the cumulative edge weight $P_c(w^N)$ and $P_c(w^D)$ respectively. Different from the behavior observed in the European case [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], all the curves increase. Fig. \[Fig10:Overlap:w\] shows that the statistical validation method does not change much the overlap structure of the mutual calling networks. However, the overlap reduces remarkably after applying the statistical validation method on the edges of the directed calling networks.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
We have constructed and investigated four calling networks from a data set of more than nine million phone users. These networks are the directed calling network, the mutual calling network and their statistically validated networks. The statistical properties of these four calling networks have been investigated in a comparative way. Specifically, we have considered the distributions of the degree, the edge weight, the node strength, the relative overlap of two connected nodes, and their mutual dependence. We found that these networks share many common topological properties and also exhibit idiosyncratic characteristics in both qualitative and quantitative ways. When compared with the results observed for a mutual calling network of an European data set of mobile phone users [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP], the results obtained for the Shanghai data set exhibit some different communication behaviors.
The differences between the two original calling networks (DCN and MCN) and their statistically validated networks are of great interest. We have observed that the size of statistically validated network is significantly smaller than its original network. Also, the Bonferroni networks have thinner degree distributions, indicating fewer highly connected nodes. This finding suggests that a large proportion of edges in high-degree nodes might not be directly associated with an underlying social motivation, which is consistent with the finding that there are hot lines and robots calling a large number of different users and characterized by an ultra low number of incoming calls [@Jiang-Xie-Li-Podobnik-Zhou-Stanley-2013-PNAS]. For the original networks the average call durations of high-degree users are slightly less than that of low-degree users, while for the statistical validated networks, we observe the opposite situation that high-degree individuals have larger average call durations than low-degree individuals. Our comparative analysis shows the importance of investigating statistically validated networks because the original networks contain users whose communication patterns are not reflecting a social motivation. The calling profile of these users makes difficult to uncover the true communication behavior of the system.
It is natural that the networks for the Shanghai data set and the European data set share many common topological properties. However, we also observed several discrepancies. The differences are of crucial interest as they might point to different mechanisms at play in mobile communication networks (and more generally in social networks) located at different parts of the world. For instance, we observed a different broadness of degree distributions, which might originate from different dynamics in social ties formation and disappearance [@Ghoshal-Chi-Barabasi-2013-SR]. The different behaviors that might explain formation and deletion of social ties indicate the presence of different elementary mechanisms governing social dynamics under different cultures and social norms. However, a detailed investigation of these issues is beyond the scope of this work.
The setting of the statistical validation and its threshold depends on the problem investigated. One can choose to use a more or less conservative threshold (as it is done when one choose a 0.05 or 0.01 or 0.001 univariate threshold). To investigate the possible impacts of different thresholds, we repeat all the analyses by using as a Bonferroni threshold $0.01/N_E$, where $N_E$ is the number of pairs of subscribers that had at least one call over the entire period for the DCN or the number of pairs of subscribers with mutual calls in the MCN. In this way we have two new Bonferroni networks for the DCN and MCN networks obtained with the least restrictive Bonferroni threshold we can set. It is obvious that the new Bonferroni networks have larger sizes. We find that the results are qualitatively the same as the more restrictive Bonferroni threshold. The differences are only quantitative. For instance, the degree distributions are broader simply because the there are more nodes with higher degrees.
It might be worth discussing more in detail the implications of the statistical validation. While the statistical validation is useful to filter edges like hot lines and robots, it also removes a consistent fraction of possible edges with meaningful social relationships. We argue that any other filtering methods also suffer a similar shortcoming. For instance the filtering method keeping bidirectional links while removing unidirectional links [@Onnela-Saramaki-Hyvonen-Szabo-deMenezes-Kaski-Barabasi-Kertesz-2007-NJP] or the method extracting the “multiscale backbone” of the original network in which the edges are statistically validated by identifying which links of a node carry disproportionate fraction of the weights [@Serrano-Boguna-Vespignani-2009-PNAS]. For such large social networks, we will never be able to identify all the [*true*]{} social ties but rather any filtering procedure will present false positive links, that is, links present in the filtered network but without a social origin, and false negative links, that is, links that are absent in the filtered network but have a social origin. In this respect, we can say that our statistical validation method minimize the number of false positive links while does not put constraints on the number of false negative links. For example, a similar approach has been pursued $(i)$ in Ref. [@Hatzopoulos-Iori-Mantegna-Micciche-Tumminello-2014-QF] to investigate preferential credit links between banks and firms based on their mutual credit relationships or $(ii)$ in Ref. [@Tumminello-Lillo-Piilo-Mantegna-2012-NJP] to identify clusters of investors from their real trading activity in a financial market. Further details about the methodology, specifically applied to mobile phone data, can also be found in Ref. [@Li-Palchykov-Jiang-Kaski-Kertesz-Micciche-Tumminello-Zhou-Mantegna-2014-NJP], where interesting evolution patterns of triadic motifs are discussed.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
[**Data description.**]{} Our data set comprises the detailed call records of more than nine million different mobile phone numbers from one mobile operator in Shanghai during two separated periods. One is from 28 June 2010 to 24 July 2010 and the other is from 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010. Because the records in several hours are missing on October 12, November 6, 21, 27, and December 6, 8, 21, 22, these days are excluded from our sample. The sample has a total of 110 days of call records. Each entry of the records contains the following information, caller number, callee number, call starting time, call length, as well as call status. The caller and callee numbers are encrypted for protecting personal privacy. Call status with a value of 1 means that the call gets through successfully and is terminated normally. When we construct communication networks, only the calls with the call status equaling to 1 are considered.
[**Construction of networks.**]{} There are three mobile operators in mainland China. We only have access to the entire call records used for billing purpose of one operator. We thus focus on the calling networks between mobile phone users that are costumers of the operator. We construct four calling networks as follows.
The directed calling network (DCN) is composed of all users. If user $i$ calls user $j$, a directed edge is assigned from $i$ to $j$. There are a total of 4,032,884 nodes and 16,753,635 directed edges in the DCN. The mutual calling network (MCN) contains part of the users. An edge is drawn between user $i$ and user $j$ if and only if there are reciprocal calls between them. All isolate nodes are not included in the MCN. There are totally 2,615,247 nodes and 5,065,397 edges in the MCN. One can see that about 70% edges are not reciprocal in the DCN.
We then perform statistical validation on each edge of the DCN and the MCN as described below. Edges that are consistent with the null hypothesis of random selection of the receiver are removed together with the nodes that become isolated. With our procedure we obtain a statistical validated directed calling network (SVDCN) which has 2,410,757 nodes and 2,453,678 edges and a statistical validated mutual calling network (SVMCN) which has 1,042,751 nodes and 1,099,254 edges. The sizes of the two original networks reduce significantly.
[**Statistical validation of edges.**]{} The statistical validation is performed by comparing the number of calls observed between each pair of caller and receiver with a null hypothesis of random matching between the caller and the receiver. The null hypothesis takes into account the heterogeneity in the number of calls performed by subscribers. The method is a variant of the approach originally proposed in Ref. [@Tumminello-Micciche-Lillo-Piilo-Mantegna-2011-PLoS1] and used in different systems [@Tumminello-Lillo-Piilo-Mantegna-2012-NJP; @Hatzopoulos-Iori-Mantegna-Micciche-Tumminello-2014-QF; @Li-Palchykov-Jiang-Kaski-Kertesz-Micciche-Tumminello-Zhou-Mantegna-2014-NJP]. Here the statistical validation is done by considering the number of calls done by a caller, the number of calls received by a receiver and checking whether or not the number of calls exchanged between them is compatible with the null hypothesis that these calls were made by selecting randomly the receiver. The test is performed as detailed hereafter. The test allows to assign a $p$-value to each pair of caller and receiver. The $p$-values are then compared with a statistical threshold set at 1%. However, since the null hypothesis of random pairing is tested for all pairs of subscribers, we have to perform a multiple hypothesis test correction in order to control the number of false positives. In this work, we use the Bonferroni correction which is the most restrictive amongst all possible corrections minimizing the number of false positives. When a link between two subscribers $i$ and $j$ has a $p$-value less than the Bonferroni threshold we assume that the calls from $i$ to $j$ have a social origin.
The $p$-value is obtained as follows. Let us denote $N$ as the total number of phone calls of all users in the calling network, $N_{ic}$ the number of calls initiated by individual $i$ and $N_{jr}$ the number of calls received by individual $j$. Assuming that $X = N_{icjr}$ is number of calls initiated by individual $i$ and received by individual $j$. The probability of observing $X$ co-occurrences is given as follows [@Tumminello-Micciche-Lillo-Piilo-Mantegna-2011-PLoS1; @Tumminello-Micciche-Lillo-Varho-Piilo-Mantegna-2011-JSM]: $$\label{EQ:OverExpression}
H(X|N,N_{ic},N_{jr}) = \frac{C^X_{N_{ic}}C^{N_{jr} - X}_{N - N_{ic}}}{C^{N_{jr}}_N},$$ where $C^X_{N_{ic}}$ is a binomial coefficient. We can associate a $p$-value to the observed $N_{icjr}$ as follows: $$\label{EQ:p:Nicjr}
p(N_{icjr}) = 1 - \sum^{N_{icjr} - 1}_{X = 0} H(X|N,N_{ic},N_{jr}).$$
The Bonferroni correction for the multiple testing hypothesis is $p_b = 0.01/N_T$ where $N_T$ is the number of performed tests. For the DCN, we perform $N_T=16,753,635$ tests. If the estimated $p(N_{icjr})$ is less than $p_b$, we conclude that the calls between user $i$ and user $j$ cannot be explained by a null hypothesis of random calls from $i$ to $j$ performed according to the heterogeneity of the caller and the receiver. When the test does not reject the null hypothesis, the directed edge from $i$ to $j$ is removed.
In the validation of the MCN network, we need to estimate the $p$-value of the number of calls $N_{jcir}$ initiated by $j$ and received by $i$ in a similar way. For the MCN, we need to conduct $N_T=2\times5,065,397=10,130,794$ tests. The Bonferroni correction for the multiple hypothesis test is again $p_b = 0.01/N_T$. If the estimated $p(N_{icjr})$ is less than $p_b$, we can conclude that $i$ preferentially calls $j$. We also need to estimate the $p$-value of the number of calls $N_{jcir}$ initiated by $j$ and received by $i$ in a similar way. The edge between $i$ and $j$ is included in the statistically validated network if and only if the two directional links are both validated.
To illustrate how this method works, we present a few quantitative examples with typical values of calls extracted from Fig. \[Fig1:Components\](c). We consider the DCN, in which $p_b=0.01/N_T=1/16,753,635=9.87\times10^{-10}$. The root node (square) is linked to one node close to it. For calls the root node made, $N_{ic}=14$, $N_{jr}= 81$, and $N_{icjr}=14$, leading to $p(N_{icjr})=6.36\times10^{-88}$. For calls the root node received, $N_{ic}=58$, $N_{jr}= 81$, and $N_{icjr}=14$, resulting in $p(N_{icjr})=0$. These two directed links between the root node and her unique contact are thus statistically significant. Consider the dashed link connecting a node in the lime green cluster and a node in the gray cluster, located in the southeast of Fig. \[Fig1:Components\](c). For the direct link from the lime green node to the gray node, $N_{ic}=400$, $N_{jr}= 824$, $N_{icjr}=2$, and $p(N_{icjr})=3.41\times10^{-6}$. For the direct link from the lime green node to the gray node, $N_{ic}=289$, $N_{jr}= 459$, $N_{icjr}=1$, and $p(N_{icjr})=1.05\times10^{-3}$. In spite of the low $p$-values, these two directed links are statistically compatible with the null hypothesis of random selection of the receiver when a Bonferroni correction is applied. More information about the distribution of $p$-values can be found in Ref. [@Li-Palchykov-Jiang-Kaski-Kertesz-Micciche-Tumminello-Zhou-Mantegna-2014-NJP].
It is worth pointing out that many of the links not statistically validated might also be associated with a social origin. In fact, with our choice of the Bonferroni correction we primarily control the absence of false positives. This is done at the cost of observing an admittedly high level of false negative. The motivation behind our choice is that we aim to detect with our methodology a backbone of social interaction that is not affected by the presence of false positives.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** (). .
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* (). .
*et al.* . ** ().
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11205057), the Humanities and Social Sciences Fund of the Ministry of Education of China (09YJCZH040), the Fok Ying Tong Education Foundation (132013), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.]{}
Author contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
[WXZ and RNM conceived the study. MXL, ZQJ, WJX, SM, MT, WXZ and RNM designed and performed the research. MXL performed the statistical analysis of the data. ZQJ, WXZ and RNM wrote the manuscript. MXL, ZQJ, WJX, SM, MT, WXZ and RNM reviewed and approved the manuscript.]{}
Additional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}
======================
[[**Competing financial interests:**]{} The authors declare no competing financial interests.]{}
[[**License:**]{} This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/]{}
[**How to cite this article:** Li, M.-X., Jiang, Z.-Q., Xie, W.-J., Miccichè, S., Tumminello, M., Zhou, W.-X. & Mantegna, R. N. A comparative analysis of the statistical properties of large mobile phone calling networks. Sci. Rep. 4, xxx; DOI:10.1038/srep00xxx (2014).]{}
![[**Network components.**]{} (a) Component size distributions of the calling network (DCN), the statistically validated calling network (SVDCN), and the statistically validated network of the DCN giant component (SVGCDCN). (b) Component size distributions of the mutual calling network (MCN), the statistically validated bidirectional calling network (SVMCN), and the statistically validated network of the MCN giant component (SVGCMCN). (c) An ego network extracted from the MCN, containing all nodes within a distance $\ell=5$ from the source node ($\square$) and the corresponding edges. The nodes having the maximum distance from the source node are drawn as triangles ($\triangle$) and other nodes are drawn as circles ($\circ$). The solid lines represent the validated calling relationship in the SVMCN, while the dashed lines are the original edges in the MCN. Nodes with the same color form a component. (d) Number $N_s(\ell)$ of nodes in the ego network within a distance of $\ell$ from the source node obtained by snowball sampling as a function of distance $\ell$ for the random choices of the source node (solid lines) and their average (dashed line) for the GCDCN. The dotted black line refers to the maximum size of the GCDCN. (e) Number $N_s(\ell)$ as a function of distance $\ell$ for the GCMCN.[]{data-label="Fig1:Components"}](Fig1.eps "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} -0.5cm
![**Degree distribution.** (a) Distributions of in-degree and out-degree of the DCN and the SVDCN. (b) Distributions of in-degree and out-degree of the giant components of the DCN and SVDCN. (c) Degree distributions of the MCN and the SVMCN. (d) Degree distributions of the giant components of the MCN and the SVMCN. The dashed red lines are the fitted curves using exponentially truncated power law distributions.[]{data-label="Fig2:DegreePDF"}](Fig2.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Degree-degree correlation.**]{} (a) Average nearest neighbor degree $\langle k_{nn}|k\rangle$ as a function of degree $k$ for the GCDCN and GCSVDCN. (b) Average nearest neighbor degree $\langle k_{nn}|k\rangle$ as a function of degree $k$ for the GCMCN and GCSVMCN. (c) Weighted average nearest neighbor degree $\langle k^N_{nn}|k\rangle$ and $\langle k^D_{nn}|k\rangle$ as a function of degree $k$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (d) Weighted average nearest neighbor degree $\langle k^N_{nn}|k\rangle$ and $\langle k^D_{nn}|k\rangle$ as a function of degree $k$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN.[]{data-label="Fig3:DegreeCorr"}](Fig3.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Edge weight distributions for the giant components of the four networks.**]{} (a) Distributions of number-based edge weight $w^N$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (b) Distributions of number-based edge weight $w^N$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN. (c) Distributions of duration-based edge weight $w^D$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (d) Distributions of duration-based edge weight $w^D$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN.[]{data-label="Fig4:EdgeWeightPDF"}](Fig4.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Edge weight correlations.**]{} (a) Scatter plot of duration-based weights $w^D_{ij}$ and number-based weights $w^N_{ij}$ of a random sample of 5000 edges in the giant component of the MCN. (b) Scatter plot of $w^D_{ij}$ and $w^N_{ij}$ of a random sample of 5000 edges in the giant component of the SVMCN. (c) Plot of $\langle w^D / w^N \rangle$ as a function of $w^N$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (d) Plot of $\langle w^D / w^N \rangle$ as a function of $w^N$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN.[]{data-label="Fig5:WeightCorr"}](Fig5.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Node strength distributions.**]{} (a) Distributions of number-based node strength $s^N$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (b) Distributions of number-based node strength $s^N$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN. (c) Distributions of duration-based node strength $s^D$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (d) Distributions of duration-based node strength $s^D$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN.[]{data-label="Fig6:NodeStrengthPDF"}](Fig6.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Node strength correlations.**]{} (a) Average number-based node strength $\langle s^N_{nn} | s^N \rangle$ as a function of $s^N$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (b) Average number-based node strength $\langle s^N_{nn} | s^N \rangle$ as a function of $s^N$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN. (c) Average duration-based node strength $\langle s^D_{nn} | s^D \rangle$ as a function of $s^D$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (d) Average duration-based node strength $\langle s^D_{nn} | s^D \rangle$ as a function of $s^D$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN. (e) Plot of $\langle s^D / s^N \rangle$ as a function of $s^N$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (f) Plot of $\langle s^D / s^N \rangle$ as a function of $s^N$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN.[]{data-label="Fig7:NodeStrengthCorr"}](Fig7.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Cross-correlations between node strength, edge weight and node degree.**]{} (a,b) Power-law dependence of the average number-based and duration-based node strength on the node degree for the giant components of the four networks. (c,d) Dependence of $\langle s^N_is^N_j | k_ik_j \rangle$ and $\langle s^D_is^D_j | k_ik_j \rangle$ on the degree product. (e,f) Average duration-based edge weight $\langle w^D_{ij} | k_ik_j \rangle$ and number-based edge weight $\langle w^N_{ij} | k_ik_j \rangle$ as a function of degree product $k_ik_j$. (g,h) Average duration-based edge weight $\langle w^D_{ij} | s^D_is^D_j \rangle$ and number-based edge weight $\langle w^N_{ij} | s^N_is^N_j \rangle$ as a function of strength product $s^D_is^D_j$. The curves for number-weighted node strength have been shifted rightwards horizontally by a factor of 1000 for clarity.[]{data-label="Fig8:xCorr:w:s:k"}](Fig8.eps "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Clustering coefficient.**]{} (a) Average clustering coefficient $\langle C |k \rangle$ as a function of $k$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (b) Average clustering coefficient $\langle C |k \rangle$ as a function of $k$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN. (c) Average weighted clustering coefficient $\langle\tilde{C} | s^N\rangle$ and $\langle\tilde{C} | s^D\rangle$ as a function of $s$ for the GCDCN and the GCSVDCN. (d) Average weighted clustering coefficient $\langle\tilde{C} | s^N\rangle$ and $\langle\tilde{C} | s^D\rangle$ as a function of $s$ for the GCMCN and the GCSVMCN.[]{data-label="Fig9:ClusteringCoeff"}](Fig9.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
![[**Topological overlap.**]{} (a) Average overlap $\langle O | w^N \rangle$ as a function of number-based edge weight $w^N$ for the four networks. (b) Average overlap $\langle O | w^D \rangle$ as a function of duration-based edge weight $w^D$ for the four networks. (c) Average overlap $\langle O | C(w^N) \rangle$ as a function of cumulative number-based edge weight $w^N$ for the four networks. (d) Average overlap $\langle O | C(w^D) \rangle$ as a function of cumulative duration-based edge weight $C(w^D)$ for the four networks. []{data-label="Fig10:Overlap:w"}](Fig10.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -0.5cm
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the propagation of the light mesons $\sigma, \omega, \rho$, and $a_0$(980) in dense hadronic matter in an extended derivative scalar coupling model. Within the scheme proposed it is possible to unambiguously define effective density-dependent couplings at the lagrangian level. We first apply the model to study asymmetric nuclear matter with fixed isospin asymmetry, and then we pay particular attention to hypermatter in $\beta$-equilibrium. The equation of state and the potential contribution to the symmetry coefficient arising from the mean field approximation are investigated.'
address: |
Department of Physics, La Plata National University\
C.C. 67 (1900) La Plata, Argentina
author:
- 'R. Aguirre and A.L. De Paoli'
title: Propagation of mesons in asymmetric nuclear matter in a density dependent coupling model
---
-2cm -.5cm -.5cm
Introduction {#0}
============
In recent years the medium dependence of the meson-baryon couplings has been object of speculation [@TOKI; @WEIGEL; @LENSKE1; @LENSKE2; @LENSKE3; @TYPEL; @BANERJEE; @RAKHIMOV; @THOMAS]. This subject has been promoted by the successes of the so-called quantum hadrodynamics theory (QHD) [@WALECKA], in the relativistic description of diverse nuclear phenomena.
The assumption of variable couplings in the mean field approximation (MFA) is founded on different grounds. It can be interpreted as the trace of the quark structure of hadrons [@BANERJEE; @RAKHIMOV; @THOMAS], or it can be viewed as a way to match effective lagrangians and free-space nucleon-nucleon interactions [@TOKI; @WEIGEL; @LENSKE1; @LENSKE2; @LENSKE3; @TYPEL]. In any case assigning a variable behavior to the couplings seems to be an appropriate method to interpolate from one dynamical regime to another, using effective hadron field models. A similar meaning has been given to the in-medium meson masses, which have been related to the transition to the chiral regime [@BROWN-RHO]. The so-called Brown-Rho scaling law qualitatively describes the behaviour of the hadronic masses in the proximity of the transition point. According to the scaling law, all hadronic masses decrease approximately at the same rate as the system approaches to the chiral phase transition (with exception of the pseudo-scalar meson masses). Applied to the light vector mesons this hypothesis could explain some experimental results, as for example the dilepton production rate in heavy ion collisions.
On the other hand, in certain purely hadronic models the non-polynomial meson-nucleon interaction gives rise to effective, density-dependent coupling in the MFA [@BHATTAC; @AGUIRRE; @AGUIRRE2]. In this paper we propose an extension of the derivative scalar coupling model (DSCM) of , which preserves the charge symmetry and provides effective couplings for all the mesonic channels. The medium dependence comes through the mean value of the scalar $\sigma$ meson, evaluated at finite density and temperature. More general interactions could include non-linear vertices in terms of all the mesons considered, but we restrict here to the simplest case. This choice is similar to the approach of [@LENSKE1], where the functional dependence of the couplings includes only the product $\bar{\Psi}\gamma_\mu \Psi$, but not the scalar $\bar{\Psi} \Psi$ or more involved nucleon field combinations. As stressed in this reference, the density variation of the couplings must be written as a Lorentz invariant functional of the considered fields, to obtain the correct Euler-Lagrange equations. Otherwise the so called “rearrangement" contribution is absent and the thermodynamical consistency is lost.
We use the model proposed here to investigate asymmetric nuclear matter at finite temperature, therefore we explicitly include the isovector mesons $\rho$ and $a_0(980)$.
The equation of state of asymmetric matter is an important input in astrophysical studies such as the cooling rate of neutron stars or the supernova collapse mechanism. Also it is of interest in the description of heavy-ion collisions, where experiences with radioactive beams are expected to provide new insights into the structure of dense matter with high degree of asymmetry. This situation has stimulated the interest in this issue, and many theoretical works have been done in the last years [@LENSKE2; @LI1; @LI2; @KUTSCHERA; @KUTSCHERA1; @KUTSCHERA2; @KUTSCHERA3; @BROWN; @VARIOS; @GRECO].
As an important case of asymmetric matter we consider hadronic matter in $\beta$-equilibrium. For this purpose we generalize the DSCM model to include the octet of baryons $n, \Lambda, \Sigma$, and $\Xi$. It is well known that the proton concentration is determinant in the cooling of neutron stars [@LATTIMER; @LATTIMER2], and this concentration is mainly determined by the isospin-dependent contribution to the equation of state.
It is also of interest to study the meson properties under these conditions since, for instance, it could carry information about transient states of matter during heavy-ion collisions. This subject has been poorly developed in the literature. We have evaluated the meson propagators in the relativistic random phase approximation (RRPA), including particle-antiparticle contributions, and we have extracted from them the effective meson masses.
We organize this paper presenting the model in Sec. \[SEC2\], in Sec. \[SEC3\] we discuss the bulk properties of symmetric nuclear matter at zero temperature, meanwhile the asymmetric nuclear matter equation of state is treated in Sec. \[SEC4\]. The properties of $\beta$-stable matter are considered in Sec. \[SEC5\], and the Feynman graphs contributing to the RRPA, the evaluation of the propagators and the behavior of mesons in the hadronic environment are presented in Sec. \[SEC6\]. We conclude with the discussion and summary in Sec. \[SEC7\].
The modified DSCM {#SEC2}
=================
In this section we present a relativistic model of hadronic fields inspired on the DSCM proposed by Zimanyi and Moszkowski . The DSCM has been used to study nuclear many-body effects in several applications [@VARIOS2], to investigate neutron star properties [@GLENDENNING], extended to include nucleon resonances [@CHOUD] and hyperons [@BARRANCO], related to an effective quark description of hadronic properties [@SCHVE], and generalized with a tensor coupling [@BIRO] in order to improve the spin-orbit splitting.
The DSCM has two important features which distinguish it from the QHD-I model of Ref. [@WALECKA]. In first place it is non-renormalizable [*ab initio*]{} and there is no immediate way to introduce vacuum corrections to the MFA to the ground state, although the main properties of nuclear matter are successfully described. In second place a residual interaction can be extracted beyond the lowest order solution, whose strength decreases monotonically as a function of the baryonic density [@AGUIRRE; @AGUIRRE2]. This fact ensures the ground state predominance at high density as assumed in QHD [@WALECKA].
Since we are interested here in the description of asymmetric matter, besides the fields $\Psi^a$ for the nucleons, we include the isoscalar scalar ($\sigma$) and isoscalar vector ($\omega_\mu$) mesonic fields, and those corresponding to the $\rho$ isovector vector ($\rho_\mu^A$) and the $a_0 (980)$ isovector scalar ($\delta^A$) mesons. We use greek, latin lowercase and latin uppercase indexes to denote Lorentz, baryon isospin and meson isospin components, respectively.
In its simplest version the DSCM has a Yukawa type N-$\omega$ coupling and a N-$\sigma$ non-polynomic term. We modify the vertices allowing for two different mesons (one of them the scalar $\sigma$) to locally interact with a baryon:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{DSC}&=& \bar{\Psi}\left[i \not \! \partial -\frac{M - g_d
\,{{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\tau$}}} \cdot {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\delta$}}}+ g_w \not \! \omega + g_r {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\tau$}}}
\cdot \not \! \! {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\rho$}}}/2} {1+g_s \sigma/M} \right] \Psi +
\frac{1}{2} (\partial^\mu \sigma \partial_\mu \sigma - m_s^2 \sigma^2)+
\frac{1}{2}(\partial^\mu {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\delta$}}}
\partial_\mu {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\delta$}}} - m_d^2 {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\delta$}}}^2) \nonumber \\
-&\frac{1}{4}&
F^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{2} m_w^2
\omega^2 - \frac{1}{4} {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $R$}}}^{\mu \nu} {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $R$}}}_{\mu \nu} +
\frac{1}{2} m_r^2 {{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\rho$}}}^2 , \label{DSCM}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Psi (x)$ is the isospin multiplet nucleon field, $M$ is the averaged nucleon mass and $g_s, g_d, g_v,$ and $g_r$ are adimensional coupling constants. As usual in QHD the ground state for homogeneous infinite matter is approximated by considering mesonic fields as classical quantities and assimilating them to effective nucleon properties. Thus we can separate the c-number contributions: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x) &=& \bar{\sigma} + s(x), \label{REPLACEMENTS} \\
\delta^A (x)&=& \bar{\delta}\,\, \delta^{3A}+ d^A(x), \label{REPLACEMENTD} \\
\omega_{\mu}(x) &=&\bar{\omega} \,\, \delta_{\mu 0} + w_{\mu}(x),\\
\rho_{\mu}^A(x) &=&\bar{\rho} \,\, \delta_{\mu 0} \delta^{3A}+
r_{\mu}^A(x),\label{REPLACEMENTR}\end{aligned}$$
where $\bar{\sigma}$, $\bar{\delta}$, $\bar{\omega}$, and $\bar{\rho}$ are classical mean field values and $s, d^A, w_{\mu}$, and $r^A_\mu$ are quantum fluctuations which are not included in the ground state. Expressions for the c-number contribution to meson fields can be obtained by taking statistical averaged Euler-Lagrange equations, and requiring self-consistency. In this way we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
m_s^2 \bar{\sigma}&=&g_s \frac{<\bar{\Psi} (M - g_d \tau_3
\bar{\delta} + g_w \gamma_0 \bar{\omega} + \frac{1}{2} g_r \tau_3
\gamma_0 \bar{\rho}) \Psi>}{M N^2} , \label{SELFCONS} \\ m_d^2
\bar{\delta}&=&g_d \frac{<\bar{\Psi} \tau_3 \Psi>}{N},\\
m_w^2 \bar{\omega} &=&g_w \frac{<\Psi^{\dagger} \Psi>}{N} , \label{SELFCONSW}\\
m_r^2 \bar{\rho} &=&g_r \frac{<\Psi^{\dagger} \tau_3 \Psi>}{N} ,\label{SELFCONSR}\end{aligned}$$
where we have used $N=1+ g_s \bar{\sigma} / M$. The expectation values must be evaluated with the ground state solution for the nucleon field, which depends on $\bar{\sigma}$ and $\bar{\delta}$ through the effective nucleon mass: $$M_i^{\ast}=\frac{M-g_d I_i \bar{\delta}}{N}, \label{EFFMASS}$$ with $I_i=1,-1$ for protons and neutrons, respectively. The nucleon dispersion relation is also modified according to $(p_0-g_w
\bar{\omega}-g_r I_i \bar{\rho}/2)^2-p^2=M^{\ast\, 2}_i$.
In Eqs. (\[SELFCONSW\]) and (\[SELFCONSR\]) the terms between angular brackets represent the conserved baryon density and the isospin density, respectively.
A residual nucleon-meson interaction arises beyond the lowest order approximation [@AGUIRRE] by inserting Eqs. (\[REPLACEMENTS\])-(\[REPLACEMENTR\]) in the interaction term: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{M+ \sum_i \Gamma_i \phi_i}{1+g_s \sigma/M}&=& \frac{M+\sum_i
\Gamma_i (\bar{\phi}_i+ \delta \phi_i)}{N (1+\frac{g_s}{N} s)}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the expression above the symbol $\phi_i$ represents any one of the mesonic fields $\delta, \omega$, and $\rho$, which by virtue of Eqs.(\[REPLACEMENTD\])-(\[REPLACEMENTR\]) splits into the classical mean value $\bar{\phi_i}$, and the quantum fluctuation $\delta \phi_i$. $\Gamma_i$ stands for the bare meson nucleon vertices: $\Gamma_i=-g_d
{\mathbf \tau}, g_w \gamma, g_r {\mathbf \tau} \gamma/2$, corresponding to the $a_0, \omega$, and $\rho$ mesons respectively. The right hand side of this equation is non-polynomic and can not be used to directly apply a diagrammatic expansion. Restricting to the physical regime for which quantum fluctuations are negligible compared to mean values, enables us to approximate:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{M+ \sum_i \Gamma_i \phi_i}{1+g_s \sigma/M}&\simeq&M^\ast +
\gamma_0 \,\, \delta \varepsilon + {\cal L}_{res}, \label{Lres1}\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \varepsilon&=&\sum_{\omega,\rho} \Gamma_i^\ast
\bar{\phi}_i,\label{Lres2} \\ {\cal L}_{res}&=&-g_s^\ast s +
\sum_i \Gamma_i^\ast \left[\delta \phi_i - \frac{g_s}{N M}
(\bar{\phi}_i + \delta \phi_i)s \right].\label{Lres3}\end{aligned}$$
We have introduced the medium dependent vertices $\Gamma_i^*$, which are obtained from the bare ones by replacing the coupling constants $g_d, g_w$, and $g_r$ by effective couplings. The last ones are given by the relation $g_d/g_d^*=g_w/g_w^*=g_r/g_r^*=N$. Also we have used $g_s/g_s^\ast=N^2$.
The expansion proposed in Eq. (\[Lres1\]) respects the organizational principle of nuclear effective field theories [@SEROT].
In this approximation, the residual interaction of Eq.(\[Lres3\]) arises besides the nucleon effective mass (\[EFFMASS\]) and the contribution to the nucleon single particle energy (\[Lres2\]). The interaction term ${\cal L}_{res}$ comprises a one meson-nucleon vertex, together with a two-meson exchange term. In all cases the vertex functions are medium dependent, $g_s^\ast\left(1+ \sum_i \Gamma_i
\bar{\phi_i} / M \right), \Gamma_d^\ast, \Gamma_w^\ast$, and $\Gamma_r^\ast$ for the one-meson case and $g_s^\ast \Gamma_i/M$ for the two-meson instance.
This linearized version can be used to study the quantum corrections beyond the mean field approximation.
Variable couplings are an expected feature of hadronic models, whenever the quark substructure becomes relevant [@BANERJEE; @RAKHIMOV; @THOMAS]. Furthermore, density dependent couplings have been proposed as a key assumption in order to match relativistic nucleon potentials adjusted to scattering data, with hadronic field models [@TOKI; @WEIGEL; @LENSKE1; @LENSKE2; @LENSKE3; @TYPEL]. This approach was initiated as a way to avoid involved Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations for finite systems, using one boson exchange potentials. Thus, the main purpose is to take advantage of the relative simplicity of the Hartree approach to the QHD models. The link between both schemes is established by requiring the equality of the nucleon self-energy in symmetric nuclear matter as evaluated in both formulations, and allowing QHD coupling constants to be density dependent.
In our treatment the effective couplings are unambiguously extracted from the lagrangian, once the MFA has been introduced. Thus in this scheme one has a well defined and invariant way to describe the medium influence on the couplings. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the approach is guaranteed.
Up to this point we have restricted the discussion only to protons and neutrons, however the introduction of hyperons is straightforward. A sum over different baryonic species must be considered in the lagrangian density and the vertices must be modified in order to take into account the isospin degeneracy of each one. Also, additional couplings between the mesons and every hyperon iso-multiplet must be introduced. A more detailed discussion will be given in Sec. \[SEC5\].
The energy density $E$ for infinite homogeneous hadronic matter, can be evaluated in the MFA by taking the statistical average of the energy momentum tensor: $E=<T^{00}>$. The thermodynamical pressure $P$ under the same conditions is obtained by averaging the trace of the spatial-spatial component of this tensor: $P=<$Tr$\, T^{ij}>/3$. We include the corresponding equations for the sake of completeness:
$$\begin{aligned}
E&=&\sum_{i=p,n} \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\infty d^3k E_{k\,i}
\left[ n_F(E_{k\,i})+n_F(-E_{k\,i})\right]+ \frac{1}{2}(m_s^2
{\bar{\sigma}}^2 + m_d^2 {\bar{\delta}}^2- m_w^2 {\bar{\omega}}^2
- m_r^2 {\bar{\rho}}^2) \nonumber \\ &+& g_w^\ast {\bar{\omega}}\,
n +
\frac{1}{2} g_r^\ast {\bar{\rho}}\,(n_p-n_n), \label{ENERGY} \\
P&=&\sum_{i=p,n} \frac{1}{3(2\pi)^3}\int_0^\infty d^3k
\frac{k^2}{E_{k\,i}} \left[ n_F(E_{k\,i})+n_F(-E_{k\,i})\right]-
\frac{1}{2}(m_s^2 {\bar{\sigma}}^2 + m_d^2 {\bar{\delta}}^2- m_w^2
{\bar{\omega}}^2 - m_r^2 {\bar{\rho}}^2),\label{PRESSURE}\end{aligned}$$
with $E_{k\,i}=\sqrt{M_i^{\ast 2}+k^2}$, $M_i^\ast$ is given by Eq. (\[EFFMASS\]), and
$$\begin{aligned}
n_F(z_i)=\frac{\Theta(z_i)}{1+e^{\beta(x_i-\mu_i)}}+
\frac{\Theta(-z_i)}{1+e^{\beta(x_i+\mu_i)}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
is the nucleon statistical occupation number, $x_i=z_i+g_w
\bar{\omega}+I_i g_r \bar{\rho}/2$ is the particle energy, $\mu_i$ is the chemical potential, and $\beta=1/k_B T$. The chemical potential is related to the number density of the i-type particle through: $$n_i=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3}\int_0^{\infty} d^3k \left[
n_F(E_{k\,i})-n_F(-E_{k\,i})\right],\label{IPARTICLE}$$ and finally $n=n_p+n_n$ is the total particle number density.
To evaluate Eqs. (\[ENERGY\]) and (\[PRESSURE\]), one must fix the particle number densities $n_p, n_n$ and then simultaneously solve Eqs. (\[SELFCONS\])-(\[EFFMASS\]), together with Eq. (\[IPARTICLE\]).
Another interesting quantity is the nuclear symmetry energy $E_s$ defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
E_s=\frac{1}{2} \left. \frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial \chi^2}
\right|_{\chi=0}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi=(n_n-n_p)/n$. This energy contains a purely kinetic term $T$, and a contribution $V_s$ coming from the isovector mesons only. The explicit expression for $E_s$ at zero temperature, including the $a_0$ meson contribution has been already derived, see for example [@KUTSCHERA2]:
$$\begin{aligned}
E_s&=&T+V_s, \label{E-S}\\
T&=&\frac{1}{12}\sum_{i=p,n} \, \frac{p_{F_i}^ 2}{E_{F_i}}, \\
V_s&=&g_r^{\ast 2} \frac{n_0}{8 m_r^2}-g_d^{\ast 2} \frac{n_0
\sum_i \,\left( \frac{M_i^\ast}{E_{F_i}}\right)^2} {4
(m_d^2+g_d^{\ast 2} A)},\label{E-S3}\end{aligned}$$
where $p_{F_i}$ is the Fermi momentum for the i-type particle, $E_{F_i}=\sqrt{p_{F_i}^2+M_i^{\ast 2}}$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
A=\sum_{i=p,n} \frac{3}{\pi^2 E_{F_i}}\left[M_i^{\ast 2}
p_{F_i}+\frac{p_{F_i}^3}{3}- M_i^{\ast 2} \ln\left(
\frac{p_{F_i}+E_{F_i}}{M_i^\ast}\right)\right] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Bulk properties of symmetric nuclear matter at T=0 {#SEC3}
==================================================
In the previous section we have presented the model, which contains several free parameters. The masses of the $a_0, \omega$ and $\rho$ mesons are taken at their physical values $m_d=984$ MeV, $m_w=783$ MeV, and $m_r=770$ MeV respectively. We adopt the accepted value for the $\sigma$ meson mass $m_s=550$ MeV. There remains to determine the four coupling constants. We adjust them to reproduce the main bulk properties of symmetric nuclear matter: the saturation density $n_0=0.15 fm^{-3}$, the binding energy $\varepsilon_B=-15$ MeV, and the symmetry energy $E_s=32$ MeV at zero temperature and at normal density. Another quantity of physical interest is the isothermal compressibility $\kappa_T$, however the DSCM provides very good values for $\kappa_T$ without imposing any further condition. Therefore we have three physical conditions to fix the four coupling constants. Two of them, $g_s$ and $g_w$ are univocally determined to take the values $g_s=12.379$, $g_w=14.624$, whereas $g_r$ and $g_d$ are functionally dependent through Eqs. (\[E-S\])-(\[E-S3\]) evaluated at $n=n_0$. For our calculations we have selected two sets of couplings $(g_r,g_d)$, denoted by $A$ and $B$: set $A=(11.583,0)$ and set $B=(15,6.538)$, which are shown in Fig. \[FIGgr-gd\].
As previously mentioned, a feature of the model proposed is the presence of effective couplings. The behaviour of these couplings relative to their vacuum values is the same for the $\delta, \omega,$ and $\rho$ fields, and different for the scalar $\sigma$, as discussed in Sec. \[SEC2\]. As can be seen in Fig. \[FIGgS-MFA\], the channel corresponding to the last case is much more suppressed in dense matter. This figure corresponds to symmetric nuclear matter, but it must be noted that the behavior of the effective couplings depends on the composition of the hadronic medium, [*i.e.*]{} they must depend on the asymmetry coefficient $\chi$.
Although of diverse inspiration and derivation, we compare these results with the density dependent hadron field theory (DDHFT) outcomes [@LENSKE1; @LENSKE2; @LENSKE3; @TYPEL]. For this purpose we use the interpolating algebraic function given in [@LENSKE3]. Differences are appreciable at medium and high densities. The couplings for $\sigma, \omega,$ and $\rho$ are monotonous decreasing in both formalisms. A dropping of $20\%$ for the isoscalar mesons, and of $42\%$ for the $\rho$ meson is detected in the DDHFT at $n/n_0=2$. Our results provides for the same conditions a stronger decay of $60\%$ for the $\sigma$ coupling and of $40\%$ in the remaining cases.
With the sets of parameters $A$ and $B$ we have evaluated some properties of symmetric nuclear matter at zero temperature. In Fig. \[FIGEoST=0x=0\] we compare our results for the binding energy and the pressure as functions of the baryon number density, with the corresponding outcome of the standard DSCM. It can be seen that there are not appreciable differences below $n=1.5\,n_0$, from here on both $\varepsilon_B$ and $P$ grow more slowly in our calculations. The isothermal compressibility is a measure of the stiffness of the pressure, we get at the saturation density $\kappa_T=165$ MeV, against $\kappa_T=220$ MeV for the DSCM. The lower slope of the binding energy in our results is essentially due to the weakening of the repulsion at higher densities induced by the normalization factor $N$. On the other hand, the relative difference between the mean values $\bar{\sigma}$ and $\bar{\omega}$ increases with $n$ in our model, meanwhile in the standard DSCM it approaches to zero. This gives rise to the relative lessening of the pressure at high densities in our results.
The medium effects on the effective nucleon mass can be seen in Fig. \[FIGMASS-MFA\], where a comparison with the DSCM result is made. In both cases $M^\ast$ is positive definite and monotonous decreasing, but the rate of falling at densities $0<n<2\,n_0$ is more pronounced in our case because of the higher value of $g_s$ needed to reproduce the normal properties of nuclear matter. At higher values of the baryonic density $M^\ast$ stabilizes, due to the dynamical screening of the effective coupling.
As the next step we investigate the density dependence of the symmetry energy $E_s$. It has been profusely studied in the past, using non-relativistic potentials as well as relativistic formulations [@LI1; @LI2; @KUTSCHERA; @KUTSCHERA1; @KUTSCHERA2; @KUTSCHERA3; @BROWN]. Recently $E_s$ has received attention by its applications to the study of the structure of nuclei with a large neutron excess, produced in the radioactive ion beam facilities. It is also a relevant subject in the evolution of neutron stars, determining the composition of the ground state and the cooling mechanism [@LATTIMER], or the phase transition to quark matter [@KUTSCHERA3]. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the ratio of neutrons to protons in the pre-equilibrium stage of collisions between neutron rich nuclei could distinguish the asymmetric contribution of the nuclear equation of state [@LI1].
Different theoretical predictions for $E_s$ produce rather dissimilar density dependences. In the left part of Fig. \[FIGESymm\] we compare our results for the symmetry energy coefficient, with and without the contribution of the $a_0$-meson, with other commonly used descriptions. We include the result from the QHD-I model [@WALECKA] without scalar-isovector coupling, and other three cases labeled P1, P2, and P3. The latter correspond to the phenomenological parameterizations [@LATTIMER2]:
$$\begin{aligned}
E_s&=&\frac{3}{5} \left( 2^{2/3}-1\right)e_F
\left[u^{2/3}-F(u)]+E_{s 0} F(u)\right],\end{aligned}$$
where $u=n/n_0$, $e_F$ is the non-relativistic Fermi energy at the saturation density, and the function $F(u)$ takes the forms $F_1(u)=2 u^2/(1+u)$, $F_2(u)=u$, and $F_3(u)=\sqrt{u}$ for the curves denoted as P1, P2 and P3, respectively. All the curves are almost coincident for densities $n<1.5\, n_0$, but their mutual differences become significant for densities above that limit. The exception corresponds to the cases A and P3, which differ each other only by negligible amounts in all the range of shown densities. From Eq. (\[E-S3\]) it can be seen that the contributions to $V_s$ of the iso-vector $\delta$ and $\rho$ mesons are opposite in sign. However choosing $g_d\neq 0$ brings on an enhanced behaviour of $E_s$, because the value of $g_r$ required to adjust $E_s=32$ MeV at $n=n_0$ is bigger than $g_d$ (see Fig. \[FIGgr-gd\]). It must be noted that the rate of growth of the cases A, B, and P3 decreases with density, whereas it remains approximately constant for the curves P1, P2 and QHD-I.
The effect of polynomial self-interactions of the $\sigma$ field in QHD models has been studied in [@GRECO]. Both, the inclusion of exchange terms and of the $\delta$ coupling in Hartree approximation enhance the density dependence of $E_s$, and therefore diverge from curves A and B in the left part of Fig. \[FIGESymm\], being more alike to the P1 parametrization.
The behavior of $E_s$ depends on the method of evaluation and the model of interaction used, the latter defines the $V_s$ term. In the right part of Fig. \[FIGESymm\] we display the interaction contributions for $E_s$ obtained with the sets A and B, and we compare them with $V_s$ extracted from the QHD-I model [@WALECKA] and with the parameterization given by [@KUTSCHERA3] for the variational calculations (VC) made in [@WIRINGA]. It can be seen that our results are intermediate between QHD-I and the VC results. A characteristic behaviour of the VC is that $V_s$ becomes negative for densities bigger than certain typical value, causing the disappearance of protons in neutron stars at high densities.
From the behavior of the symmetry terms shown in Fig. \[FIGESymm\], we expect that the fraction of protons in star matter should be lower in our results as compared, for instance, with the QHD-I model prediction, although this fraction remains non vanishing for all densities in our case. The inclusion of the $\delta$ coupling (curve B) slightly increases the presence of protons.
The equation of state of asymmetric nuclear matter {#SEC4}
==================================================
We study here the properties of nuclear matter at finite temperature by taking the asymmetry coefficient $\chi$ as a free parameter. In the next section the isospin asymmetry will be determined by the conditions of electric charge neutrality and matter stability against electroweak decay.
In first place we inspect the density dependence of the nucleon effective mass for fixed $\chi$. In Fig. \[FIGMASSY\] we compare results with and without $\delta$ coupling at T=0 and $\chi=0.5$. For $g_d=0$ (set A) proton and neutron masses are degenerate, and for $g_d \neq 0$ (set B) the neutron (proton) mass is lowered (enhanced) due to medium effects. The splitting is heightened as the density increases.
Temperature effects are minimal in the range $0< T < 100$ MeV, and more noticeable at high densities. For example, when the coupling set A is chosen, an increment of about 5 MeV in the nucleon effective mass is observed at $n=5 n_0$ as the temperature is raised from $T=0$ to $T=100$ MeV, at a given $\chi$. Of the same magnitude but opposite in sign is the effect of increasing the asymmetry from $\chi=0$ to $\chi=1$ at a fixed temperature. When the coupling set B is used, it is found that the in-medium mass splitting $\Delta M^\ast=M^\ast_p -
M^\ast_n$ decreases when the temperature is raised at fixed $\chi$. On the other hand, $\Delta M^\ast$ is enhanced when the asymmetry is isothermally increased. Numerical values of this mass splitting depend on the set of couplings used, and we estimate the magnitude of both temperature and asymmetry effects calculating $\Delta M^\ast$ with the set B at $n=5\, n_0$. In this case the splitting reduces about 5 MeV in neutron matter when the temperature covers the range $0< T < 100$ MeV, but an increment of approximately 50 MeV is found in $\Delta M^\ast$ if $\chi$ is varied between $\chi=0$ and $\chi=1$ at fixed temperature.
The thermodynamical pressure $P$ has been evaluated using Eq. (\[PRESSURE\]), for several temperatures $0 < T < 100$ MeV, and several asymmetries $0 < \chi < 1$. As expected, increasing the temperature produces an enhancement of the pressure. This effect is strengthened by raising the asymmetry. The quantitative behavior of the pressure can be seen in Figs. \[FIGPVSN-TX0\] and \[FIGPVSN-XT0\]. In the first one we plot the pressure as a function of the number density at fixed asymmetry $\chi=0.25$ and for several temperatures. For $T\geq 20$ MeV it is a monotonous increasing function of the density, whereas for $T=0$ it exhibits a region of instability for densities below $n_0$. This instability gives rise to a liquid-gas phase transition [@WALECKA]. The results in Fig. \[FIGPVSN-TX0\] correspond to the set A. By using the set B qualitatively similar results are obtained.
The relevance of the asymmetry in our calculations can be observed in Fig. \[FIGPVSN-XT0\]. The higher the values of the asymmetry the stiffer the pressure raises, this effect being emphasized when the coupling $g_d$ is non zero. The liquid-gas instability remains for low $T$ and $n$, disappearing for $\chi$ close to $1$.
Hadronic matter in $\beta$-equilibrium. {#SEC5}
=======================================
The conditions in the interior of certain stellar objects like protoneutron stars, requires additional degrees of freedom to be included in the lagrangian density of Sec. \[SEC2\]. Due to the large densities reached in such systems, several physical phenomena could take place. The appearance of mesons and baryons with strangeness, pion and/or kaon condensation, the chiral symmetry restoration, and the phase transition to a quark-gluon plasma are some of the expected processes. They must be taken into account, in order to properly describe the high density behavior of the equation of state. In this section we complete the model proposed by including the hyperons $\Lambda, \Sigma,$ and $\Xi$, but we do not treat explicitly the chiral symmetry and quark degrees of freedom. Therefore our results should be valid until fluctuations preceding any phase transition become relevant. However we present here calculations in the range $0< n/n_0 <
10$ for the sake of comparison.
As anticipated in Sec. \[SEC2\], the modifications in the lagrangian density are straightforward since we retain the form of the interaction for all the baryons. A sum over the full octet $N, \Lambda,
\Sigma,$ and $\Xi$ must be considered in Eq. (\[DSCM\]), and new couplings $g_s, g_d, g_w,$ and $g_r$ are introduced for the hyperons. Furthermore, the vertex between the $\rho$ meson and the baryon B must be modified by including an appropriate coefficient: $I_{B3}=1/2$ for proton and $\Xi^0$, $I_{B3}=-1/2$ for neutron and $\Xi^-$, $I_{B3}=1$ for $\Sigma^+$, $I_{B3}=0$ for $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$, and $I_{B3}=-1$ for $\Sigma^-$.
The new couplings should be fixed to reproduce some relevant quantity, according to the phenomenological approach. We proceed in this way to determine the $\sigma$- and $\omega$-$\Lambda$ couplings. Using hypernuclei data the $\Lambda$ binding energy can be extrapolated to be $\varepsilon_\Lambda=-28$ MeV at $n_0$, thus we obtain $g_{s
\Lambda}=2.335$, $g_{w \Lambda}=2.099$. For the other hyperons there are not accurate experimental data. Different arguments are commonly used to get numerical values, like $SU(6)$ symmetry or vector meson dominance. For simplicity and to carry out computations, we adopt $g_{s,w
\,\Sigma}=g_{s,w \,\Xi}=g_{s,w \, \Lambda}$ and $g_{r,d
\,\Sigma}=g_{r,d \,\Xi}=g_{r,d \, \Lambda}=g_{r,d}$, without any further justification. With this choice we obtain at $n_0$ very similar binding energies: $\varepsilon_\Sigma=-28.11$ MeV, and $\varepsilon_\Xi=-28.27$ MeV for the $\Sigma$ and $\Xi$ hyperons.
Neutron star matter is electrically neutral, by additional contributions coming from electrons and muons. Leptons are included by means of Dirac free particle terms in the lagrangian of Eq. (\[DSCM\]). The equilibrium for $\beta$ decay imposes constraints among the baryon and lepton chemical potentials: $\mu_B=\mu_n - q_B
\mu_e$. Here we have used $q_B$ for the baryon electric charge in units of the positron charge, $\mu_n, \mu_e,$ and $\mu_B$ represents the chemical potentials for neutron, electron and the baryon B, respectively. On the other hand, the electric charge neutrality imposes $0=-\sum_l n_l+ \sum_B q_B
n_B$, with $n_l$ and $n_B$ indicating the number density for leptons and baryons. At zero temperature we consider the Fermi momentum $p_F$, writing: $n_i=p_{F\, i}^3/(3 \pi^2)$, $\mu_l=\sqrt{p_{F\,l}^2+m_l^2}$ for leptons, and $\mu_B=\sqrt{p_{F\,B}^2+M_B^{\ast 2}}+ g_{w \,
B}^{\ast} \bar{\omega}+ g_r^\ast I_{B3} \bar{\rho}$ for baryons. The efective mass $M^\ast_B$ is a generalization of eq. (\[EFFMASS\]), $M^\ast_B=(M_B-I_B g_d \bar{\delta})/N_B$ with $I_B=1$ for $p,
\Sigma^+$, and $\Xi^0$, $I_B=0$ for $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$, and $I_B=-1$ for $n, \Sigma^-$, and $\Xi^-$. We have used $N_B=1+ g_{sB}
\bar{\sigma} / M_B$, where $M_B$ is the averaged mass of the baryon isomultiplet B.
The effective baryon masses as functions of the baryonic number density are shown in Fig. \[FIGHYPMASS\]. In the results corresponding to set A, each isomultiplet remains degenerate in mass. The variation of the hyperon masses are much more moderate than for the nucleon masses. As a consequence of the specific interaction used, the heavier the baryon considered, the weaker the density dependence of its effective mass is. Using the coupling set B the isospin degeneracy is removed, enhancing or dropping the mass of particles with positive or negative isospin projection, respectively, as it is depicted on the right part of Fig. \[FIGHYPMASS\].
In Fig. \[FIGHYP-POP\] the relative population of the baryonic species is shown in terms of the total particle number, at $T=0$. In the range of densities studied the full baryon octet is present, with exception of the $\Xi^0$ when the coupling set B is used. The results obtained with $g_d=0$ and $g_d=6.538$ are very similar for the leptons and the lightest baryons (p, n, and $\Lambda$). Differences between them become noticeable in the growth of populations of the heavier fermions $\Sigma$ and $\Xi$. The more obvious is the early appearance, at $n \simeq 3.3\, n_0$, and predominance of $\Sigma^-$ particles in the results with the coupling set A.
The equilibrium baryonic population is not perturbed by the presence of the $\delta$ meson (set B) at low and medium densities. The effect of turning on the $\delta$ interaction, is twofold and is emphasized at high densities. In first place the baryon-$\delta$ interaction enhances the effective mass of $\Xi^0$ and diminishes that of $\Sigma^-$ and $\Xi^-$, increasing and lowering the corresponding thresholds. The more evident consequence of this is the absence of $\Xi^0$ particles in the range $0<n/n_0<10$ (right panel of Fig. \[FIGHYP-POP\]). In second place the coupling $g_r$ grows with $g_d$, affecting more strongly to the iso-triplet ${{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\Sigma$}}}$ than the iso-duplet ${{\mbox{\protect\boldmath $\Xi$}}}$, due to the factor $I_{B3}$. Since the $\rho$ meson contribution to the chemical potential is positive and greater for $\Sigma^-$ than for $\Xi^-$, this causes the appearance of $\Sigma^-$ and of $\Xi^-$ to be delayed and anticipated, respectively, going from the left to the right panel of Fig. \[FIGHYP-POP\]. The $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ baryons, which do not couple to the isovector mesons, do not show appreciable changes in their distributions. On the other hand, from the comparatively earlier raising of the $\Sigma^+$ and $\Xi^-$ population obtained with set B, it is possible to infer that, in absolute values, the $\delta$ contribution to the baryonic chemical potentials lies between one half and the total $\rho$ contribution. Of course, these results are partially a consequence of our assumption of equal couplings $g_d$ and $g_r$ for all the hyperons considered.
The pressure in terms of the baryon number density is exhibited in Fig. \[FIGHYPress\]. There are abrupt changes of slope in the curve corresponding to the set A, which coincide with the appearance of hyperons. Similar changes, but more attenuated, take place in the curve with the set B.
Meson propagation in asymmetric nuclear matter {#SEC6}
==============================================
Medium effects in the meson properties have received attention in the later years, as they could carry the signals of phase transitions in the hadronic environment. As previously stressed, we expect our results to be valid out of the vicinity of the transition point.
In the MFA mesons are treated as classical fields, with constant mass. In order to include quantum corrections we must go beyond the MFA. This can be done in the relativistic random phase approximation (RRPA), using the linearized residual interaction of Eq. (\[Lres3\]). In this approach the meson propagators are corrected by incorporating the baryon bubble diagrams at all orders, by using the Dyson-Schwinger equation. From the corrected propagator the effective meson mass can be extracted. This procedure has been applied in QHD calculations, see for example [@WALECKA] and references listed therein. Specific computations with the DSCM can be found in [@BHATTAC; @AGUIRRE].
At second order, the one-loop proper polarization insertions comprise the diagrams shown in Fig. \[FIGDIAG\]. The case (a) represent the propagation of a pure meson field, and the case (b) the mixing amplitude of different mesonic types. Due to baryon current conservation, the proper polarization for all the mesons can be written in terms of a few components. Some of them are divergent and requires an appropriate regularization. For this purpose, we follow the scheme outlined in [@AGUIRRE]. We do not deduce those results here, but we reproduce the main equations for the sake of completeness.
The formalism is best described within a generalized meson propagator, in a matrix representation of dimension equal to the sum of the mesonic degrees of freedom. For example the generalized free meson propagator ${\cal P}^0$, has in its diagonal blocks the free meson propagators $S^0(q)$, $D^{0\,A
B}(q)$, $W_{\mu \nu}^0(q)$, and $R_{\mu \nu}^{0\,AB}(q),$ for the $\sigma (x), \delta (x), \omega (x),$ and $\rho (x)$ fields, respectively, and null matrices in the complementary spaces: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}^0_{\alpha \beta}(q)&=&
\left(\begin{array}{rrrr}
S^0(q)\stackrel{:}{:}&&&\\
..........&.........&&\\
\stackrel{:}{:}&D^0(q)\stackrel{:}{:}&&\\
&..........&.........&\\
&\stackrel{:}{:}&W^0(q)\stackrel{:}{:}&\\
&&...........&.........\\
&&\stackrel{:}{:}&R^0(q)
\end{array}\right)_{\alpha \beta}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
A similar expression holds for the full generalized propagator ${\cal P}$, but the complementary spaces are filled with the mixing meson propagators:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}_{\alpha \beta}(q)&=&
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
S(q)&M_{\sigma \delta}(q)&M_{\sigma \omega}(q)&M_{\sigma \rho}(q)\\
M_{\delta \sigma}(q)&D(q)&M_{\delta \omega}(q)&M_{\delta \rho}(q)\\
M_{\omega \sigma}(q)&M_{\omega \delta}(q)&W(q)&M_{\omega \rho}(q)\\
M_{\rho \sigma}(q) &M_{\rho \delta}(q)&M_{\rho \omega}(q)&R(q)
\end{array}\right)_{\alpha \beta}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The Dyson-Schwinger equation can be used to solve for ${\cal
P}^{-1}(q)$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}^{-1}_{\alpha \beta}(q)&=&{\cal P}^{0 \,-1}_{\alpha
\beta}(q)- \Pi_{\alpha \beta}(q), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the generalized polarization insertion
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\alpha \beta}(q)&=&
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\Pi_s(q)&\Pi_{\sigma \delta}(q)&\Pi_{\sigma \omega}(q)&\Pi_{\sigma \rho}(q)\\
\Pi_{\delta \sigma}(q)&\Pi_d(q)&\Pi_{\delta \omega}(q)&\Pi_{\delta \rho}(q)\\
\Pi_{\omega \sigma}(q)&\Pi_{\omega \delta}(q)&\Pi_w(q)&M_{\omega \rho}(q)\\
\Pi_{\rho \sigma}(q) &\Pi_{\rho \delta}(q)&\Pi_{\rho
\omega}(q)&\Pi_r(q)
\end{array}\right)_{\alpha \beta}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Since we are primarily interested in the propagation of the pure meson fields, we do not consider mixing polarizations. The formulae for the one-loop diagonal components are as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
i \Pi_s(q)&=&\sum_{B}g_{sB}^{\ast \,2}\int \frac{d^4p}{(2 \pi)^4}
\left\{ Tr\left[ G_B(q)G_B(q+p)\right] \frac{\vspace{1.cm}}{}+
\sum_{\lambda}\frac{2\bar{\phi}_\lambda}{M_B}Tr\left[
G_B(q)\Gamma_\lambda G_B(q+p)\right] \right. \nonumber \\ &+&\left.
\sum_{\lambda,\lambda^\prime} \bar{\phi}_\lambda
\bar{\phi}_{\lambda^\prime} Tr\left[ G_B(q)\Gamma_\lambda
G_B(q+p)\Gamma_{\lambda^\prime}\right]/M_B^{2} \right\},\nonumber
\\ i\Pi_d^{AC}(q)&=&g_d^{\ast \, 2}\sum_B \int \frac{d^4p}{(2
\pi)^4} Tr\left[ G_B(q)T^A G_B(q+p)T^C \right], \nonumber \\ i
\Pi_w^{\mu \nu}(q)&=&\sum_B g_{wB}^{\ast \, 2} \int \frac{d^4p}{(2
\pi)^4} Tr\left[ G_B(q)\gamma^\mu G_B(q+p)\gamma^\nu \right], \nonumber
\\ i \Pi_{r \, \mu \nu}^{AC}(q)&=&g_r^{\ast \, 2}\sum_B \int
\frac{d^4p}{(2 \pi)^4} Tr\left[ G_B(q)\gamma_\mu T^A G_B(q+p)\gamma^\nu
T^C \right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where the index $B$ runs over all the baryons considered, and $\lambda, \lambda^\prime$ in the first equation runs over the meson fields $\delta, \omega,$ and $\rho$. The vertices $\Gamma_\lambda$ have been described in Sec. \[SEC2\]. The baryon propagators $G_B(q)$ are evaluated in the MFA. In our calculations we only need the transversal component in the Lorentz indices, and the third component of isospin. For this purpose we use $T^3=\tau^3$ for the nucleon and $\Xi$, $T^3=1$ for the $\Lambda$, and $T^3=$diag$(1,0,-1)$ for the $\Sigma$ particle. The referred expressions contain particle-antiparticle, particle-hole, and Pauli blocking contributions. The former one is divergent, to extract finite contributions we apply the regularization scheme outlined in [@AGUIRRE]. The Lorentz scalar contributions, containing the integrand $Tr\left[ G_B(q)G_B(q+p)\right]$, remains undefined by a constant $\lambda$, related to the covariant derivative of the polarization evaluated at the regularization point. We take this constant as a free parameter to analyze the possible dynamical regimes. There are two independent parameters $\lambda_s$ and $\lambda_d$ corresponding to the diagonal components $\Pi_s$ and $\Pi_d$ respectively. We require null contribution for the polarization evaluated on the meson mass shell, at zero baryon density and temperature. Thus we obtain for the finite particle-antiparticle contribution of the baryon-B bubble:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{v B}^{\prime \,00}(q) &=&\frac{g_{vB}^{\ast \,2}}{2
\pi^2}q^2\int_0^1 dz \, z(1-z)\,\,\ln\left[ \frac{M_B^{\ast
2}-z(1-z){\sf q}^2} {M_B^2-z(1-z)m_v^2}\right], \nonumber \\ \Pi_{v B
}^{\prime \,33}(q)&=&\frac{{\sf q}^2}{q^2}\,\, \Pi_{v B}^{\prime
\,00}(q), \nonumber
\\ \Pi_{c B}^{\prime}(q)&=& \lambda_c \frac{g_{cB}^{\ast 2}}{8 \pi^2}(m_B^{\ast
2}m_c^2- {\sf q}^2) -\frac{3 g_{cB}^{\ast 2}}{4 \pi^2} \int_0^1 dz
\,[M_B^{\ast 2}-z(1-z){\sf q}^2] \,\, \ln\left[\frac{M_B^{\ast
2}-z(1-z){\sf q}^2} {M_B^2-z(1-z)m_c^2}\right], \label{BBuble}\end{aligned}$$
where the index $v=w,r$ runs over the vector mesons, and $c=s,d$ runs over the scalar ones. In the case of isovector polarizations, it must be regarded as the (3,3) isospin component. Furthermore we have used ${\sf q}^2=q_\mu q^\mu$, $q$ is the modulus of the spatial component of the momentum, and $m_B^\ast=M_B^\ast/M_B$.
Once the polarization has been properly defined, we introduce the effective meson masses $m_s^\ast, m_d^\ast, m_w^\ast,$ and $m_r^\ast$. They have been defined as the zeroes of the corresponding inverse propagators at zero vector momentum, [*i.e.*]{} the $p_0$ solutions of: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}^{-1}_{a a}(p_0,p=0)&=&{\cal P}^{0\, -1}_{a
a}(p_0,p=0)-\Pi_{aa}(p_0,p=0) =0, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $a=s,d,w,$ and $r$.
In Figs. \[FIGMSIGMA\]-\[FIGMVECTOR\] we display the numerical results for the density dependence of the meson masses at $T=0$, under different compositions of the hadronic medium. In Fig. \[FIGMSIGMA\] the behavior of the $\sigma$ meson mass is presented. The results correspond to the coupling set A, there are no appreciable differences with respect to the calculations using set B .
It can be seen that in $\beta$-stable hadronic matter the mass is almost constant at high densities. In the case of nuclear matter at constant asymmetry the density dependence is more pronounced, and monotonous decreasing. The asymmetry dependence is small, as this figure shows.
Fig. \[FIGMDELTA\] is devoted to the $a_0$ meson mass. The curves for matter in $\beta$-equilibrium are qualitatively similar to those corresponding to the $\sigma$ meson. In asymmetric nuclear matter its behavior is much more striking. For $\lambda_d=10$ the mass becomes zero at $n/n_0\simeq 4$, whereas for $\lambda_d=100$ it decreases sharply but never vanishes in the whole range considered.
The masses for the vector mesons are shown in Fig. \[FIGMVECTOR\]. For the $\omega$ meson the behavior is almost independent of the composition of the hadronic environment, sensible departures are observed only for extreme densities. This is not the case of the $\rho$ meson mass, a clear difference among $\beta$-stable matter and asymmetric nuclear matter is shown, even at low densities.
Since $\Pi_{aa}(p)$ receives the contribution of all the baryonic species considered, the mesonic effective masses are strongly influenced by the inclusion of hyperons, even at densities close to the normal saturation value. It must be noted that the particle-antiparticle term coming from the baryon-B bubble contributes even when this particle is not present on its Fermi shell. The hyperon particle-antiparticle contributions at medium and high densities causes the stabilization of the mesonic masses in neutral $\beta$-stable matter. This can be appreciated in Figs. \[FIGMSIGMA\]-\[FIGMVECTOR\] where they exhibit a weaker density dependence as compared to nuclear matter results. The magnitude of this effect is distinct for each type of meson, depending on the strength of its coupling to the hyperons. This fact explains why the omega-meson mass is little affected by the presence of hyperons relative to the rho-meson mass.
In order to compare with other similar works, one can appreciate that at high densities $m_s^\ast$ is monotonous decreasing and remains below its vacuum value (see Fig. \[FIGMSIGMA\]). On the contrary, the results found in QHD-I model calculations for symmetric nuclear matter give increasing values of it for $n\geq \, n_0$ [@SAITO]. Meanwhile, the behavior of $m^\ast_w$ is more alike to ours. The inclusion of polynomic self-interactions of the $\sigma$ and $\omega$ fields [@CAILLON] produces increasing or fairly constant density dependence for $m^\ast_w$, but if the direct $\sigma$-$\omega$ interaction is omitted it results in a strongly decreasing behavior [@CAILLON]. On the other hand, the $\rho$ meson mass can be compared with the results shown in [@SHIOMI]. In both cases $m^\ast_r$ is below its vacuum value, for instance at the saturation density $m^\ast_r$ is about $10\%$ down in our calculations against a decrease of $30-40\%$ in [@SHIOMI]. The differences can be surely assigned to the absence of tensor couplings in our model.
A comparison with the DSCM calculations of [@AGUIRRE] shows that the main effect of generalizing the nonlinear $\sigma$ interaction to the vector meson couplings is noteworthy for the effective $\sigma$ and $\omega$ meson masses. Their density dependence is more abrupt in the present work, and generally speaking the values obtained here are lower than in Ref [@AGUIRRE].
Discussion and summary {#SEC7}
======================
In this paper we have proposed an effective relativistic hadronic model inspired in the DSCM to investigate in-medium hadronic properties, in terms of the baryon isospin asymmetry. The non-linear $\sigma$-nucleon interaction is generalized to the isoscalar vector, isovector scalar, and isovector vector channels. Effective medium dependent couplings arise at the MFA, and a residual interaction with one and two meson exchange is obtained beyond the MFA. The equation of state (EoS) for symmetric nuclear matter is softer than the one corresponding to the DSCM. The symmetry energy coefficient shows an intermediate behavior between the QHD model and non-relativistic variational calculations. The asymmetry dependence of the EoS becomes relevant for densities $n
\geq 3 n_0$, and it is emphasized by the contribution of the $a_0
(980)$ meson exchange. Temperature effects in the range $0<T<100$ MeV are noticeable in the EoS, but moderate in the effective baryon masses. As a particular manifestation of asymmetric matter we study hadronic matter with hyperons, in equilibrium against electroweak decay at T=0. The $\delta$ coupling is the cause of notable modifications in the population of hyperons at high densities. Due to the lower hyperon-meson couplings, relative to the nucleon-meson ones, the hyperonic effective masses decrease more moderately as the baryon density increases.
The effective meson masses have been evaluated at T=0 in the RRPA, including particle-antiparticle finite contributions. The regularization procedure left undefined parameters $\lambda_s$ and $\lambda_d$. We have selected numerical values for them, which differ by one order of magnitude, and are representative of the possible dynamical regimes. In asymmetric nuclear matter the scalar $\sigma$ and $\delta$ mesons exhibit monotonous decreasing masses for high densities, whereas the vector $\omega$- and $\rho$-meson masses show a slight increase for $n/n_0>1$. In all cases the effective masses remain below its vacuum values at extreme densities. The dependence on the asymmetry $\chi$ is more evident for the vector mesons. In $\beta$-stable hadronic matter the density variation of the effective masses of all the mesons considered is damped, becoming approximately constants at twice the saturation density. This effect is due to the particle-antiparticle terms, contributing even for particles out of their Fermi shell.
[99]{} R. Brockmann and H. Toki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3408 (1992).\
\* G.Q. Li, R. Machleidt, and Y.Z. Zhuo, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 1062 (1993). S. Haddad and M.K. Weigel, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 2740 (1993). H. Lenske and C. Fuchs, Phys. Lett. B [**345**]{}, 355 (1995).\
C. Fuchs, H. Lenske, and H.H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C [**52**]{}, 3043 (1995)\
\*F. de Jong and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 890 (1998), and references therein. F. de Jong and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 3099 (1998). F. Hoffmann, C.M. Keil and H. Lenske, LANL report nucl-th/0007050. S. Typel and H.H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. [**A656**]{}, 331 (1999). M. K. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. C [**45**]{}, 1359 (1992).\
M.K. Banerjee and J.A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C [**56**]{}, 497 (1997). A.M. Rakhimov, F.C. Khanna, U.T. Yakhshiev and M.M. Musakhanov, Nucl. Phys. [**A 643**]{}, 383 (1998). K. Saito and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B [**327**]{}, 9 (1994). B. D. Serot and J.D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**E 6**]{}, 515 (1997). G.E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2720 (1991). H. Feldmeier and J. Lindner, Z. Phys. [**A 341**]{} 83 (1991). J. Zimanyi and S.A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. C [**42**]{}, 1416 (1990). A. Bhattacharyya and S. Raha, Phys. Rev. C [**53**]{}, 522 (1996). R. Aguirre, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 025206 (2001). R. Aguirre, A.L. de Paoli and O. Civitarese, Nucl. Phys. [**A 597**]{}, 543 (1996). B.-A. Li, C.M. Ko, and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1644 (1997). B.-A. Li, C.M. Ko, and W. Bauer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**E7**]{}, 147 (1998).\
B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4221 (2000). M. Kutschera and W. Wojcik, Phys. Lett. B [**223**]{}, 11 (1989). M. Kutschera, Phys. Lett. B [**340**]{}, 1 (1994). S. Kubis and M.Kutschera, Phys. Lett. B [**399**]{}, 191 (1997). M. Kutschera and J. Niemiec, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 025802 (2000). C.-H. Lee, T.T.S. Kuo, G.Q. Li, and G.E. Brown, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 3488 (1998). N. Frohlich and H. Baier, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 3447 (1998).\
H. Huber, F. Weber, and M.K. Weigel, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 3484 (1998).\
W. Zuo, I. Bombaci, and U. Lombardo, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{}, 024605 (1999). V. Greco, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, G. Fabbri, and F. Matera, LANL report nucl-th/0011036. J.M. Lattimer, C.J. Pethick, M. Prakash, and P. Haensel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2701 (1991). M. Prakash, T.L. Ainsworth, and J.M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2518 (1988). J.-K. Zhang and D.S. Onley, Phys. Rev. C [**44**]{}, 2230 (1991).\
M.M. Sharma, S.A. Moszkowski and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C [**44**]{}, 2493 (1991).\
K. Miyazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys 91, 1271 (1994); [ibid.]{} 93, 137 (1995).\
R.J. Lombard, S. Marcos and J. Mares, Phys. Rev C [**51**]{}, 1784 (1995).\
P. Bernardos, R.J. Lombard, M. Lopez-Quelle, S. Marcos, and R. Niembro, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 024314 (2000). N. K. Glendenning, F. Weber, and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. C [**45**]{}, 844 (1992).\
M. Prakash, J.R. Cooke, and J.M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 661 (1995). S.K. Choudhury and R. Rakshit, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 598 (1993). M. Barranco, R.J. Lombard, S. Marcos, and S.A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. C [**44**]{}, 178 (1991). R. Aguirre and M. Schvellinger, Phys. Lett. B [**400**]{}, 245 (1999) T.S. Biro and J. Zimanyi, Phys. Lett. B [**391**]{}, 1 (1997). B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Nucl. Phys [**A 663**]{}, 513 (2000).\
R. J. Furnstahl and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys [**A 671**]{}, 447 (2000). R.B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C [**38**]{}, 1010 (1988). K. Saito, T. Maruyama, and K. Soutome, Phys. Rev. C [**40**]{}, 407 (1989). J.C. Caillon and J. Labarsouque, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 035201 (2000). H. Shiomi and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B [**334**]{}, 281 (1994).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'An odd look at “standard” physics (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Dirac) leading to a radical change of our concept of inertial motion and to new heuristic approaches of gravitation and the cosmological constant".'
author:
- 'Jean-Pierre Provost'
title: 'From Galilean Relativity to Quantum Gravity: Three Issues, $c$, $\hbar$, $G$, concerning Time, Matter and Inertia'
---
*To be published in the proceedings of the $11^{th}$ *Fundamental Frontiers of Physics* symposium, Paris from the 6th to the 9th of Jully, 2010*
Introduction: $c$, $\hbar$, $G$, philosophy and outline
=======================================================
The philosophy underlying this presentation (which is a brief summary of [@JPP2011a]) is that physics, in essence, is relativistic, quantum, and (may be) gravitational. This does not mean only that $c$, $\hbar$, and (may be) $G$,are fundamental constants, but also that they play a major role in our way of thinking. For example, *Einstein’s* 1907 relation $E_0=mc^2$ does not only precise the energetic effect $(\Delta m)c^2$ of a mass defect ; it also tells us that Newton’s mass and rest energy are the same thing, although these notions have been historically introduced in quite different contexts. In the same way, the true lesson of *De Broglie’s* 1923 relation $mc^2=h\nu_0$ is that mass is nothing else than a frequency ; the more familiar relation $h\nu=\Delta E_0$ describing atomic or nuclear radiative transitions is a consequence of it. Finally, *Planck’s* 1900 observation that $Ghc^{-3}$ is a surface is presently often considered as an indication that quantum gravity will seriously modify our conception of space and time.
As a consequence of this philosophy, one must find fundamental and simple issues, starting from Galileo-Newton’s physics and leading to the idea that it is quite natural to set $c=1$, $\hbar=1$, and (may be) $G=1$. Obviously, these issues will deal with the basic and strongly connected notions of time, matter and inertia, which special relativity (S.R), quantum physics (Q.P) and general relativity (G.R) have deeply revised in the last century. We formulate them through three apparently odd and naive questions (examined in sections 2,3,4): (1) *How is it possible, starting from Galileo’s discorsi to define time ... and recover Einstein’s 1905 relation* $\tau =t(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}$ ? (2) *How is it possible to introduce mass “à la Maupertuis” ... and think of it as a frequency* ($mc^2=h\nu_0$)? (3) *How can this imply Einstein’s 1911 formula* $\tau \simeq t(1+\phi/c^2)$ *and the identity of inertial and gravitational masses*? (1) is since long our personal way of understanding the logical necessity of S.R [@JPP1980]. (2) originated from an old epistemological reflexion on the physical meaning of Action : since inertia is our reference in physics (cf. inertial frames), and since fundamental laws in physics are derived from Least Action Principles (L.A.P), Action has to do with non inertia. It recently led to the idea that we must radically change our Newtonian conception of “what is inertial and what is not” [@JPP2007]. In short, we claim that inertia corresponds to motion at velocity $c$ (realized by zero mass particles) and that, in contradistinction, rest or motion at velocity $v<c$ (realized by massive ones) imply non inertial processes with frequency “m”. Finally (3) is a first heuristic application of this new point of view to gravitation.
Of course, this philosophy must be mathematically supported. We emphasize in section 5 that the spinor formalism, with the notion of conjugation, is well adapted. Indeed, *mass can be introduced in Weyl equations as a transition frequency between conjugate spinors and G.R with a cosmological constant may follow from the definition of a spinor connection involving them*. In conclusion (section 6) we recall that physics is impossible without references and we briefly sum up the old, present, and (what we think to be) future ones.
From Galileo’s discorsi to Special Relativity : “defining” time
===============================================================
In a well known poetic text, Galileo has defined boats in inertial motion, i.e. boats where the flight of flies and physical laws are euclidean invariant ; he also noted that this invariance extends to boosts. But although he was the first to use clocks (pulse, pendulum) in physics, he did not care to discuss time. Following his metaphor, let us consider two sailors first at rest with respect to the boat (frame $R$) at same position $A$, then climbing its mast, and remaining at rest at its top $B$ (figure 1). Seen from any other inertial frame $R'$, their motions which both concretize in $R$ the geometrical translation $\vec{R}=\vec{AB}$ can be called asymptotically inertial motions since, asymptotically, the velocity is unchanged. These motions, which are the simplest ones after inertial motions, allow to introduce time in a relativistic (i.e. frame idependent) way. Indeed, let $A'$ and $B'$ be the extremities in $R'$ of their inertial parts, and let $\vec{R'}=\vec{A'B'}$ correspond to the non inertial one. Then asserting that the sailors have climbed the mast in the same time is clearly equivalent to the geometrical relation “$\vec{R'_1}=\vec{R'_2}$ in any frame”.
In order to express this idea in mathematical terms, let us consider two frames related by an infinitesimal boost $\vec{\epsilon}$, $\vec{\epsilon}$ being just a group parameter with vectorial character ; one expects $\vec{R'}=\vec{R}+\vec{\epsilon} \times$ (scalar quantity), and because time has been introduced by “$\vec{R'_1}=\vec{R'_2}$ whatever $\vec{\epsilon}$”, the scalar quantity defines the time $T$ necessary for the sailors to climb the mast in $R$. In $R'$, one also expects $T'=T+\vec{\epsilon}.$(vectorial quantity) and “$T'_1=T'_2$ whatever $\vec{\epsilon}$” since our introduction of time is intended to be relativistic. The simplest hypothesis is that the vectorial quantity is proportional to $\vec{R}$ (remind that already $\vec{R_1}=\vec{R_2}$). Finally we get the transformations $\vec{R'}=\vec{R}+\vec{\epsilon} T$, $T'=T+\mu\vec{\epsilon}.\vec{R}$ which imply $T^2-\mu\vec{R}^2$ invariant. Causality ($\mu\ge 0$), genericity ($\mu\neq 0$) and simplicity $\mu= 1$ lead to S.R with $c=1$, and Michelson’s experiment tells us that this invariant velocity is that of light.
The simplest clock with respect to this introduction of time is clearly a system of two mirrors with light going to and fro between them ; it could not be a pendulum! If $T_0$ is the period in the mirrors frame, the ACTIVITY of the clock, defined by the number of tic-tac (bounces of light on the mirrors) is $$A=\tau / T_0 \hspace{2cm} \rm{with} \hspace{2cm} \tau = \int dt (1-v^2)^{1/2}.$$
Figure 2 illustrates it for $v=0$ and $v$ constant. If the clock moves from $A$ to $B$ in a given time in some frame, its activity is maximum when $\vec{v}$ is constant (cf. Langevin’s twins) and it goes to zero when $v(t)$ comes close to $c=1$ ( the “tomb of time”). Let us remark finally that, in practice (cf. atomic clocks), such a clock needs matter in order to control the frequency of the stationary wave inside the mirror cavity ($h\nu=\Delta E_0 = \Delta m c^2$). This leads to the question : is not matter itself a clock?
From Maupertuis’ action to Quantum Physics : “defining” mass and inertia.
=========================================================================
Wanting to unify Optics and Mechanics, Maupertuis proposed in 1744 to replace Fermat’s principle “$\Sigma l / v$ min” by “$\Sigma v l $ min” (which leads to Descartes’ law $v_1 sin i_1 = v_2 sin i_2$ instead of $ sin i_1 / v_1 = sin i_2 / v_2$). In 1746, he extended it to “$\Sigma m v l $ min” in order to account for the conservation of momentum in collisions. Following him, we consider the elastic collision of two bodies $i=1,2$, with the initial $A_i$ and final $B_i$ positions and the corresponding time coordinates being fixed (figure 3). In absence of collision, the bodies would have travelled from $A_i$ to $B_i$ at constant speed, obeying “$\tau_i$ max”. If one imposes them to collide, one cannot satisfy both “$\tau_1$ max” and “$\tau_2$ max”, but one knows from experience that the motion of the largest mass is the closest to an inertial motion. So, it is natural to “ponderate” the conditions for $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ and to introduce mass by postulating “$m_1 \tau_1 + m_2 \tau_2$ max” (a condition which additionally gives the position and time of collision). This compromise which agrees with Newton’s still present conception of inertial mass (resistance to a change of velocity) leads very simply to the conservation law of the relativistic energy momentum (because $md(T^2-\mu\vec{R}^2)^{1/2}=EdT-\vec{p}.d\vec{R}$).
Remarkably, the L.A.P “$\Sigma m_i \tau_i$ max” also works when the particles $i$ appear or disappear, as in $n \rightarrow p+e^-+\bar{\nu}$, i.e. very far from the case of elastic collisions at the origin of our intuitive idea of mass. If each quantity $ m_i\tau_i$ has still to do with inertia and non inertia, which is our credo, it can no longer concern the global motion of the mass $m_i$. We claim that it concerns the internal dynamics of $m_i$, in the same way as Einstein has told us that mass, being rest energy, is determined by this dynamics. More precisely, we make the following ANSATZ : “ [*The quantity*]{} $A=m \tau$ [*is a number which counts the “internal” non inertial events associated with the object of mass m*]{}” ; as a COROLLARY : “[*Inertia corresponds now to $A=0$, i.e. to motions at velocity $c=1$ realized by $m=0$ particles, and the simplest non inertial processes (events) are the annihilation/creation (A/C) of such motions*]{}”. Clearly, this ansatz is motivated by the analogy between $A=m \tau$ and the ACTIVITY $A=\tau / T_0$ of the clock of section 2, and by figure 2. But one must not confuse it with a model of particles. It is just a quantum, or at least semi-classical, PARADIGM of mass. In Q.P language, $A=mc^2\tau/ \hbar$ is the quantum phase and the above conservation law is a phase matching.
It is easy to put this ansatz on a more formal ground. Let in $d=1$ dimension $(\partial_t+\partial_z)f=0$ and $(\partial_t-\partial_z)b=0$ ($f=$ forwards, $b=$backwards) be the equations associated with inertia. Then, their negative and positive frequency solutions $f_\mp \propto \exp \pm iE(t-z)$ and $b_\mp$ are the amplitudes corresponding to the A/C of motions at $c=1$ and $c=-1$. Mass as introduced above describes the coupling between $b_-$ and $f_+$ and between $f_-$ and $b_+$ since it is a frequency of velocity change from $+c$ to $-c$. This leads us to introduce it through the equations $(\partial_t+\partial_z)f=mb^*e^{i \alpha}$, $(\partial_t-\partial_z)b=mf^*e^{i \beta}$. Their dispersion relation (for $f$, $b^*$, proportional to $ \exp - i(Et-pz)$) being $E^2=p^2-m^2 \exp i(\alpha-\beta)$, one needs $\alpha=\beta+\pi$ for $E$ and $p$ to be real ; then one gets $v=p/E=(|f|^2-|b|^2)/(|b|^2+|f|^2)$, i.e. the velocity of the mass $m$ (group velocity of the plane wave) is also the mean velocity obtained from the value +1 and -1 and probabilities proportional to $|f|^2$ and $|b|^2$ ; a simple calculation shows that $|f|^2$ and $|b|^2$ are proportional to the times of duration of the motions c=+1 and c=-1 on figure 2. In the non relativistic limit ($v<1$ or $|f| \simeq |b|$), one recovers of course the Schrödinger equation for a free particle. The generalisation to $d=3$ is sketched in section 5 ; then $f$ and $b$ appear to be the components of a spinor, which shows that this approach is quite different from De Broglie’s one in his thesis (De Broglie added plane waves propagating at $c=+1$ and $c=-1$, say $f_-$ and $b_-$).
Finally, let us make three general comments in relation to this quantum introduction of mass. The first one is that time itself has become “quantum”. Indeed, since $\tau = A$ if $m=1$, [*time is the activity of some arbitrary chosen mass*]{} ; as a consequence, matter is responsible for its flow, a point of view which Leibniz, but not Newton could have shared. The second one concerns the [*experimental access to non inertia*]{} ; in the same way as Compton’s diffusion on a massive particle directly gives its characteristic time of non inertia $\tau_c=m^{-1}$ through $\lambda'-\lambda=m^{-1}(1-\cos \theta)$, deep inelastic scattering introduces the characteristic times $(mx)^{-1}$ $(x<1)$ through $\lambda'-\lambda=(mx)^{-1}(1-\cos \theta)$; then the theory (Feynman’s model of zero mass partons for hadrons) gives the contributions of the different partons (quarks, antiquarks, gluons ...) to the processes occuring with the frequency $mx$ (“Compton analysis” of particles also called infinite momentum frame analysis). The third comment is that the zigzag motion of figure 2 suggests that non inertia can also be associated with a swept area in space time. Its order of magnitude being $s=(m \tau) \times m^{-2}$ (remind that $T_0=m^{-1}$), it gives a physical interpretation to the affine parameter defined in S.R (and in G.R) by $p^\mu =dx^\mu/ds$ and connecting dynamics and kinematics. This remark on [*non inertia and swept area*]{} allows to characterize geodesics (even in G.R) not only by “$\tau$ or $A$ max”, but equally by “s max” [@JPP2011b] (figure 4). It will offer the opportunity to introduce $G$ and gravitation in the next section.
Revisiting Newtonian gravity : $G$ as a surface.
================================================
Since mass is a frequency of non inertia, there is a simple way to understand why the masses of isolated systems at rest add (still a naive question): they add because activities (number of non inertial events) do, in the same way as the frequencies of independent Poisson processes. But gravitation tells us that it is not quite true ; so doing, we count too many events (attractive character of gravitation). Indeed, for two bodies at rest, distant from $r$, one has in the Newtonian limit (and mass being rest energy): $$M \Delta t = m_1 \Delta t +m_2 \Delta t -(m_1 \Delta t)m_2G/r \hspace{0,5cm} (c=1).$$ It seems to indicate that *non inertial events at points separated by $r$ cannot be distinguished if they occur during a time interval* $\delta t =G/r$. It is important to note that, whereas the relation between $m_1$, $m_2$ and $M$ is “classical”, thinking of $G/r$ as a time interval is quantum ($\delta t =G \hbar/rc^4$ if $c \neq 1$, $\hbar \neq 1$). This uncertainty is not a surprise if one calls for Q.P and G.R : let a clock $m$ stay at origin and send to $r$ signals as short as possible for synchronisation ; then from $(\Delta m c^2)\Delta t \simeq \hbar$ (Heisenberg), $\Delta \varphi =G \Delta m/r$ (Newton) and $\tau=t(1+\varphi/c^2)$ (Einstein), one gets $\delta \tau =\Delta t \Delta \varphi /c^2=\delta t$. But our goal is different ; we want to justify $\delta t$, at least heuristically, and deduce Einstein’s proper time; Newtonian gravitation then follows.
In order to justify $\delta t$, we recall that a mass at rest is the center of non inertial events. Rest must certainly also imply some non inertia, even in the absence of a test mass. This leads us to suppose that if a signal is sent from origin, its detection at $r$ is necessarily accompagnied by a coming backwards of it (figure 5). If the associated swept area is $G$ (i.e. $G \hbar c^{-3}$) up to a constant, then the constant can be chosen such that the detection needs the above time $\delta t$. If a mass at origin, i.e. a clock helps as a reference to define rest at point $r$, it requires a fraction $(mc^2\hbar^{-1})\delta t$ of the universal time $t$. The remaining time at disposal for physics (proper time) at this point is $\tau = t(1-mc^2\delta t/\hbar)=t(1-Gm/rc^2)$ ; it extends to Einstein’s formula $\tau = t(1+\varphi/c^2)$ with $\Delta \varphi = 4 \pi G \varrho$ if rest is defined with respect to a Newtonian distribution of masses. The remarkable fact concerning this somewhat Machian reasoning is that, although $\hbar$ disappears in the expression of $\tau$, gravitation is a quantum effect because of the role played by $G\hbar c^{-3}$ as a surface. In addition, since gravitation appears to be (in the Newtonian limit) a correction to the naive addition of activities (non inertiae) for a set of bodies, the equality of inertial and gravitational masses (the oldest law in physics) becomes a triviality.
Finally, let us note that *the above quantum link between non inertia and surface seems to be a general feature of gravitation* [@JPP2009]. A first example is the relation between the typical activity $A \simeq mr$ $(r \simeq Gm)$ of a Schwarzschild black hole and the surface of its horizon $s \simeq r^2 \simeq GA$. (As a side remark $A$ is also the Bekenstein Hawking entropy $S$, and this is not a surprise because, if one imagines that the activity is due to partons emitted and absorbed by the singularity, then $\tau_c=m^{-1} \simeq r/n$ where $n$ is their number, and therefore $S \simeq A \simeq n$). A second one, a little bit mysterious, concerns cosmology ; if the past activity of the universe $A=Ma$ is at the origin of its present “surface”, i.e. if $a^2=GA$, then this “ *fractal crumpled universe*” has a density $\varrho \simeq Ma^{-3} \simeq (Ga^2)^{-1}$ ; (the right order of magnitude in comparison with $G^{-2}$ or $a^{-4}$!). Finally, the Raychaudhuri relation $ds=-4 \pi G (T_{\mu \nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu s)$, which in G.R describes the shrinking of the section of a parallel pencil of light, is of the same type because, for dust matter at rest, the parenthesis is the activity of matter inside the volume swept by the pencil. Of course, these examples or oddities need theoretical support.
Inertia, non inertia and spinors.
=================================
In 1843, Hamilton introduced his quaternions which elegantly algebrize our 3d geometry in the same way as complex numbers do for plane geometry. For him this introduction was part of a larger program: “It appeared to me ... to regard algebra ... not primarily as a science of quantity ... but rather as a science of order in progression ..., as science of pure time.” Whatever the true intentions of Hamilton, we want here to understand his above last words as “science of processes..., science of inertia/non inertia”. Today with the development of Q.P, physicists prefer to keep the complex algebra as the fundamental one (description of probability amplitudes, link between A/C processes and negative/positive frequencies ...). The algebra of quaternions is replaced by that of Pauli matrices and the quaternionic formalism by a spinorial one. Spinors (right and left) are the basic objects of physics in the sense that they correspond to the two fundamental conjugate representations of the Lorentz group. In (quantum) particle physics, they allow to write invariant field equations which account for the A/C of particles/antiparticles of helicity $\pm 1/2$ (Weyl) or of spin $1/2$ (Dirac). In (classical) space time geometry, they are used to describe the light cone, and conjugate spinors correspond to opposite spatial directions. *This double role of spinors, together with their dimensionalities $L^{-3/2}$ and $L^{1/2}$ differing by a surface, make them of interest for implementing the above ideas of inertia $(v=c)$ and non inertia, and for discussing gravitation* (figures 2, 5).
Let us first come back to the introduction of mass in section 3 through the equations $(\partial_t+\partial_z)f=mb^*$,$(\partial_t-\partial_z)b=-mf^*$; we recall that their solutions for $m=0$ describe the basic non inertial processes. In $d=3$, their generalisation are the Weyl-Majorana equations (W.M. eqs) $(\partial_t+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla})\psi = m \epsilon \psi^*$ or $(\partial_t-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla})\psi = m \epsilon \psi^*$ which are related to each other by changing the spinor $\psi$ into its conjugate $\epsilon \psi^*$ $(\epsilon=i \sigma_2)$. For $m=0$ (Weyl eqs.) the solutions still describe A/C of motions at velocity $c=1$ (in a direction $\hat{n}$), but they get a chiral property, in the same way as, in particle physics they describe the annihilation of a neutrino and the creation of an antineutrino, or vice versa. Therefore not only inertia is no longer associated with the classical notion of inertial frames (space moving at $v<c$ without acceleration or rotation) but it has also become chiral ; if this is true the chirality of particles is a consequence of that of inertia (a similar remark may apply to the origin of Fermi statistics). W.M. eqs. are non standard wave equations (they mix $\psi$ and $\psi^*$) and may prefigure amplitude equations of a future non linear theory. In particle physics one presently prefers to them the Dirac eq. $(\partial_t+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla})\psi_R= m \psi_L$, $(\partial_t-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla})\psi_L= m \psi_R$, without paying attention to the fact that it reduces to two independent W.M. eqs. (for $\psi_R \pm \epsilon \psi_L^*$). Certainly the notion of (anti)particle has been up to now a fundamental one and it will remain so as long as the distinction between particles and interactions makes sense. But whatabout it at Planck’s length?
As well known, spinors (written in some inertial frame) generate the (forward) light cone by $\psi \psi^+ = t(1+\vec{\sigma}.\hat{n})$ and the conjugation $\psi \rightarrow \epsilon \psi^*$ changes $\hat{n}$ in $-\hat{n}$. We claim that more fundamentally *one can define a physical local space time (in absence locally of matter) by the connection* $$\delta_X \psi = a^{-1}q\epsilon \psi^* \hspace{1cm} \rm{with} \hspace{1cm} q=dt+\vec{\sigma}.d\vec{r}=e^I_\mu \sigma_I dx^\mu$$ ($e^I_\mu$ is the tetrad field connecting free fall and arbitrary coordinates). Because it couples $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ (like W.M. eqs.), this spinorial connection is unusual. It agrees with our conception that the definition of space and time implies non inertia and it raises the question of the status of the more familiar Lorentz spin connection $\delta_A \psi = -A \psi$ $(A=\vec{\sigma}.\vec{A}_\mu dx^\mu)$ which defines, in a spinorial formalism, the traditional transport of tensors. Since $\delta_X$ and $\delta_A$ are incompatible, it is tempting to consider that $\delta_A$ which refers in our opinion to an erroneous view of space time is determined by the condition that it is the one closest to $\delta_X$. One way to define it is to consider the curvature of $\delta=\delta_A-\delta_X$, i.e. the result of the comparison of the transports of $\psi$ along an infinitesimal closed path. An inspection of $\delta^2 \psi = \alpha \psi + \beta \epsilon \psi^*$ ($\alpha$ and $\beta$ being 2-forms) shows that $\beta=0$ (a natural condition outside matter) is equivalent to the absence of torsion, and that $\int<||\delta^2 \psi||^2>$ (exterior product and average on spinors) is Einstein-Hilbert’s action with a cosmological constant $\Lambda=a^{-2}$ (if one neglects quadratic terms in the curvature of $A$). *From this point of view, the manifestation of $\Lambda$ in present cosmology is intimately related to a “Newtonian” approach of inertia*. In presence of local matter, $\delta_X$ must be modified, for instance by changing $q$ in $q+Ga^2T^\alpha _\mu q_\alpha dx^\mu$ (on the basis of dimensional arguments and of our knowledge that matter generates non inertia) ; then the cosmological constant looks like a black energy contribution $(Ga^2)^{-1} \eta_{\mu \nu}$ as in Einstein’s equations.
Conclusion : Physics and references, a bird’s eye view.
=======================================================
Since its (unknown) beginning, physics has dealt with the study of phenomena, in particular motions, changes and gravity of matter. Clearly, this study implies the use (or definition) of references ; we recall that the word “phenomenon” like “phase” comes from greek verbs meaning “to appear”, “to show”. For greeks these references were space and time (the theater), and atoms (the actors), all being absolute ones. They have been associated with the sciences of geometry, astronomy and (in middle ages) alchemy. The first two have generated classical mechanics which confronted with chemistry has led to Q.P (unification of the descriptions of motions and changes of matter). Physicists are presently at work with Q.P and gravity, but no consensus exists, even on the starting point.
Since Galileo and Einstein some time after, neither space nor time is absolute. The references are now inertial frames connected by Poincaré transformations. Like Galileo’s boats they still are associated with massive bodies (electrons, protons, ..., stars, galaxies or even CMB) ; taking into account gravitation has just given them a local character. Finally, atoms also have lost their absolute character : with the standard model, zero mass particles seem to be the present references for matter.
In our epistemological reflexion on (Galileo-Newton-Einstein-Dirac) past physics, INERTIA has been also the reference, but there it meant “$v=c$” or “light cone” or more fundamentally “spinors” (neutrinos being its best “material” approximation). Physics dealt with NON INERTIA or ACTIVITY (or action). We have successively argued that mass, time, gravitation, space can be thought of in quantum relativistic terms thanks to this concept ; the cosmological constant itself has come out from the definition of space time as an abstract non inertial process. Surely quantum gravity, or the understanding that physics is not only relativistic and quantum but also “gravitational”, needs additional reflexion and work. We are conscious that we have put forward ideas but not a new theory.\
\
Acknowledgments : Some of the ideas suggested in this presentation may be considered as a reformulation of : T. Jacobson and L. S. Schulman’s zigzag Feynman’s paths to the 1d Dirac eq. ; R. Penrose’s introduction of zigzag particles in his “*road to reality*” ; M. Sachs’ faith in the role of “*spinors from fermis to light years*”. We also thank Prs C. Bracco, F. Debbasch, J.-M. Lévy-Leblond and B. Raffaelli for stimulating discussions.
[99]{}
J.-P. Provost, B. Raffaelli and C. Bracco, “From Galilean Relativity to Quantum Gravity : Three Issues, $c$, $\hbar$, $G$, concerning Time, Matter and Inertia”, extended paper in preparation.
J.-P. Provost, “A truly relativistic approach of the concept of time”, in *Lecture Notes in Physics-1980* **135**, edited by K. B. Wolf, Cocoyoc Mexico Proceedings, Springer Verlag, 1980, pp. 456-458. This paper is analysed by the philosopher of science R. T. W. Arthur, in Time, Inertia and the Relativity Principle.
J.-P. Provost, C. Bracco and B. Raffaelli, “Mass, Action and non Inertia”,*Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie*, **32**, 487-512 (2007).
J.-P. Provost and B. Raffaelli,“Null Geodesics and the Equivalence Principle”, in preparation.
J.-P. Provost, “A new philosophy concerning inertia and non inertia”, Séminaire “Temps et Espace”, IMCEE-SYRTE, Paris Observatory (December 2009).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss several modifications and extensions over the previous proposed *Cnvlutin* ([*CNV*]{}) accelerator for convolutional and fully-connected layers of Deep Learning Network. We first describe different encodings of the activations that are deemed ineffectual. The encodings have different memory overhead and energy characteristics. We propose using a level of indirection when accessing activations from memory to reduce their memory footprint by storing only the effectual activations. We also present a modified organization that detects the activations that are deemed as ineffectual while fetching them from memory. This is different than the original design that instead detected them at the output of the preceding layer. Finally, we present an extended [*CNV*]{}that can also skip ineffectual weights.'
author:
- |
Patrick Judd Alberto Delmas Lascorz Sayeh Sharify Andreas Moshovos\
\
University of Toronto
- |
Patrick Judd, Alberto Delmas, Sayeh Sharify & Andreas Moshovos\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto\
`{juddpatr, delmasl1, sayeh, moshovos}@ece.utoronto.ca`\
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Cnvlutin^2^: Ineffectual-Activation-and-Weight-Free Deep Neural Network Computing'
---
Conclusion {#sec:theend}
==========
We presented a set of modification and extension to the [*CNV*]{}CNN accelerator. The modifications change the memory storage and energy tradeoff by encoding ineffectual activations differently than the original [*CNV*]{}proposal. We also presented a technique that identifies the ineffectual activations while reading them from memory imposing no memory storage and access overheads. Finally, we decribed an extension to [*CNV*]{}that can benefit from ineffectual weights also.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant.
=0mu plus 1mu
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Learning from unlabeled and noisy data is one of the grand challenges of machine learning. As such, it has seen a flurry of research with new ideas proposed continuously. In this work, we revisit a classical idea: Stein’s Unbiased Risk Estimator (SURE). We show that, in the context of image recovery, SURE and its generalizations can be used to train convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for a range of image denoising and recovery problems [*without any ground truth data.*]{}
Specifically, our goal is to reconstruct an image ${\vx}$ from a *noisy* linear transformation (measurement) of the image. We consider two scenarios: one where no additional data is available and one where we have noisy measurements of other images that belong to the same distribution as ${\vx}$, but have no access to the clean images. Such is the case, for instance, in the context of medical imaging, microscopy, and astronomy, where noise-less ground truth data is rarely available.
We show that in this situation, SURE can be used to estimate the mean-squared-error loss associated with an estimate of ${\vx}$. Using this estimate of the loss, we train networks to perform denoising and compressed sensing recovery. In addition, we also use the SURE framework to partially explain and improve upon an intriguing results presented by Ulyanov et al. in [@DeepImagePrior]: that a network initialized with random weights and fit to a single noisy image can effectively denoise that image.
Public implementations of the networks and methods described in this paper can be found at <https://github.com/ricedsp/D-AMP_Toolbox>.
author:
- |
Christopher A. Metzler\
Stanford University\
`[email protected]`\
Ali Mousavi\
Google AI\
`[email protected]`\
Reinhard Heckel\
Rice University\
`[email protected]`\
Richard G. Baraniuk\
Rice University\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- './refs.bib'
title: 'Unsupervised Learning with Stein’s Unbiased Risk Estimator'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this letter, we point out that the widely used quantitative conditions in the adiabatic theorem are insufficient in that they do not guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation. We also reexamine the inconsistency issue raised by Marzlin and Sanders (Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408, 2004) and elucidate the underlying cause.'
author:
- 'D. M. Tong$^{1,2}$ [^1] , K. Singh$^1$, L. C. Kwek$^{1,3}$, and C. H. Oh$^1$ [^2]'
date:
-
-
title: Quantitative conditions do not guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation
---
The adiabatic theorem[@Ehrenfest; @Born; @Schwinger; @Kato] is one of the basic results in quantum theory. It has been widely applied in both theories and experiments[@Landau; @Zener; @Gell; @Berry; @Farhi] and has grown in importance in the recent years due to a number of extensions and applications[@Avron; @Ali; @Erik; @Lidar; @Roland; @Andris; @Sun; @Tong]. The validity of the application of the theorem had never been doubted until Marzlin and Sanders recently claimed that the application of adiabatic theorem may lead to an inconsistency[@Marzlin]. Essentially they demonstrated that the application of the adiabatic theorem implied a non-unit norm in the states. There have been some attempts at addressing this problem. For instance some authors[@Pati] proposed revolving the inconsistency by dropping some nondiagonal terms in the transition amplitudes; but in doing so, ended up with another inconsistency. Yet, others[@Sarandy; @Wu; @Tong6] have suggested that the inconsistency does not arise from the adiabatic theorem itself, but is a result of incorrect manipulations in mathematics. However, we now find that the inconsistency may exist in the use of the adiabatic approximation. It is actually a reflection of a more crucial issue that the quantitative adiabatic conditions are insufficient. In this letter, we show that the widely used quantitative statements of the adiabatic conditions in the adiabatic theorem, which are often deemed as sufficient, are really insufficient. They cannot sufficiently guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation.
Before proceeding further, it is instructive to recapitulate the statement of the adiabatic theorem. The theorem states that if a quantum system with a time-dependent nondegenerate Hamiltonian $H(t)$ is initially in $n$-th eigenstate of $H(0)$, and if $H(t)$ evolves slowly enough, then the state of the system at time $t$ will remain in the $n$-th instantaneous eigenstate of $H(t)$ up to a multiplicative phase factor. In the literature, the term “$H(t)$ evolves slowly enough", is usually encoded in the quantitative requirement that[@Tong3] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\left |{\langle E_m(t)|}\dot H(t){|E_n(t)\rangle}\right |}{\left |E_m(t)-E_n(t)\right |^2}\ll 1,~m\neq n,~~t\in[0,T],
\label{cons0}\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
\left |\frac{\langle{E_m(t)}{|\dot E_n(t)\rangle}}{E_m(t)-E_n(t)}\right | \ll 1,~m\neq n,~~t\in[0,T],
\label{cons}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_m(t)$ and ${|E_m(t)\rangle}$ are the entirely discrete and nondegenerate instantaneous eigenvalues and eigenstates of $H(t)$, and $T$ is the total evolution time.
We will show that the quantitative adiabatic conditions expressed by Eq. (\[cons\]) is not sufficient in guaranteeing the validity of the adiabatic approximation. To this end, we consider two related $N$-dimensional quantum systems $S^a$ and $S^b$, which are defined by the Hamiltonians $H^a(t)$ and $H^b(t)$ respectively. The two systems are related through $$\begin{aligned}
H^b(t)=-U^{a\dag}(t)H^a(t)U^a(t),
\label{hbaa}\end{aligned}$$ which means that the evolution operator for $S^b$ is the Hermitian conjugate of the evolution operator for $S^a$.
We first consider the system $S^a$. The instantaneous eigenvalues and normalized eigenstates of $H^a$ are denoted as $E^a_m(t)$ and ${|E^a_m(t)\rangle}$ respectively, which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
H^a(t){|E^a_m(t)\rangle}=E^a_m(t){|E^a_m(t)\rangle},~m=1,\ldots,N.
\label{ha}\end{aligned}$$ We assume that $E^a_m(t)$ are entirely discrete and nondegenerate and they fulfill the adiabatic conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\left |{\frac{\langle E^a_m(t){|\dot E^a_n(t)\rangle}}{E^a_m(t)-E^a_n(t)}}\right |\ll 1,
~m\neq n,~~t\in[0,T].
\label{consa}\end{aligned}$$ Now, the state of the system, denoted by ${|\psi^a(t)\rangle}$, is the solution of the Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{d}{dt}{|\psi^a(t)\rangle}=H^a(t){|\psi^a (t)\rangle},
\label{schra}\end{aligned}$$ with the initial state ${|\psi^a(0)\rangle}$. If the initial state is in the $n$-th eigenstate ${|E^a_n(0)\rangle}$, then the state at time $t$, ${|\psi^a(t)\rangle}$, can be expressed exactly as $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^a(t)\rangle}&=U^a(t){|E^a_n(0)\rangle},
\label{psian}\end{aligned}$$ where the unitary operator $U^a(t)=\text{T}exp\left(-i\int_0^tH^a(t')dt'\right)$. In the application of the adiabatic theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^a(t)\rangle}\approx{|\psi^a_{adi}(t)\rangle},
\label{psita}\end{aligned}$$ where the state ${|\psi^a_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^a_{adi}(t)\rangle}=e^{i\alpha^a_n (t)}{|E^a_n(t)\rangle}
\label{psita2}\end{aligned}$$ with the phase $\alpha^a_n(t)$ taking the form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^a_n(t)=-\int_0^tE^a_n(t')dt'+i\int_0^t\langle{E^a_n(t')}{|\dot E^a_n(t')\rangle}dt'.
\label{alphat}\end{aligned}$$ Noticing that $|{\langle \psi^a_{adi}(t)|}\psi^a(t)\rangle |=| {\langle E^a_n(t)|}U^a(t){|E^a_n(0)\rangle}|$, one concludes that the approximation (\[psita\]) is acceptable if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
|{\langle E^a_n(t)|}U^a(t){|E^a_n(0)\rangle}|\approx 1.
\label{bbb}\end{aligned}$$
Next we consider the second quantum system $S^b$, defined by the Hamiltonian $H^b(t)$. We enumerate its instantaneous eigenvalues $E^b_m(t)$ and normalized eigenstates ${|E^b_m(t)\rangle}$ through $$\begin{aligned}
H^b(t){|E^b_m(t)\rangle}&=&E^b_m(t){|E^b_m(t)\rangle},~m=1,\ldots,N,
\label{hb}\end{aligned}$$ For system $S^b$, the state ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ is governed by the Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{d}{dt}{|\psi^b(t)\rangle}=H^b(t){|\psi^b (t)\rangle},
\label{schra}\end{aligned}$$ with the initial state ${|\psi^b(0)\rangle}$. If the system is initially in the $n$-th eigenstate ${|E^b_n(0)\rangle}$, ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ can be expressed exactly as $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^b(t)\rangle}={U^b}(t){|E^b_n(0)\rangle},
\label{psibn}\end{aligned}$$ where $U^b(t)=\text{T}exp\left(-i\int_0^tH^b(t')dt'\right)$.
Under relation (\[hbaa\]), it is easy to see that there is a one-to-one corresponding between the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the two systems: $$\begin{aligned}
&E^b_n(t)&=-E^a_n(t),
\label{ebnt}\\
&{|E^b_n(t)\rangle}&=U^{a\dag}(t){|E^a_n(t)\rangle}.
\label{kebnt}\end{aligned}$$ From this correspondence, we note that
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle E^b_m(t){|\dot E^b_n(t)\rangle}&=&{\langle E^a_m(t)|}U^a(t){\dot U}^{a\dag}(t){|E^a_n(t)\rangle} +
{\langle E^a_m(t)|}U^a(t){U^a}^\dag(t){|\dot E^a_n(t)\rangle} \nonumber\\
&=& i{\langle E^a_m(t)|}H^a(t) {|E^a_n(t)\rangle} +{\langle E^a_m(t)|}\dot E^a_n(t)\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& iE^a_m(t)\delta_{mn} +{\langle E^a_m(t)|}\dot E^a_n(t)\rangle,
\label{EE}\end{aligned}$$
which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left |\frac{\langle E^b_m(t){|\dot E^b_n(t)\rangle}}{ E^b_m(t)-E^b_n(t)}\right |
=\left |{\frac{\langle E^a_m(t){|\dot E^a_n(t)\rangle}}{E^a_m(t)-E^a_n(t)}}\right |\ll 1,~~m\neq n,~~t\in[0,T].
\label{cons2}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[cons2\]) shows that the system $S^b$ satisfies the adiabatic conditions if and only if $S^a$ satisfies them. We may now apply the adiabatic theorem to ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^b(t)\rangle}\approx{|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle},
\label{psib2}\end{aligned}$$ where the state ${|\psi^b_{adi} (t)\rangle}$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^b_{adi} (t)\rangle}= e^{i\alpha_n^b(t)}{|E^b_n(t)\rangle},
\label{psiba}\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha_n^b(t)$ taking the form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_n^b(t)&=& -\int_0^t E^b_n(t')dt'+i\int_0^t\langle E^b_n(t'){|\dot E^b_n(t')\rangle}dt'\nonumber\\
&=&i\int_0^t{\langle E^a_n(t')|}\dot E^a_n(t')\rangle dt'.
\label{alphat2}\end{aligned}$$ We now calculate the fidelity $|{\langle \psi^b_{adi}(t)|}\psi^b(t)\rangle|$. From Eqs. (\[hbaa\]) and (\[kebnt\]), we obtain the relations $U^b(t)=U^{a\dag}(t)$ and ${|E^b_n(0)\rangle}={|E^a_n(0)\rangle}$, and in using these relations we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left |{\langle \psi^b_{adi}(t)|}\psi^b(t)\rangle \right|=\left | {\langle E^a_n(t)|}E^a_n(0)\rangle \right |.
\label{nin2}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[nin2\]) shows that the approximation (\[psib2\]) is acceptable if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
|{\langle E^a_n(t)|}E^a_n(0)\rangle|\approx 1.
\label{aaa}\end{aligned}$$
Comparing Eqs. (\[bbb\]) and (\[aaa\]), one finds that the two expressions are quite different in general. They may not hold at the same time except for some special cases, which means that the two approximate equations (\[psita\]) and (\[psib2\]) may not be always valid. Thus, for a given quantum system $S^a$, one can always construct another quantum system $S^b$, with both of them fulfilling the same adiabatic conditions. The fact that $E^i_n(t)$ and ${|E^i_n(t)\rangle}~(i=a,b)$ do satisfy the conditions (\[cons2\]) but ${|\psi^a(t)\rangle}$ or ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ may not approximate to ${|\psi^a_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ or ${|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ indicates that the adiabatic conditions (\[cons\]) do not sufficiently guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation. Our analysis clearly suggests that the adiabatic conditions described by Eq. (\[cons\]) is insufficient.
Further to substantiate the result obtained above, we now furnish an example to illustrate the fact that the approximation ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}\approx{|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ is invalid while ${|\psi^a(t)\rangle}\approx{|\psi^a_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ is valid. To this end, consider the well-known model, a spin-half particle in a rotating magnetic field. We denote the system as $S^a$. The Hamiltonian of the system is $$\begin{aligned}
H^a(t)&=&-\frac{\omega_0}{2}(\sigma_x\sin\theta\cos\omega t+\sigma_y\sin\theta\sin\omega t+\sigma_z\cos\theta)\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_0$ is a time-independent parameter defined by the magnetic moment of the spin and the intensity of external magnetic field, $\omega $ is the rotating frequency of the magnetic field and $\sigma_i,~i=x,y,z,$ are Pauli matrices. The instantaneous eigenvalues and eigenstates of $H^a(t)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
E^a_1(t)=\frac{\omega_0}{2}, ~~~~{|E^a_1(t)\rangle}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
e^{-i\omega t/2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\\-e^{i\omega t/2}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}
\end{array}\right);\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E^a_2(t)=-\frac{\omega_0}{2},~~~~{|E^a_2(t)\rangle}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
e^{-i\omega t/2}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\\e^{i\omega t/2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}
\end{array}\right).
\label{ketE2}\end{aligned}$$ From $H^a(t)$, we may construct another quantum system $S^b$ defined by the Hamiltonian $H^b(t)=-U^{a\dag}(t)H^a(t)U^a(t)$. The eigenvalues and eigenstates of $H^b(t)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
E^b_1(t)=-\frac{\omega_0}{2}, ~~~~{|E^b_1(t)\rangle}=U^{a\dag}(t){|E^a_1(t)\rangle};
\label{ketE3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E^b_2(t)=\frac{\omega_0}{2},
~~~~{|E^b_2(t)\rangle}=U^{a\dag}(t){|E^a_2(t)\rangle}.
\label{ketE4}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to show that the adiabatic conditions (\[cons2\]) are satisfied as long as $\omega_0\gg \omega\sin\theta$.
Suppose that the system $S^b$ is initially in the state ${|E^b_1(0)\rangle}$. we now calculate ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ defined by Eq. (\[psibn\]) and ${|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ defined by Eq. (\[psib2\]). To this end, we first need to evaluate the unitary operator $U^a(t)$, and we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
U^a(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(\cos\frac{\overline\omega t}{2}+i\frac{\omega+\omega_0\cos\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega t}{2})e^{-i\frac{\omega t}{2}} & i\frac{\omega_0\sin\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega t}{2}e^{-i\frac{\omega t}{2}}\\
i\frac{\omega_0\sin\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega t}{2}e^{i\frac{\omega t}{2}}
&(\cos\frac{\overline\omega t}{2}-i\frac{\omega+\omega_0\cos\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega t}{2})e^{i\frac{\omega t}{2}} \end{array}\right),
\label{u}\end{aligned}$$
where $\overline\omega=\sqrt{\omega_0^2+\omega^2+2\omega_0\omega
\cos\theta}$. With $U^a(t)$ found, we obtain the exact state ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ of the state and the approximate state ${|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ as implied by the adiabatic theorem:
$$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^b(t)\rangle}
= \left(\begin{array}{c}(\cos\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}-i\frac{\omega+\omega_0\cos\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2})\sin\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\frac{\omega t}{2}}+
i\frac{\omega_0\sin\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}\cos\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i\frac{\omega t}{2}} \\
-(\cos\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}+i\frac{\omega+\omega_0\cos\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2})\cos\frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i\frac{\omega t}{2}}-
i\frac{\omega_0\sin\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\frac{\omega t}{2}}
\end{array}\right),
\label{e1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}
=e^{-i\frac{\omega\cos\theta t}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}(\cos\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}-i\frac{\omega+\omega_0\cos\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2})\sin\frac{\theta}{2} +
i\frac{\omega_0\sin\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}\cos\frac{\theta}{2} \\
-(\cos\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}+i\frac{\omega+\omega_0\cos\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2})\cos\frac{\theta}{2} -
i\frac{\omega_0\sin\theta}{\overline\omega}\sin\frac{\overline\omega
t}{2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}
\end{array}\right).
\label{e2}\end{aligned}$$
We see that ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ is quite different from ${|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}$. The fidelity between them is $$\begin{aligned}
\left |{\langle \psi^b_{adi}(t)|}\psi^b (t)\rangle \right |^2=1- \sin^2\theta\sin^2\frac{\omega t}{2},
\label{e3}\end{aligned}$$ which shows that ${|\psi^b(t)\rangle}$ cannot approximate to ${|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}$ although $\omega_0\gg\omega\sin\theta$ is fulfilled. However, for this model the approximation (\[psita\]) is valid[@Tong]. This example illustrates the fact that fulfillment of the adiabatic conditions (\[cons\]) does not sufficiently guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation. Another solvable example can be found in [@Marzlin].
It is worth noting that there are alternative expressions for the adiabatic conditions in the literature. One may wonder whether other quantitative expressions of the conditions are sufficient. Here, we will examine two commonly used ones.
One version[@Lidar] expresses the adiabatic conditions as $$\begin{aligned}
\max\left |\frac{{\langle E_m(t)|}\dot H(t) {|E_n\rangle}(t)}{E_n(t)-E_m(t)}\right | \ll \min\left |E_n(t)-E_m(t)\right |,~~m\neq n,~~t\in[0,T],
\label{cons7}\end{aligned}$$ where $\max|f(t)|$ ($\min |f(t)|$) means the maximum (minimum) value of $|f(t)|, ~t\in[0,T]$. In the use of Eqs. (\[ebnt\]) and (\[EE\]), one may immediately infer that Eq. (\[cons7\]) is satisfied by $S^b$ if and only if it is satisfied by $S^a$. This in turn will lead to the same result as expressed in Eqs. (\[bbb\]) and (\[aaa\]), which means that the present conditions are insufficient too.
Another commonly used version[@Roland] of the adiabatic theorem states if $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\max\left |{\langle E_m(t)|}\dot H(t) {|E_n(t)\rangle}\right |}{\min\left |E_m(t)-E_n(t)\right |^2} \leq \varepsilon,~m\neq n,~~t\in[0,T],
\label{cons8}\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\left |{\langle \psi^{adi}(T)|}\psi(T)\rangle\right |\geq 1-\varepsilon^2.
\label{resu}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we note that the conditions (\[cons8\]) cannot guarantee the validity of Eq. (\[resu\]). In fact, using Eqs. (\[ebnt\]) and (\[EE\]), one finds that Eq. (\[cons8\]) is satisfied by $S^b$ if and only if it is satisfied by $S^a$. We then again arrive at Eqs. (\[bbb\]) and (\[aaa\]). To further elaborate on this, we can use the previous example to illustrate the point. For the Hamiltonian $H^b(t)$ in that example, the left side of Eq. (\[cons8\]) is equal to $\omega\sin\theta /\omega_0$, which may be very small, but the left side of Eq. (\[resu\]) is $[1-\sin^2(\theta/2)\sin^2(\omega T/2)]$, which may not approximate to $1$ in general.
It is instructive to reexamine the inconsistency raised by Marzlin and Sanders in light of our work. In the following, we give an alternative proof to the inconsistency, which can avoid the criticism levelled against their proof. Indeed, by using Eqs. (\[psib2\]) and (\[psiba\]), we may immediately get
$$\begin{aligned}
{\langle E^a_n(0)|}U(t)U^\dag {|E^a_n(0)\rangle}&=&{\langle E^a_n(0)|}U(t){|\psi^b(t)\rangle}\nonumber\\
&\approx&{\langle E^a_n(0)|}U(t){|\psi^b_{adi}(t)\rangle}\nonumber\\
&=& e^{-\int_0^t{\langle E^a_n(t')|}\dot E^a_n(t')\rangle dt'}\langle E^a_n(0)U(t)U^\dag(t){|E^a_n(t)\rangle}\nonumber\\
&=& e^{-\int_0^t{\langle E^a_n(t')|}\dot E^a_n(t')\rangle dt'}\langle E^a_n(0){|E^a_n(t)\rangle}\nonumber\\
&\neq& 1.
\label{nin5}\end{aligned}$$
This is the inconsistency raised in [@Marzlin]. It may be worth noting that, we have only used the adiabatic approximation (\[psib2\]) once and all other calculations are exact. So, we can say that the inconsistency claimed by Marzlin and Sanders does exist in the use of the adiabatic approximation. The essential reason for the inconsistency is the insufficient adiabatic conditions, which cannot guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation.
Before concluding, to give a simple physical picture may be helpful for comprehending the result that the adiabatic conditions are satisfied but the adiabatic approximation may be invalid. To this end, we consider a Hamiltonian that can be written as a sum of two parts, the base part and the perturbing part. In the case where the perturbing part is a periodic rapid varying perturbation in resonance with the base Hamiltonian, the effect of the perturbing part to the system may accumulate to an appropriate scale after a long time, no matter how small the perturbation is, and the transition may be driven between two eigenstates. In this case, the adiabatic approximation is clearly invalid, but the conditions (\[cons\]) may be satisfied as long as the perturbation is small enough. So, for such a system, at least , the adiabatic conditions may fail to guarantee the validity of the adiabatic approximation.
In conclusion, we have shown that the widely used quantitative statements of the adiabatic conditions, such as (\[cons\]), (\[cons7\]) and (\[cons8\]), are insufficient in guaranteeing the validity of the adiabatic approximation. This implies that fulfilling only the quantitative statements cannot meet the adiabatic criterion that is required by the adiabatic theorem. Besides, we have reinterpreted the inconsistency raised by Marzlin and Sanders and found that the essential reason of leading to the inconsistency is the use of the insufficient adiabatic conditions. In passing, we will like to add that the work presented here reopens the all-important question as to the right quantitative sufficiency conditions that will mirror an adiabatic evolution.
0.3 cm Tong would like to thank Dr. E. Sjöqvist for his valuable comments. The work was supported by NUS Research Grant No. R-144-000-071-305.
[99]{} P. Ehrenfest, Ann. d. Phys. 51, 327 (1916). M. Born and V. Fock, Z. Phys. [**51**]{}, 165(1928). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**51**]{}, 648(1937). T. Kato, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. [**5**]{}, 435 (1950). L. D. Landau, Zeitschrift [**2**]{}, 46 (1932). C. Zener, Proc. R. Soc. London A [**137**]{}, 696 (1932). M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev. [**84**]{}, 350 (1951). M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A [**392**]{}, 45 (1984). E. Farhi [*et al*]{}, Science [**292**]{}, 472(2001). J. E. Avron and A. Elgart, Commun. Math. Phys. [**203**]{}, 445 (1999). A. Mostafazadeh, Phys. Lett. A[**232**]{}, 395 (1997). G. G. de Polavieja and E. Sjöqvist, American Journal of Physics [**66**]{}, 431 (1998). M. S. Sarandy and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{},012331 (2005). J. Roland and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{},042308 (2002). A. Ambainis and O. Regev, quant-ph/0411152 (2004). C. P. Sun, J. Phys. A 21,1595 (1988). D. M. Tong [*et al*]{}, Phys. Lett. A339,288 (2005). K. P. Marzlin and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{},160408 (2004). A. K. Pati and A. K. Rajagopal, quant-ph/0405129v1(2004). M. S. Sarandy [*et al*]{}, Quantum Inform. Proc. 3, 331(2004). Z. Wu [*et al*]{}, quant-ph/0411212(2004). D. M. Tong [*et al*]{}, quant-ph/0406163v3(2004). There are many other alternative expressions of the conditions. For simplicity, we choose the simple one without loss of generality.
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Standing waves appear at the surface of a spherical viscous liquid drop subjected to radial parametric oscillation. This is the spherical analogue of the Faraday instability. Modifying the [@KT1994] planar solution to a spherical interface, we linearize the governing equations about the state of rest and solve the resulting equations by using a spherical harmonic decomposition for the angular dependence, spherical Bessel functions for the radial dependence, and a Floquet form for the temporal dependence. Although the inviscid problem can, like the planar case, be mapped exactly onto the Mathieu equation, the spherical geometry introduces additional terms into the analysis. The dependence of the threshold on viscosity is studied and scaling laws are found. It is shown that the spherical thresholds are similar to the planar infinite-depth thresholds, even for small wavenumbers for which the curvature is high. A representative time-dependent Floquet mode is displayed.'
title: |
Faraday instability on a sphere:\
Floquet analysis
---
[*published in Journal of Fluid Mechanics [**805**]{}, 591-610 (2016)*]{}
Introduction
============
The dynamics of oscillating drops are of interest to researchers in pattern formation and dynamical systems as well as having practical applications over a wide variety of scales, in areas as diverse as astroseismology, containerless material processing for high purity crystal growth and drug delivery and mixing in microfluidic devices.
Surface tension is responsible for the spherical shape of a drop. In the absence of external forces, if the drop is slightly perturbed, it will recover its spherical shape through decaying oscillations. This problem was first considered by [@Kel1863] and [@Rayl1879], who described natural oscillations of drops of inviscid fluids. [@Rayl1879] and [@Lamb1932] derived the now-classic resonance mode frequency resulting from the restoring force of surface tension: $$\omega^2 = \frac{\sigma}{\rho} \frac{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^3}
\label{eq:Lamb}$$ where $\omega$ is the frequency, $\sigma$ and $\rho$ the surface tension and density, $R$ is the radius, and $\ell$ is the degree of the spherical harmonic $$Y_\ell^m=P_\ell^m(\cos\theta)e^{im\phi}
\label{eq:ylm}$$ describing the perturbation. Linear analyses including viscosity were carried out by [@Reid1960], [@Chan1961] and [@MS1968]. These authors demonstrated the equivalence of this problem to that of a fluid globe oscillating under the influence of self-gravitation, generalizing the previous conclusion of Lamb. Chandrasekhar showed that the return to a spherical shape could take place via monotonic decay as well as via damped oscillations. The problem was further investigated by [@Pros1980] using an initial-value code. Weakly nonlinear effects in inviscid fluid drops were investigated by [@TB1983] using a Poincaré-Lindstedt expansion technique.
The laboratory realization of any configuration with only spherically symmetric radially directed forces is difficult. Indeed such experiments have been sent into space, e.g. [@WAL1996; @futterer2013sheet] and in parabolic flight [@Fal2009] in order to eliminate or reduce the perturbing influence of the gravitational field of the Earth. [@WAL1996] were able to confirm the decrease in frequency with increasing oscillation amplitude predicted by [@TB1983]. [@WAL1996] mention, however, that the treatment of viscosity is not exact. [@Fal2009] produced spherical capillary wave turbulence and compared its spectrum with theoretical predictions.
In the laboratory, drops have been levitated by using acoustic or magnetic forces and excited by periodic electric modulation [@SXW2010]; drops and puddles weakly pinned on a vibrating substrate [@BS2011] have produced star-like patterns. One of the purposes of such experiments is to provide a measurement of the surface tension. [@TZW1982] visualized the shapes and internal flow of vibrating drops and compared the frequencies to those of [@Lamb1932] and the damping coefficients to those derived by [@Mars1980]. These experimental procedures cannot produce a perfectly spherical base state, and indeed, [@TW1982] and [@CB1991] discuss differences between oscillating oblate and prolate drops, and the resulting deviations from . Because the experimentally observed frequencies remain close to , it seems likely that the results of our stability analysis are also only mildly affected by a departure from perfect spherical symmetry.
Here, and in a companion paper, we consider a viscous drop under the influence of a time-periodic radial bulk force and of surface tension. Our investigation relies on a variety of mathematical and computational tools. Here, we solve the linear stability problem by adapting to spherical coordinates the Floquet method of [@KT1994]. At the linear level, the instability depends only on the spherical wavenumber $\ell$ of as illustrated by the Lamb-Rayleigh relation . Thus, perturbations which are not axisymmetric ($m\neq 0$ in ) have the same thresholds as the corresponding axisymmetric ($m=0$) perturbations. Indeed, the theoretical and numerical investigations listed above have assumed that the drop shape remains axisymmetric. The fully nonlinear Faraday problem, however, usually leads to patterns which are non-axisymmetric. In our complementary investigation [@Ali2], we will describe the results of full three-dimensional simulations which calculate the interface motion and the velocity field inside and outside the parametrically forced drop and interpret them in the context of the theory of pattern formation.
Governing equations
===================
Equations of motion
-------------------
We consider a drop of viscous, incompressible liquid bounded by a spherical free surface that separates the liquid from the exterior in the presence of an uniform radial oscillatory body force. The fluid motion inside the drop satisfies the Navier-Stokes equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + ( {\mathbf{U}}\cdot \nabla ) \right] {\mathbf{U}}& = - \nabla P + \eta \nabla^2 {\mathbf{U}}- \rho G(r,t) \vec{e}_r \label{NS}\\
\nabla \cdot {\mathbf{U}}&= 0 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where ${\mathbf{U}}$ is the velocity, $P$ the pressure, $\rho$ the density and $\eta$ the dynamic viscosity. $G(r,t)$ is an imposed radial parametric acceleration given by $$G(r,t) = \left( g - a \cos(\omega t) \right) \frac{r}{R} \label{eq:Gdef}$$ which is regular at the origin. The interface is located at $$r=R+\zeta(\theta,\phi,t)$$ Conservation of volume leads to the requirement that the integral of $\zeta$ over the sphere must be zero. The boundary conditions applied at the interface are the kinematic condition, which states that the interface is advected by the fluid
$$\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \left( {\mathbf{U}}\cdot \nabla \right) \right]
\zeta = U_r |_{r=R+\zeta}
\label{kincondg}$$
and the interface stress balance equation, which is given by
$$\mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{\Pi}} - \mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{\Pi} = \sigma \mathbf{n}(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{n}) - \nabla \sigma
\label{sbr}$$
where $\sigma$ is the surface tension coefficient and $\mathbf{n}$ represents the unit outward normal to the surface, both defined only on the interface. The tensors $\mathbf{\Pi}$ (drop) and $\mathbf{\hat{\Pi}}$ (medium) denote the stress tensor in each fluid and are defined by
$$\mathbf{\Pi} = -P \mathbf{I_d} + \eta \left[ \nabla {\mathbf{U}}+ \left( \nabla {\mathbf{U}}\right)^T \right].
\label{Pidef}$$
For simplicity, we consider a situation in which the outer medium has no effect on the drop, and so we set the density, pressure and stress tensor $\mathbf{\hat{\Pi}}$ outside the drop to zero. The boundary conditions corresponding to the case of drop forced in a medium are described in the appendix. We assume that the surface tension is uniform, so $\nabla \sigma = 0$. The tangential stress balance equation at the free surface then reduces to
$$\mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{\Pi}\cdot\mathbf{t} = 0
\label{tstb}$$
for both unit tangent vectors $\mathbf{t}$.
The normal stress jump boundary condition determines the curvature of the deformed interface. The Laplace formula relates the normal stress jump to the divergence of the normal field, which is in turn equal to the mean curvature: $$- \mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{\Pi} \cdot \mathbf{n} =
\sigma \nabla \cdot \mathbf{n}
= \sigma \left( \frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} \right)
\label{nsb}$$ with $R_1$ and $R_2$ the principal radii of curvature at a given point of the surface.
For a sphere, $R_1=R_2=R$ and equation becomes $$P|_{r=R} = 2\frac{\sigma}{R}$$ and the solution to the governing equations and boundary conditions , , is the motionless equilibrium spherical state at $r=R$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{{\mathbf{U}}} & = 0 \\
\bar{P}(r,t) & = 2 \frac{\sigma}{R} - \int_r^R \rho G(r',t) dr' \end{aligned}$$
\[BF\]
where $\bar{P}$ is continuously differentiable at the origin because $G(0,t)=0$.
Linearizing the governing equations
-----------------------------------
We linearize the Navier-Stokes equations about the unperturbed state (\[BF\]) by decomposing the velocity and the pressure
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{U}}& = \bar{{\mathbf{U}}} + {\mathbf{u}}\\
P & = \bar{P} + p\end{aligned}$$
which leads to the equation for the perturbation fields ${\mathbf{u}}$ and $p$
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho\frac{ \partial {\mathbf{u}}}{\partial t} &= - \nabla p + \eta \nabla^2 {\mathbf{u}}\label{fhs} \\
\nabla \cdot {\mathbf{u}}&= 0 \label{fhs_inc}
\end{aligned}$$
We write the definitions in spherical coordinates of various differential operators:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_H \cdot & \equiv \frac{1}{r \sin \theta} \frac{\partial
}{\partial \theta} \sin \theta \, \hat{e}_\theta\cdot + \frac{1}{r \sin \theta} \frac{\partial }{\partial \phi} \hat{e}_\phi\cdot\\
\nabla_H & \equiv \frac{\hat{e}_\theta}{r }\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} +
\frac{\hat{e}_\phi}{r \sin \theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \\
\nabla^2_H & \equiv \frac{1}{r² \sin \theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \left( \sin \theta \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right) + \frac{1}{r² \sin² \theta} \frac{\partial²}{\partial \phi²}
\label{Op_Sph}\end{aligned}$$
For a solenoidal field satisfying , definitions lead to $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbf{\nabla}^2{\mathbf{u}})_r &=\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2\frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \nabla^2_H-\frac{2}{r^2}\right)u_r -\frac{2}{r}\nabla_H\cdot{\mathbf{u}}_H \nonumber\\
& =\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2\frac{\partial}{\partial r} -\frac{2}{r^2} +\frac{2}{r^3}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2 + \nabla^2_H \right)u_r \nonumber\\
& =\left(\frac{1}{r^3}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r + \nabla^2_H \right)u_r
\equiv\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}^2 u_r\end{aligned}$$
We can then eliminate the horizontal velocity ${\bf u}_H=(u_\theta ,u_\phi )$ and the pressure $p$ from in the usual way by operating with $\vec{e}_r \cdot {\nabla\times}{\nabla\times}$ on , leading to: $$\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}^2 \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \nu \widetilde{\mathcal{L}}^2 \right)
u_r = 0 \label{nfhs}$$
Since we are interested in the linear stability of the interface located at $ r = R + \zeta$ with $\zeta \ll R$, we Taylor expand the fields and their radial derivatives around $r = R$ and retain only the lowest-order terms, which are evaluated at $r=R$. The kinematic condition (\[kincondg\]) becomes $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \zeta = u_r|_{r=R} \label{kincondform}$$
We now wish to apply the stress balance equations at $r=R$. The components of the stress tensor which we will need are
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{r \theta} & = \eta \left( \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \theta}
+ r \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \frac{u_\theta}{r} \right) \right)\\
\Pi_{r \phi} &= \eta \left( \frac{1}{r \sin \theta} \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}
+r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left( \frac{u_\phi}{r} \right) \right)\\
\Pi_{rr} &= 2\frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\end{aligned}$$
\[pitc\]
We have from that the tangential stress components must vanish at $r=R$, leading to: $$\Pi_{r \theta}|_{r=R} = \Pi_{r \phi}|_{r=R} = 0
\label{tstb2}$$
Taking the horizontal divergence of $\Pi_{r\theta}\, \hat{e}_\theta + \Pi_{r\phi}\,\hat{e}_\phi$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \left[\nabla_H \cdot (\Pi_{r\theta}\, \hat{e}_\theta + \Pi_{r\phi}\,\hat{e}_\phi ) \right]_{r=R}\nonumber\\
&=\eta\left[\nabla_H\cdot \left(
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \theta}\,\hat{e}_\theta +
\frac{1}{r \sin \theta} \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\,\hat{e}_\phi\right)
+\nabla_H\cdot \left(
r \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(\frac{u_\theta}{r}\right) \hat{e}_\theta +
r \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(\frac{u_\phi}{r}\right)\hat{e}_\phi \right)
\right]_{r=R} \nonumber\\
&=\eta\left[\nabla_H\cdot \nabla_H u_r
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\nabla_H\cdot \left(u_\theta\hat{e}_\theta+u_\phi\hat{e}_\phi\right)\right]_{r=R}=\eta\left[\left(\nabla_H^2 -\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r^2\right)u_r\right]_{r=R}
\label{tbc}
\end{aligned}$$ which is the form of the tangential stress continuity equation that we impose.
We now wish to linearize the normal stress balance equation: $$-\left[ \mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{\Pi}\cdot \mathbf{n} \right]_{r=R+\zeta}=\left[\mathbf{n} \cdot
\left(P \mathbf{I_d} - \eta \left[ \nabla {\mathbf{U}}+ \left( \nabla {\mathbf{U}}\right)^T \right]\right)\cdot \mathbf{n} \right]_{r=R+\zeta}
= \sigma \left( \frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} \right)
\label{nsbr}$$ The right-hand side of is $\sigma$ times the curvature of a deformed interface and can be shown [@Lamb1932 §275] to be, up to first order in $\zeta$, $$\sigma\left(\frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} \right)_{r= R + \zeta} \approx \frac{2\sigma}{R} - \left( \frac{2}{R^2} + \nabla_H^2 \right) \zeta
\label{lamb}$$ For the left-hand side of , we use to expand the pressure as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\bar{P}+p \right)_{r=R+\zeta}
\approx
\left(\bar{P}+p \right)_{r=R}+\left(\frac{\partial\bar{P}}{\partial r}\right)_{r=R}\zeta
= 2\frac{\sigma}{R}+ p|_{r=R}-\rho G(R,t) \zeta \end{aligned}$$ Adding the term resulting from the viscosity leads to $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathbf{n}\cdot\mathbf{\Pi}\cdot\mathbf{n}|_{r=R+\zeta} \approx
& 2\frac{\sigma}{R}+ p|_{r=R}-\rho G(R,t) \zeta
-2\eta\left(\frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right)_{r=R}
\label{lhsnpjc}\end{aligned}$$
Setting equal to leads to the desired linearized form:
$$p|_{r=R} - \rho G(R,t) \zeta - 2\eta \left(\frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right)_{r=R} = - \sigma \left( \frac{2}{R^2} + \nabla_H^2 \right) \zeta
\label{nst}$$
It will be useful to take the horizontal Laplacian of :
$$\nabla_H^2 p|_{r=R} = 2\eta \nabla_H^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial r} u_r |_{r=R} + \rho G(R,t)\nabla_H^2 \zeta - \sigma \nabla_H^2 \left( \frac{2}{R^2} + \nabla_H^2 \right)\zeta \label{thdofnc}$$
We can derive another expression for $\nabla_H^2 p|_{r=R}$ by taking the horizontal divergence of (\[fhs\]):
$$\nabla^2_H p = \frac{1}{r^2}\left(\rho \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \eta \nabla^2\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial r} (r^2 u_r)
\label{hdof1}$$
Setting equal the right-hand sides of equations and , we obtain the *pressure jump condition*
$$\left[ \frac{1}{r^2}\left(\rho \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \eta \nabla^2\right) \frac{\partial }{\partial r} (r^2 u_r) - 2\eta \nabla_H^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial r} u_r \right]_{r=R} = \rho G(R,t)\nabla_H^2 \zeta - \sigma \nabla_H^2 \left( \frac{2}{R^2} + \nabla_H^2 \right)\zeta \\ \label{pjcR}$$
This is the only equation in which the parametrical external forcing appears explicitly; note that only the value $G(r=R,t)$ on the sphere is relevant. We now have a set of linear equations , , and involving only $u_r(r,\theta,\phi,t)$ and $\zeta(\theta,\phi,t)$, which reduce to those for the planar case [@KT1994] in the limit of $R\rightarrow\infty$.
Solution to linear stability problem
====================================
Spherical harmonic Decomposition
--------------------------------
The equations simplify somewhat when we use the poloidal-toroidal decomposition $${\mathbf{u}}= {\nabla\times}(f_T \vec{e}_r) + {\nabla\times}{\nabla\times}(f \vec{e}_r)$$ The radial velocity component $u_r$ depends only on the poloidal field $f$ and is given by $$u_r (r,\theta,\phi,t) = -\nabla_H^2 f (r,\theta,\phi,t)
\label{urf}$$ Using $$\underbrace{\left(\frac{1}{r^3}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r + \nabla^2_H \right)}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}^2}\nabla^2_H =
\nabla^2_H\underbrace{\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} + \nabla^2_H\right)}_{\mathcal{L}^2}$$ we express in terms of the poloidal field $$\nabla_H^2 \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \nu \mathcal{L}^2 \right) \mathcal{L}^2 f = 0
\label{nfhspol}$$ Functions are expanded in series of spherical harmonics $Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi) = P_\ell^m(\cos \theta) e^{i m \phi}$ satisfiying $$\nabla^2_H Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi) = - \frac{\ell(\ell +1)}{r^2}Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi)
\label{basicylm}$$ We write the deviation of the interface $\zeta(t,\theta,\phi)$ and the scalar function $f$ as $$\zeta(t,\theta,\phi) = \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \zeta_\ell^m (t) Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
f(r,\theta,\phi,t) = \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} f_\ell^m(r,t)Y_\ell^m(\theta,\phi)
\label{expansion}$$ The equations do not couple different spherical modes $(\ell,m)$, allowing us to consider each mode separately. The term multiplying $\sigma\nabla_H^2\zeta$ in the normal stress equation becomes $$\left(\frac{2}{R^2}+\nabla_H^2\right)\zeta_\ell^m =
\left(\frac{2}{R^2}-\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{R^2}\right)\zeta_\ell^m =
-\frac{(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^2}\zeta_\ell^m
\label{Lamb}$$ The value $\ell=0$ corresponds to an overall expansion or contraction of the sphere, which is forbidden by mass conservation and is therefore excluded from . The value $\ell=1$ corresponds to a shift of the drop, rather than a deformation of the interface, so that surface tension cannot act as a restoring force; it is included in this study only when the surface tension $\sigma$ is zero and the constant radial bulk force $g$ is non-zero.
The complete linear problem given by equations , , and is expressed in terms of $f_\ell^m(r,t)$ and $\zeta_\ell^m(t)$ as: $$\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \nu \mathcal{L}_\ell^2\right) \mathcal{L}_\ell^2 f_\ell^m = 0 \label{nfhs_ur}$$
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \zeta_\ell^m = \frac{\ell(\ell +1)}{R^2} f_\ell^m \vert_{r=R} \label{kincondlm}$$
$$\left( \mathcal{L}^2_\ell - \frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right)f_\ell^m\vert_{r=R} = 0 \label{bc2lm}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \left(\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} - \eta \left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial r^3} +\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} -\ell(\ell+1)\left(\frac{3}{r^2}\frac{\partial }{\partial r} - \frac{4}{r^3} \right)\right)\right)f_\ell^m \right]_{r=R} = \nonumber\\
- \left(\rho G(R,t) + \sigma \frac{(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^2}\right)\zeta_\ell^m
\label{pjcRlm}\end{aligned}$$
where we have used , and $$\mathcal{L}^2_\ell \equiv \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}-\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2}
\label{Lelldef}$$ and have divided through by $\ell(\ell+1)/R^2$.
The value of $m$ does not appear in these equations, in much the same way as the Cartesian linear Faraday problem depends only on the wavenumber $k$ and not on its orientation.
Floquet Solution {#Floquet Solution}
----------------
The presence of the time-periodic term in means that , , , comprise a Floquet problem. To solve it, we follow the procedure of [@KT1994], whereby $\zeta_\ell^m$ and $f_\ell^m$ are written in the Floquet form: $$\zeta_\ell^m(t) = e^{(\mu + i\alpha)t} \sum_n \zeta_n e^{in\omega t} \quad \mbox{and} \quad f_\ell^m(r,t) = e^{(\mu + i\alpha)t} \sum_n f_n(r) e^{in\omega t}
\label{flqdec}$$ where $\mu + i\alpha$ is the Floquet exponent and we have omitted the indices $(\ell,m)$. Substituting the Floquet expansions (\[flqdec\]) into (\[nfhs\_ur\]) gives, for each temporal frequency $n$ $$\left( \mu+i(n\omega+\alpha) - \nu \mathcal{L}^2_\ell \right) \mathcal{L}^2_\ell f_n = 0$$ or $$\left( \mathcal{L}^2_\ell - q_n^2 \right) \mathcal{L}^2_\ell f_n(r) = 0
\label{flqfhs}$$ where $$q_n^2 \equiv \frac{\mu + i(n\omega + \alpha)}{\nu} \label{qn2}$$ In order to solve the fourth-order differential equation , we first solve the homogeneous second-order equation $$\left( \mathcal{L}^2_\ell - q_n^2 \right) \tilde{f}_n = 0
\label{eqbessel}$$ which is a modified spherical Bessel, or Riccati-Bessel, equation [@AS65]. The general solutions are of the form $$\tilde{f}_n(r) = \tilde{B}_n r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}(iq_n r) + \tilde{D}_n^2 r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{-(\ell+\frac{1}{2})}(iq_n r)$$ where $J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}$ is the spherical Bessel function of half-integer order $\ell + \frac{1}{2}$.
The remaining second-order differential equation is $$\mathcal{L}^2_\ell f_n= \tilde{f}_n$$ whose solutions are the general solutions of and are given by $$f_n(r) = A_n r^{\ell+1} + B_n r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}(iq_n r) + C_n r^{-\ell} + D_n r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{-(\ell+\frac{1}{2})}(iq_n r)
\label{flqsolgen}$$ Note that $u_r\sim f_n/r^2$ satisfies . Eliminating the solutions in which diverge at the centre, we are left with: $$f_n(r) = A_n r^{\ell+1} + B_n r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}(iq_n r)
\label{flqsolfin}$$ The constants $A_n$ and $B_n$ can be related to $\zeta_n$ by using the kinematic condition and the tangential stress condition which, for Floquet mode $n$, are
$$\begin{aligned}
(\mu+i(n\omega+\alpha)) &\zeta_n = \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{R^2} f_n|_{r=R} \label{kincondflq}\\
\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} - \frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{\ell(\ell +1)}{r^2}\right) & f_n\vert_{r=R} = 0 \label{bc2flq}
$$
Appendix \[appendix\] gives more details on the determination of these constants and also presents the solution and boundary conditions in the case for which the exterior of the drop is a fluid rather than a vacuum.
There remains the normal stress (pressure jump) condition (\[pjcRlm\]), the only equation which couples temporal Floquet modes for different $n$. Writing $$a \cos(\omega t)\sum_n \zeta_ne^{in\omega t} = a \frac{e^{i\omega t}+ e^{-i\omega t}}{2} \sum_n\zeta_ne^{in\omega t} = \frac{a}{2}\sum_n(\zeta_{n+1} + \zeta_{n-1}) e^{in\omega t}$$ and inserting the Floquet decomposition (\[flqdec\]) into (\[pjcRlm\]) leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \left(\rho(\mu+i(n\omega + \alpha)) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\right.\right.
&\left.\left.- \eta\left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial r^3} +\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} -\ell(\ell+1)\left(\frac{3}{r^2}\frac{\partial }{\partial r} -\frac{4}{r^3} \right)\right)\right)f_n \right]_{r=R} &\nonumber\\
&+ \left(\rho g + \sigma \frac{(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^2}\right)\zeta_n
= \rho \frac{a}{2}(\zeta_{n+1}+\zeta_{n-1})
\label{pjcfn}\end{aligned}$$
Using and to express the partial derivatives of $f_n$ as multiples of $\zeta_n$, can be written as an eigenvalue problem with eigenvalues $a$ and eigenvectors $\{\zeta_n\}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}\zeta &= a\mathcal{B}\zeta \label{eigvalpb}\end{aligned}$$ The usual procedure for a stability analysis is to fix the wavenumber (here the spherical mode $\ell$) and the forcing amplitude $a$, to calculate the exponents $\mu + i \alpha$ of the growing solutions and to select that whose growth rate $\mu(\ell,a)$ is largest. Following [@KT1994], we instead fix $\mu = 0$ and restrict consideration to two kinds of growing solutions, harmonic with $\alpha
= 0$ and subharmonic with $\alpha = \frac{\omega}{2}$. We then solve the problem for the eigenvalues $a$ and eigenvectors $\{\zeta_n\}$ and select the smallest, or several smallest, real positive eigenvalues $a$. These give the marginal stability curves $a(\ell,\mu=0,\alpha=\frac{\omega}{2}$ and $a(\ell,\mu=0,\alpha=0)$ without interpolation. Our computations require no more than 10 Fourier modes in representation . This method can be used to solve any Floquet problem for which the overall amplitude of the time-periodic terms can be varied. The detailed procedure for the solution of the eigenvalue problem (\[eigvalpb\]) is described in [@KT1994; @K1996].
Ideal fluid case and non-dimensionalization {#sec:ideal}
===========================================
For an ideal fluid drop ($\nu = 0$) and for a given spherical harmonic $Y_\ell^m$, system (\[nfhs\_ur\]) reduces to
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathcal{L}^2_\ell f(r,t) = 0
\label{idfhs}$$
We make the customary assumption that $\mathcal{L}^2_\ell f(r,t)$ is not only constant, as implied by , but zero. In this case, the solution which does not diverge at the drop centre is of the form $$f(r,t) = F(t) r^{\ell+1}
\label{idfn}$$
As the tangential stress is purely viscous in origin, only the kinematic condition and the pressure jump condition across the interface are applied. Using , these are reduced to:
$$\dot{\zeta}(t) = \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{R^2} F(t) R^{\ell+1}
\label{idkincond}$$
$$(\ell+1)\dot{F}(t) R^\ell = -\left(G(R,t)+\frac{\sigma}{\rho} \frac{(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^2} \right) \zeta_\ell^m(t)
\label{idpjclm}$$
By differentiating with respect to time and substituting into , we arrive at $$\ddot{\zeta} = -\left(g\frac{\ell}{R}+\frac{\sigma}{\rho} \frac{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^3} -a\frac{\ell}{R}\cos(\omega t)\right) \zeta
\label{beforenondim}$$ Focusing for the moment on the unforced equation, we define: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_0^2 & \equiv \left(g \frac{\ell}{R}+ \frac{\sigma}{\rho} \frac{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^3}\right) \label{RayEigFr}\end{aligned}$$ Equation is the spherical analogue of the usual dispersion relation for gravity-capillary waves in a plane layer of infinite depth, with the modifications
$$\begin{aligned}
gk &\rightarrow g\frac{\ell}{R} \label{gcorr}\\
\frac{\sigma}{\rho}k^3 &\rightarrow \frac{\sigma}{\rho} \frac{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^3}\label{sigcorr}\end{aligned}$$
\[matpar\]
The transformation can be readily understood by the fact that the wavelength of a spherical mode $\ell$ is $2\pi R/\ell$. The transformation must be understood in light of the fact that an unperturbed sphere, unlike a planar surface, has a non-zero curvature term proportional to $2\sigma/R$, from which is derived as a deviation via . In the absence of a bulk force, $g=0$, becomes the formula of [@Rayl1879] or [@Lamb1932] for the eigenfrequencies of capillary oscillation of a spherical drop perturbed by a deformation characterized by spherical wavenumber $\ell$.
Using definitions and $$a_0 \equiv \frac{R \omega_0^2}{\ell}
\label{a0def}$$ and non-dimensionalizing time via $\hat{t}\equiv t\omega$, equation can be converted to the Mathieu equation $$\frac{d^2\zeta}{d\hat{t}^2} = -\left(\frac{\omega_0}{\omega}\right)^2
\left(1 - \frac{a}{a_0}\cos\hat{t}\right)\zeta \label{basiceq1}$$ combining the multiple parameters $g$, $R$, $\sigma$, $\rho$, $a$, $\omega$ and $\ell$ into only two, $\omega/\omega_0$ and $a/a_0$. The stability regions of are bounded by tongues which intersect the $a=0$ axis at $$\omega = \frac{2}{n}\omega_0
\label{basiceq2}$$ Thus the inviscid spherical Faraday linear stability problem reduces to the Mathieu equation, as it does in the planar case [@BU1954]. In a Faraday wave experiment or numerical simulation, $\ell$, unlike the other parameters, is not known [*a priori*]{}. Instead, in light of , equation is a cubic equation which determines $\ell$ given the other parameters. Since $\omega_0$ and $a_0$ are functions of $\ell$, both of the variables $\omega/\omega_0$ and $a/a_0$ contain the unknown $\ell$ and so cannot be interpreted as simple non-dimensionalizations of $\omega$ and $a$. (For the purely gravitational case, $a_0=g$ is independent of $\ell$.)
![Instability tongues of an inviscid fluid drop due to oscillatory forcing with amplitude $a$ and angular frequency $\omega$. Solid curves bound subharmonic tongues and dashed curves bound harmonic tongues. (a) Tongues corresponding to gravitational instability with spherical wavenumbers $\ell=1$, 2, 3, 4 originate at $\omega/\omega_g =
2\sqrt{\ell}/n$. (b) Tongues corresponding to capillary instability with spherical wavenumbers $\ell=2$, 3, 4, 5 originate at $\omega/\omega_c =2\sqrt{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}/n$, with $n$ odd (even) for subharmonic (harmonic) tongues.[]{data-label="fig:mathitong"}](figure_1.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Same data as in figure \[fig:mathitong\], but scaled by $\omega_0$ and $a_0$. The tongues for the gravitational and the capillary cases and for all values of $\ell$ all collapse onto a single set of tongues. Solid curves bound subharmonic tongues and dashed curves bound harmonic tongue.[]{data-label="fig:Mat"}](figure_2.eps){width="\textwidth"}
It is useful to examine and in the two limits of gravity and capillary waves. We first define non-dimensional angular frequencies and oscillation amplitudes which do not depend on $\ell$: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_g^2 \equiv \frac{g}{R} &&\qquad a_g \equiv R\omega_g^2 = g \\
\omega_c^2 \equiv \frac{\sigma}{\rho R^3}&& \qquad a_c \equiv R\omega_c^2\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_0^2 &=& \omega_g^2 \;\ell + \omega_c^2 \;\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2) \\
a_0 &=& a_g + a_c (\ell-1)(\ell+2)
\end{aligned}$$ The Bond number measuring the relative importance of the two forces can be written as: $$Bo \equiv \frac{\rho g R^2}{\sigma} = \frac{\omega_g^2}{\omega_c^2}$$
In the gravity-dominated regime (large $Bo$), we write as $$\omega^2 = \left(\frac{2}{n}\right)^2 \omega_g^2 \; \left[\ell + \frac{1}{Bo}\ell (\ell-1)(\ell+2)\right]$$ The stability boundaries for $1/Bo=0$ are given in figure \[fig:mathitong\](a). The subharmonic and harmonic tongues originate at $\omega/\omega_g = 2\sqrt{\ell}$ and $\omega/\omega_g = \sqrt{\ell}$.
In the capillary-dominated regime (small $Bo$) it is more appropriate to write as $$\omega^2 = \left(\frac{2}{n}\right)^2 \omega_c^2 \left[\ell (\ell-1)(\ell+2)
+ Bo \; \ell\right]$$ The stability boundaries for $Bo=0$ are given in figure \[fig:mathitong\](b) in terms of $\omega/\omega_c$ and $a/a_c$. These consist of families of tongues, which originate on the $a=0$ axis at $\omega/\omega_c=2\sqrt{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}/n$ for $\ell=2$, 3, 4, 5 and for $n=1$, 2, ... within which the drop has one of the spatial forms corresponding to the spherical wavenumber $\ell$ and oscillates like $e^{i n \omega t/2}$. The solid curves bound the first subharmonic instability tongues, which orginate on the $a=0$ axis at $\omega/\omega_c = 2\sqrt{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}$ for $\ell=2$, 3, 4, 5, within which the drop oscillates like $e^{i\omega t/2}$. The dashed curves bound the first harmonic tongues, originating at $\omega/\omega_c = \sqrt{\ell(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}$ describing a response like $e^{i\omega t}$. Tongues for higher $n$ are located at still lower values of $\omega$.
The curves in figure \[fig:mathitong\] for different $\ell$, $g$, $\sigma/\rho$, $R$ all collapse onto a single set of tongues when they are plotted in terms of $\omega/\omega_0$ and $a/a_0$. This is shown in figure \[fig:Mat\], in which the various tongues correspond to the temporal harmonic index $n$. In order to use figure \[fig:Mat\] to determine whether the drop is stable against perturbations with spherical wavenumber $\ell$ when a radial force with amplitude $a$ and angular frequency $\omega$ is applied, the following procedure must be used.
For each $\ell$, formulas and are used to determine the values of $(\omega_0,a_0)$, If $(\omega/\omega_0,a/a_0)$ is inside one of the instability tongues (usually, but not always, that corresponding to an $\omega/2$ response with $n=1$) then the drop is unstable to perturbations of that $\ell$. The drop is stable if $(\omega/\omega_0, a/a_0)$ lies outside the tongues for all $\ell$ and all $n$. This is the procedure described by [@BU1954] and carried out by [@Batson] in a cylindrical geometry.
Because $(\omega/\omega_0,a/a_0)$ depends on the unknown $\ell$, an experimental or numerical choice of parameters cannot immediately be assigned to a point in figure \[fig:Mat\], rendering its interpretation somewhat more obscure. It is perhaps because of this that investigations of the Faraday instability are often presented in dimensional terms. Figures like \[fig:mathitong\](a) and (b), in which the two axes are non-dimensional quantities defined in terms of known parameters, represent a good compromise between universality and ease of use. This treatment can also be applied to non-spherical geometries in which the unperturbed surface is flat and the depth is finite.
Viscous fluids and scaling laws
===============================
We now return to the viscous case. For a viscous fluid, it is not possible to reduce the governing equations to a Mathieu equation even with the addition of a damping term [@KT1994]. As described in section \[Floquet Solution\], the governing equations and boundary conditions are reduced to an eigenvalue problem, whose solution gives the critical oscillation amplitude $a$ as an eigenvalue.
![Instability tongues due to oscillatory forcing of amplitude $a$ and angular frequency $\omega$ for a viscous fluid drop. Solid curves bound subharmonic tongues and dashed curves bound harmonic tongues. (a) Tongues corresponding to gravitational instability with viscosity $\nu/\sqrt{g R^3}=0.08$. Spherical wavenumbers are $\ell=1$ (magenta), 2 (blue), 3 (red), 4 (green), 5 (black). (b) Tongues correspond to capillary instability with viscosity $\nu/\sqrt{\sigma R/\rho}=0.08$. Spherical wavenumbers are $\ell=2$ (blue), 3 (red), 4 (green), 5 (black), 6 (purple).[]{data-label="fig:mathvtong"}](figure_3.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:mathvtong\] displays the regions of instability of a viscous drop using the same conventions as we did for the ideal fluid case, i.e. treating capillary and gravitational instability separately and plotting the stability boundaries in units of $\omega_c$, $\omega_g$, $a_c$, $a_g$. Viscosity smoothes the instability tongues and displaces the critical forcing amplitude towards higher values, with a displacement which increases with $\ell$. The viscosity used in figure \[fig:mathvtong\] is $\nu/\sqrt{\sigma R/\rho}=0.08$ and $\nu/\sqrt{g R^3}=0.08$ the Ohnesorge number and the inverse square root of the Galileo number for the capillary and the gravitational cases, respectively. This value is chosen to be high enough to show the important qualitative effect of viscosity, but low enough to permit the first few tongues to be shown on a single diagram. It can be seen that the effect of viscosity is greater on tongues with higher $\ell$; this important point will be discussed below. For low enough frequency, i.e. $\omega/\omega_c\lesssim 1.2$ in figure \[fig:mathvtong\](a) and $\omega/\omega_g\lesssim 4$ in figure \[fig:mathvtong\](b), it can be seen that the instability is harmonic rather than subharmonic, as discussed by [@K1996].
![Viscosity dependence of $\omega$ (rows 1 and 2) and $a$ (rows 3 and 4) at threshold. Gravitational (rows 1 and 3) and capillary (rows 2 and 4) Faraday instability shown for $\ell=2$ (blue), 4 (green), and 6 (purple). Leftmost column (a,d,g,j) $\omega$ and $a$ non-dimensionalized in terms of experimentally imposed quantities $\omega_g$, $\omega_c$, $a_g$ and $a_c$. Non-dimensionalization of middle column (b,e,h,k) uses (\[eq:nugood\]a) and (\[eq:agood\]a). It can be seen that $a\sim\nu$ for $\nu$ small. Right column (c,f,i,l) shows analogous quantities for the planar infinite-depth case, calculated using (\[eq:nugood\]b) and (\[eq:agood\]b); the scaling is seen to be exact in this case.[]{data-label="fig:viscdep"}](Figure_4_big_2.eps){height="0.8\textheight"}
Figure \[fig:viscdep\] shows the variation with viscosity of the Faraday threshold, more specifically of the coordinates $(\omega,a)$ of the minimum of the primary subharmonic tongue, for $\ell=2,4,6$ for the capillary and gravitational Faraday instability. The first column shows this dependence using non-dimensional quantities that are independent of $\ell$. (We explained the motivation for such a choice in section \[sec:ideal\], namely that $\ell$ is not known a priori in an experiment or full numerical simulation.) The second column shows the non-dimensionalization that best fits the data for all values of $\ell$. The appropriate choice for the non-dimensionalization of viscosity is \[eq:nugood\] $$\tilde{\nu}\equiv \frac{\nu\ell(\ell+1)}{R^2\omega_0}
\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad
\tilde{\nu}\equiv \frac{\nu k^2}{\omega_0}
\tag{\theequation a,b}\label{eq:nugoodab}$$ in the spherical or planar geometries, respectively, based on the wavelength. See [@BEMJ1995], who studied the influence of viscosity on Faraday waves. The choice of is guided by comparing the viscous and oscillatory terms in and corroborated by the fact that the curves in the second column have only a weak dependence on $\ell$ and on $\tilde{\nu}$. We recall that the ratio of the horizontal (angular) wavelength $2\pi R/\ell$ to the depth (radius) $R$ goes to zero as $\ell$ increases, and the curvature of the sphere is less manifested over a horizontal wavelength. With increasing $\ell$, the curves for the spherical case can be seen to approach the corresponding quantities in the planar infinite-depth case, shown in the third column, despite the fact that we are far from the large $\ell$ limit.
Figures \[fig:viscdep\](a)-(f) show that the frequency $\omega$ which favours waves (corresponding to the bottom of the tongue) is a non-monotonic function of $\nu$, for which an explanation is proposed by [@KT1994]. At lower viscosities, the flow is assumed to be irrotational, as in , and equation is modified merely by subtracting a term proportional to $\nu^2$. This leads to a decrease in the critical $\omega$ from $2\omega_0$. At higher viscosities, it is assumed that the response time $4\pi/\omega$ approaches the viscous time scale, here $O(\ell(\ell+1)R^2/\nu)$, leading to an increase in $\omega$ with $\nu$ when the other parameters are fixed. Experimental values for $\tilde{nu}$ are, however, rarely greater than one.
Concerning the oscillation amplitude $a$, we find that the appropriate choice for non-dimensionalization is \[eq:agood\] $$\tilde{a}\equiv \frac{a \ell}{R\omega_0^2}
\qquad \mbox{or}\qquad
\tilde{a}\equiv \frac{a k}{\omega_0^2}
\tag{\theequation a,b} \label{eq:agoodab}$$ This non-dimensionalization causes all six curves of figure \[fig:viscdep\](g) and (j) to collapse. For small viscosities, $\tilde{a}$ increases linearly with $\tilde{\nu}$; see [@BEMJ1995]. For this reason we plot $$\frac{\tilde{a}}{\tilde{\nu}}= \frac{a \ell}{R\omega_0^2}
\left(\frac{\nu\ell(\ell+1)}{R^2\omega_0}\right)^{-1}
=\frac{aR}{\nu\omega_0(\ell+1)}
\qquad \mbox{or}\qquad
\frac{\tilde{a}}{\tilde{\nu}}=\frac{a}{\nu\omega_0 k}
\tag{\theequation a,b}$$ in figures \[fig:viscdep\](h,i,k,l). The form of this curve for higher viscosities shows that $\tilde{a}$ contains terms of higher order in $\tilde{\nu}$, as demonstrated by [@VKM2001].
The viscosity dependence of $\omega$ and $a$, once they are non-dimensionalized, are practically identical for the capillary and gravitational cases. The difference between these, as well as the dependence on $\ell$, is taken into account exclusively via $\omega_0(\ell)$, just as it is for the inviscid problem.
Eigenmodes
==========
Thus far, we have not discussed the spatial form of the eigenmodes on the interface, beyond stating that they are spherical harmonics. Visualizations of the spherical harmonics, while common, are inadequate or incomplete for depicting the behaviour of the interface in this problem for a number of reasons. First, as stated in the introduction, the linear stability problem is degenerate: the $2\ell+1$ spherical harmonics which share the same $\ell$ all have the same linear growth rates and threshold. Second, for $\ell\geq 4$, the patterns actually realized in experiments or numerical simulations, which are determined by the nonlinear terms, are not individual spherical harmonics, but particular combinations of them. Finally, in a Floquet problem, the motion of the interface is time dependent.
Figure \[fig:pics1\] shows the spherical harmonics for $\ell=4$. Spherical harmonics can be classified as zonal ($m=0$, independent of $\phi$, nodal lines which are circles of constant latitude), sectoral ($m=\pm\ell$, independent of $\theta$, nodal lines which are circles of constant longitude), or tesseral ($m\neq 0,\pm\ell$, checkered). Figure \[fig:pics2\] depicts the pattern that is realized in numerical simulations for $\ell=4$. The pattern oscillates between a cube and an octahedron and is a combination of $Y_4^0$ and $Y_4^4$. This pattern is the result of nonlinear selection; at the linear level, many other patterns could be realized. Our companion paper is devoted to a comprehensive description of the motion of the interface and of the velocity field for $\ell$ between 1 and 6.
![Spherical harmonics for $\ell=4$.[]{data-label="fig:pics1"}](figure_5.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Subharmonic $\ell=4$ standing wave pattern oscillates in time between cubic and octahedral shapes.[]{data-label="fig:pics2"}](figure_6.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Discussion
==========
We have considered a configuration similar to the classic problem of freely oscillating liquid drops, that of a viscous drop under the influence of a time-periodic radial bulk force and of surface tension. Here, we have carried out a linear stability analysis, while in a companion paper [@Ali2], we describe the results of a full numerical simulation. We believe both of these investigations to be the first of their kind.
Our investigation relies on a variety of mathematical and computational tools. We have solved the linear stability problem by adapting to spherical coordinates the Floquet method of [@KT1994]. The solution method uses a spherical harmonic decomposition in the angular directions and a Floquet decomposition in time to reduce the problem to a series of radial equations, whose solutions are monomials and spherical Bessel functions. We find that the equations for the inviscid case reduce exactly to the Mathieu equation, as they do for the planar case [@BU1954], with merely a reassignment of the parameter definitions. In contrast, for the viscous case, there are additional terms specific to the spherical geometry.
The forcing parameters for which the spherical drop is unstable are organized into tongues. The effect of viscosity is to raise, to smooth, and to distort the instability tongues, both with increasing $\nu$ and also with increasing spherical wavenumber $\ell$. Our computations have demonstrated the appropriate scaling for the critical oscillation frequency and amplitude with viscosity, substantially reducing the large parameter space of the problem.
The nonlinear problem is fully three-dimensional and must be treated numerically. In our companion paper [@Ali2], we will describe and analyse the patterns corresponding to various values of $\ell$ that we have computed by forcing a viscous drop at appropriate frequencies.
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
We thank Stéphan Fauve and David Quéré for helpful discussions.
Appendix
========
Boundary conditions for the two-fluid case {#twofl}
------------------------------------------
We describe here the modifications necessary in order to take into account the fluid medium surrounding the drop of radius $R$, occupying either a finite sphere of radius $R_{\rm out}$ or an infinite domain. The inner and outer density, dynamic viscosity and poloidal fields are denoted by $\rho_j$, $\eta_j$, and $f^{(j)}$ for $j=1,2$. $\Delta \Psi \equiv
\left[\Psi^{(2)} - \Psi^{(1)}\right]_{r=R}$ denotes the jump of any quantity $\Psi$ across the interface and applies to all quantities to its right within a term. For each spherical harmonic wavenumber $\ell$ and each Floquet mode $n$, the poloidal fields $f_n^{(j)}$ given in are as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
f_n^{(1)}(r) & = A_n^{(1)} r^{\ell+1} + B_n^{(1)} r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}(iq_n^{(1)} r) \\
f_n^{(2)}(r) & = A_n^{(2)} r^{\ell+1} + B_n^{(2)} r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}(iq_n^{(2)} r)
+ C_n^{(2)} r^{-\ell} + D_n^{(2)} r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{-\left( \ell+\frac{1}{2}\right)}(iq_n^{(2)} r) \end{aligned}$$
\[fnj2fl\]
where $$q_n^{(j)} \equiv \left[\frac{\mu + i(n\omega + \alpha)}{\nu_j}\right]^{1/2}$$ The introduction of four more constants requires four additional conditions. Two of these are provided by the exterior boundary conditions. The relations
$$\begin{aligned}
0 &= u_r=\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2} f \\
0 &= \nabla_H \cdot{\mathbf{u}}_H = \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} r^2 u_r
= \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \ell(\ell+1)
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:uf\]
imply that both $f^{(2)}_n$ and its radial derivative must vanish at $R_{\rm out}$: $$0 = f^{(2)}_n(R_{\rm out}) = f^{(2)\prime}_n(R_{\rm out})
\label{eq:ubc2fl}$$ If the exterior is infinite, then $A_n^{(2)}=B_n^{(2)}=0$; otherwise equations couple the six constants. Continuity of the velocity at $r=R$, together with provides the remaining two additional conditions: $$0 = \Delta f = \Delta f^\prime
\label{eq:cu2fl}$$ The kinematic condition remains unchanged: $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu+i(n\omega+\alpha)) &\zeta_n = \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{R^2} f_n|_{r=R}
\label{kincond2fl}\end{aligned}$$ since $f$ is continuous across the interface, while the tangential stress condition becomes $$0 = \Delta \left[ \eta \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} - \frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2} \right) f_n \right]
\label{eq:tang2fl}$$ The pressure jump condition becomes $$\begin{aligned}
0 = \Delta \left[ \rho(\mu+i(n\omega + \alpha)) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\right.
&\left.- \eta\left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial r^3} +\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} -\ell(\ell+1)\left(\frac{3}{r^2}\frac{\partial }{\partial r} -\frac{4}{r^3} \right)\right)f_n \right. &\nonumber\\
&+ \left.\left(\rho g + \sigma \frac{(\ell-1)(\ell+2)}{R^2}\right)\zeta_n
- \rho \frac{a}{2}(\zeta_{n+1}+\zeta_{n-1})\right]
\label{pjcfn2fl}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$, $\eta$, $\partial^2 f/\partial r^2$ and $\partial^3 f/\partial r^3$ are all discontinuous across the interface.
Differentiation relations {#app1}
-------------------------
We express the governing equations in terms of the constants $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$ via
$$\begin{aligned}
f_n(r) & = A_n r^{\ell+1} + B_n r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{+} + C_n r^{-\ell} + D_n r^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{-} \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} f_n(r) & = A_n (l+1)r^\ell + B_n \left( \frac{1}{2} r^{-\frac{1}{2}}J_{+} + iq_n r^{\frac{1}{2}} J_{+}^{\prime} \right) \nonumber\\
& - C_n \ell r^{-\ell-1} + D_n \left( \frac{1}{2} r^{-\frac{1}{2}}J_{-} + iq_n r^{\frac{1}{2}} J_{-}^{\prime} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} f_n(r) & = A_n \ell(\ell+1)r^{\ell-1} + B_n \left( -\frac{1}{4} r^{-\frac{3}{2}}J_{+} + iq_n r^{-\frac{1}{2}} J_{+}^{\prime} - q_n^2 r^{\frac{1}{2}} J_{+}^{\prime\prime} \right) \nonumber\\
& + C_n \ell(\ell+1)r^{-\ell-2} + D_n \left(-\frac{1}{4} r^{-\frac{3}{2}}J_{-} + i q_n r^{-\frac{1}{2}} J_{-}^{\prime} - q_n^2 r^{\frac{1}{2}} J_{-}^{\prime\prime} \right) \\
\frac{\partial^3}{\partial r^3} f_n(r) & = A_n (\ell+1)\ell(\ell-1)r^{\ell-2} + B_n \left( \frac{3}{8} r^{-\frac{5}{2}}J_{+} - \frac{3}{4} iq_n r^{-\frac{3}{2}} J_{+}^{\prime} - \frac{3}{2} q_n^2 r^{-\frac{1}{2}} J_{+}^{\prime\prime} - iq_n^3 r^{\frac{1}{2}} J_{+}^{\prime\prime\prime} \right) \nonumber\\
& - C_n \ell(\ell+1)(\ell+2)r^{-\ell-3}
+ D_n \left( \frac{3}{8} r^{-\frac{5}{2}}J_{-} - \frac{3}{4} iq_n r^{-\frac{3}{2}} J_{-}^{\prime} - \frac{3}{2} q_n^2 r^{-\frac{1}{2}} J_{-}^{\prime\prime} - iq_n^3 r^{\frac{1}{2}} J_{-}^{\prime\prime\prime} \right)\end{aligned}$$
\[derfn\]
where $J_+$ and $J_-$ denote $J_{\ell+\frac{1}{2}}$ and $J_{-\left(\ell+\frac{1}{2}\right)}$, respectively, to be evaluated at $iq_n^{(j)}R$. To evaluate the derivatives of the Bessel functions, we use the recurrence relations:
$$\begin{aligned}
J^\prime_\nu(z)& = \frac{1}{2} \left( J_{\nu-1}(z) - J_{\nu+1}(z) \right) \\
J^{\prime\prime}_\nu(z)& = \frac{1}{4} \left( J_{\nu-2}(z) - 2J_\nu(z) + J_{\nu+2}(z) \right) \\
J^{\prime\prime\prime}_\nu(z)& = \frac{1}{8} \left( J_{\nu-3}(z) - 3J_{\nu-1}(z) + 3J_{\nu+1}(z) - J_{\nu+3}(z) \right)
\end{aligned}$$
\[derbf\]
For the two-fluid case, we express the seven conditions , , , and in terms of the constants $A^{(j)}_n$, $B^{(j)}_n$, $C^{(j)}_n$, $D^{(j)}_n$, and $\zeta_n$. For the single-fluid case, we express the three conditions , , in terms of $A_n$, $B_n$, and $\zeta_n$. Omitting the pressure jump condition leads to a $6\times 6$ (finite outer sphere), $4\times 4$ (infinite outer sphere), or $2\times 2$ (single-fluid) system which can be inverted to obtain values for all of the constants as multiples of $\zeta_n$. The pressure jump condition is then a Floquet problem in $\{\zeta_n\}$, solved as described in section \[Floquet Solution\].
[25]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[*\#1*]{} \#1[\#1]{}\#1[**\#1**]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[*\#1*]{}
. .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. (1), .
. .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. .
. (1), .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. (4), .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
. , .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Introduction
============
The lowest spin excitation for a homogeneous antiferromagnetic spin chain has a gap if the spin magnitude is an integer, and has no gap if it is a half odd integer. Haldane conjectured this proposition by mapping the spin chain onto the nonlinear $\sigma$ model (NLSM) [@Haldane]. From the topological term of the NLSM, we know whether the spin excitation is gapless or not. Mapping to the NLSM is now recognized as one of powerful methods to examine quantum spin systems. Various aspects of the NLSM method are found in Refs. [@Affleck; @Fradkin; @Tsvelik].
Analyses using the NLSM have been extended to inhomogeneous spin chains. The first step has been done by Affleck [@Affleck2; @Affleck3]. He reformulated the NLSM method in an operator formalism in which spin operators are transformed in pairs. Due to the pair transformation, his formalism is applicable to a spin chain with bond alternation. Then the exchange constant is inhomogeneous with period 2 but the spin magnitude is still homogeneous. Results by the NLSM method qualitatively agree with numerical and experimental results [@Kato; @Yamamoto; @Hagiwara].
The NLSM method for a general inhomogeneous spin chain with arbitrary period is given, if the ground state is singlet, in a previous paper [@Takano1]. The inhomogeneity is not only for the exchange constant but also for the spin magnitude. The derivation of the NLSM is based on dividing the spin chain into blocks and simultaneously transforming the spin variables belonging to a block in a path integral formalism. From the topological term, the gapless condition for the spin excitation is obtained as an equation, which we have called the [*gapless equation*]{}. The gapless equation determines the phase boundaries in the ground-state phase diagram. This method is quite general, and is applicable to various spin chains.
A period-4 chain is the simplest nontrivial case in which more than one kind of spins can be mixed under condition that the ground state is singlet. We have applied the NLSM method to a period-4 chain consisting of two kinds of spins and presented the phase diagram in the parameter space of exchange constants [@Takano2; @Takano3]. When the magnitudes of two kinds of spins are $s_a$ and $s_b$, only the array of ($s_a$, $s_a$, $s_b$, $s_b$) in a unit cell consists with a singlet ground state. We have constructed an NLSM and then the gapless equation for this case following the general procedure [@Takano1]; Fukui and Kawakami also derived the NLSM in a different standpoint [@Fukui1]. We constructed phase diagrams from the NLSM and found that they generally consist of many disordered phases. To understand various phases we have proposed the singlet-cluster-solid (SCS) picture, which is an extension of the valence-bond-solid (VBS) picture [@Affleck4]. The SCS picture systematically explains all phases for any values of $s_a$ and $s_b$. A simple version of the SCS picture is seen in the case of $s_a$=$s_b$=$\frac{1}{2}$ [@Chen1]. In the case of $s_a$=$\frac{1}{2}$ and $s_b$=1, numerical calculation has been performed [@Hikihara1]. The phase diagram by the NLSM method qualitatively agrees with the numerical phase diagram.
In this paper, we study a period-4 spin chain consisting of three kinds of spins. Systematic treatment of this problem seems to be difficult due to many possibilities in the choice of the spin kinds. However, the condition that the ground state is singlet fairly restricts allowed combinations. In fact, the spin magnitudes in a unit cell must be generally arrayed as $(s-t, s, s+t, s)$ with integer or half-odd integer $s$ and $t$ ($0 \le t < s$), as will be seen. The spin chain has a modulation in the spin magnitude around [*average*]{} $s$; hence it is interesting to compare results for different $t$ and the same $s$. The exchange constants are also periodic with period 4 and then there are three parameters except for an energy unit. The spin Hamiltonian is mapped onto an NLSM in the general method [@Takano1]. The resultant NLSM shows that the number of relevant parameters is not three but two. The phase diagrams for various $s$ and $t$ determined by the gapless equation show rich phase structures [@Takano4]. We systematically explain the phases in the SCS picture.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the Hamiltonian for the period-4 spin chain consisting of three kinds of spins with a singlet ground state, and parameterize the exchange constants. In Sec. III, the spin Hamiltonian is transformed to an NLSM. From the topological term of the NLSM, the gapless equation to determine phase boundaries is derived. In Sec. IV, phase diagrams are drawn by the gapless equation for various spin magnitudes. Features of the phases are mentioned. In Sec. V, the ground states of the phases are explained by the SCS picture. Section VI is devoted to summary and discussion.
Hamiltonian
===========
The spin Hamiltonian with period 4 is generally written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hamiltonian}
H = \sum_{j=1}^{N/4} &{}&
( J_1 \, {\bf S}_{4j+1} \cdot {\bf S}_{4j+2}
+ J_2 \, {\bf S}_{4j+2} \cdot {\bf S}_{4j+3}
\nonumber \\
&{}&+ J_3 \, {\bf S}_{4j+3} \cdot {\bf S}_{4j+4}
+ J_4 \, {\bf S}_{4j+4} \cdot {\bf S}_{4j+5} ) , \end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf S}_j$ is the spin at site $j$ with magnitude $s_j$. The number of lattice sites is $N$, the lattice spacing is $a$ and the system size is $L = a N$. We only consider the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction ($J_i > 0$).
Since the system is periodic with period 4 in the spin magnitude as well as in the exchange constant, we generally have 4 different spin magnitudes ($s_1$, $s_2$, $s_3$, $s_4$) in a unit cell. A unit cell is illustrated in Fig. \[unit\_cell\]. The values of the spin magnitudes are restricted in order that the system has a singlet ground state. Following the Lieb-Mattis theorem [@Lieb], a singlet ground state is realized if the system satisfies the restriction $$\label{restriction}
s_1 - s_2 + s_3 - s_4 = 0 ;$$ otherwise the system has a ferrimagnetic ground state. We have treated the case that three kinds of spins are mixed. To consist with the restriction (\[restriction\]), the spin magnitudes must be of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{magnitude}
(s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4) = (s-t, s, s+t, s) , \end{aligned}$$ where $s$ and $t$ are positive integers or half-odd integers satisfying $s>t \ge 0$. The spin configuration (\[magnitude\]) is regarded as a modulation against the uniform configuration $(s, s, s, s)$.
We parameterize the exchange constants as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exchange}
&{}& J_{1} = \frac{J}{1+\delta} , \quad
J_{2} = \frac{J'}{1-\gamma} ,
\nonumber \\
&{}& J_{3} = \frac{J'}{1+\gamma} , \quad
J_{4} = \frac{J}{1-\delta} , \end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ ($\gamma$) is the distortion parameter describing the asymmetry between exchange constants $J_4$ and $J_1$ ($J_2$ and $J_3$) on the both sides of a spin with $s_1$ ($s_3$).
Mapping to the nonlinear $\sigma$ model
=======================================
The expectation value of a spin operator in a coherent state is expressed as $$<{\bf S}_j> = (-1)^j s_j {\bf n}_j
\label{coherent}$$ with a unit vector ${\bf n}_j$. The partition function $Z$ at temperature $1/\beta$ is then represented as $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& \int \! D[{\bf n}_j] \,
\prod_j \delta({\bf n}^2_j - 1) \, e^{-S} ,
\label{partition}
\\
S &=& i \sum_{j=1}^{N} (-1)^j s_j w[{\bf n}_j]
\nonumber \\
&{}& + \frac{1}{2}
\int_0^{\beta} \!\! d\tau \sum_{j=1}^{N}
J_j s_j s_{j+1} ({\bf n}_j - {\bf n}_{j+1})^2 .
\label{action_S} \end{aligned}$$ In the action (\[action\_S\]), the first term comes from the Berry phase and $w[{\bf n}_j]$ is the solid angle which the unit vector ${\bf n}_j$ forms in the period $\beta$.
We have derived the NLSM action starting from the action (\[action\_S\]) for the general periodic case [@Takano1]. The derivation is based on dividing the spin chain into blocks and transforming the spin variables in a block into new ones. In the present case, by choosing unit cells as blocks, the transformation for the $p$th block is written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf n}_{4p+1} &=& \frac{3}{4}{\bf m}(p)
+ \frac{1}{4}{\bf m}(p-1) + a {\bf L}_1(p) ,
\label{p_1}
\nonumber \\
{\bf n}_{4p+2} &=& \ \ \, {\bf m}(p)
\qquad \qquad \quad \ \ \, + a {\bf L}_2(p) ,
\label{p_2}
\nonumber \\
{\bf n}_{4p+3} &=& \frac{3}{4}{\bf m}(p)
+ \frac{1}{4}{\bf m}(p+1) + a {\bf L}_3(p) ,
\label{p_3}
\nonumber \\
{\bf n}_{4p+4} &=& \frac{1}{2}{\bf m}(p)
+ \frac{1}{2}{\bf m}(p+1) + a {\bf L}_4(p) ,
\label{p_4}\end{aligned}$$ where {${\bf m}(p)$} are gradually changing unit vectors and {${\bf L}_q(p)$} are small fluctuations. This transformation does not change the number of the original degrees of freedom [@Takano1]. Integrating out the fluctuations $\{ {\bf L}_q(p) \}$ and taking the continuum limit, we obtain the effective action [@Takano5]: $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& S_{\rm eff} = \int^{\beta}_0 \!\! d\tau \int^{L}_0 \!\! dx
\biggl\{
- i \frac{J^{(0)}}{J^{(1)}}
{\bf m} \cdot (\partial_{\tau} {\bf m} \times \partial_x {\bf m})
\nonumber \\
&{}& + \frac{1}{2aJ^{(1)}} \biggl(
\frac{J^{(1)}}{J^{(2)}} - \frac{J^{(0)}}{J^{(1)}} \biggl)
(\partial_{\tau} {\bf m})^2
+ \frac{a}{2} J^{(0)} (\partial_x {\bf m})^2
\biggl\} ,
\label{action-NLSM}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{J^{(0)}} &=& \frac{1}{2s} \left[ \frac{1}{J (s-t)}
+ \frac{1}{J '(s+t)} \right] ,
\label{def_J_0}
\\
\frac{1}{J^{(1)}} &=& \frac{s-t}{4s}
\left[ \frac{1}{J(s-t)} + \frac{1}{J'(s+t)}
+ \frac{d}{J'(s-t)} \right] ,
\label{def_J_1}
\\
\frac{1}{J^{(2)}} &=& \frac{1}{4s(s+t)}
\left( \frac{s^2-t^2}{J} + \frac{s^2+t^2}{J'}
+ \frac{s^2-t^2}{J'}d \right) .
\label{def_J_2}\end{aligned}$$ We have used the effective distortion parameter $$d \equiv \gamma + \delta \, \frac{J'}{J} .
\label{distortion_parameter}$$ It is remarkable that two distortion parameters $\gamma$ and $\delta$ appear only in a single parameter $d$. Hence the system is characterized by only a pair of parameters, $(J'/J, d)$. The value of $d$ is restricted as $$| d | < 1 + \frac{J'}{J} ,
\label{restriction_distortion}$$ because $| \delta | < 1$ and $| \gamma | < 1$ from Eq. (\[exchange\]).
The action (\[action-NLSM\]) is of the standard form of the NLSM: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm st} &=& \int^{\beta}_0 \!\! d\tau \int^{L}_0 \!\! dx
\biggl\{
- i \frac{\theta }{4\pi}
{\bf m} \cdot (\partial_{\tau} {\bf m} \times \partial_x {\bf m})
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{2gv} (\partial_{\tau} {\bf m})^2
+ \frac{v}{2g} (\partial_x {\bf m})^2
\biggl\}
\label{standard_NLSM}\end{aligned}$$ with the topological angle $\theta$, the coupling constant $g$ and the spin wave velocity $v$. Comparing Eq. (\[action-NLSM\]) to Eq. (\[standard\_NLSM\]), $\theta$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{angle}
\theta = 4\pi \frac{J^{(0)}}{J^{(1)}} . \end{aligned}$$
Phase diagrams
==============
The NLSM has a gapless excitation when $\theta/2\pi$ is a half-odd integer. From Eq. (\[angle\]), this condition is rewritten as the gapless equation: $$\frac{1}{J^{(1)}} = \frac{2l_0-1}{4} \frac{1}{J^{(0)}} ,
\label{gapless_condition}$$ where $l_0$ is an integer. For each $l_0$, this equation determines a boundary between disordered phases if it has a solution.
Substituting Eqs. (\[def\_J\_0\]) and (\[def\_J\_1\]) into Eq. (\[gapless\_condition\]), we have $$d = \left( l - s - t - \frac{1}{2} \right)
\left( \frac{1}{s+t} + \frac{1}{s-t} \frac{J '}{J} \right)
\label{gapless_equation}$$ with $l = l_0 + 2t + 1$. A phase boundary is a straight line in the parameter space of $(J'/J, d)$. Allowed values of integer $l$ satisfying Eq. (\[restriction\_distortion\]) are $$l = 1, 2, \cdots, 2(s+t) .
\label{allowed_l}$$ Thus we have found that there are $2(s+t)+1$ phases separated by $2(s+t)$ gapless phase boundaries. All of them go through the point $$\left( - \frac{s-t}{s+t}, 0 \right).
\label{focus}$$ In the special case of $d$ = 0, Eq. (\[gapless\_equation\]) reduces to $l = s + t + \frac{1}{2}$. Then, the system has a spin gap when $s_3$ (= $s + t$) is an integer, while it has no spin gap when $s_3$ is a half-odd integer. This is an extended version of Haldane’s proposition for $t$ = 0 and $J'$ = $J$ to cases with period-4 modulation with respect to the spin magnitude and the exchange interaction. The condition $d$ = 0 (i. e. $J \gamma + J' \delta$ = 0) is satisfied even for nonzero $\gamma$ and $\delta$. This means that effects of distortions can be canceled.
In Fig. \[Phase\_10\], we present phase diagrams for $s$ = 1. Figure \[Phase\_10\](a) is for $s$ = 1 and $t$ = 0; spins are arrayed as 1-1-1-1 in a unit cell. Then the spin magnitude is homogeneous, while the exchange interaction is modulated with period 4. The shaded regions are not physical because of Eq. (\[restriction\_distortion\]) and $J'/J$ $>$ 0. There are three phases labeled by $A_+$, $H$, and $A_-$. Phase $H$ is the Haldane phase since it includes the point (1, 0) which represents the uniform $s$ = 1 spin chain. Two phases $A_+$ and $A_-$ appear, when the effective distortion is strong. Figure \[Phase\_10\](b) is for $s$ = 1 and $t$ = $\frac{1}{2}$; spins are arrayed as $\frac{1}{2}$-1-$\frac{3}{2}$-1 in a unit cell. There are four phases labeled by $B_+$, $A_+$, $A_-$, and $B_-$. In contrast to the case of (a), the system is on a boundary when there is no effective distortion ($d$=0). It is noticed that the phases $B_+$ and $B_-$ appear, when $J'/J$ $<$ 1. All the phases in Figs. \[Phase\_10\](a) and (b) are interpreted by means of the SCS picture in the next section.
In Fig. \[Phase\_15\], we present phase diagrams for $s$=$\frac{3}{2}$. Figure \[Phase\_15\](a) is for $s$=$\frac{3}{2}$ and $t$=0; spins are arrayed as $\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$ in a unit cell. Only the exchange interaction is modulated with period 4. There are 4 phases labeled by $B_+$, $A_+$, $A_-$, and $B_-$. These phases, including $B_+$ and $B_-$ for strong distortion, develop from small $J'/J$ to large $J'/J$. Figure \[Phase\_15\](b) is for $s$=$\frac{3}{2}$ and $t$=$\frac{1}{2}$; spins are arrayed as 1-$\frac{3}{2}$-2-$\frac{3}{2}$ in a unit cell. There are 5 phases labeled by $B_+$, $A_+$, $H$, $A_-$, and $B_-$. Phases $B_+$ and $B_-$ appear only when $J'/J < 1$. Figure \[Phase\_15\](c) is for $s$=$\frac{3}{2}$ and $t$=1; spins are arrayed as $\frac{1}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{5}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$ in a unit cell. There are 6 phases labeled by $C_+$, $B_+$, $A_+$, $A_-$, $B_-$, and $C_-$. Phases $C_+$, $B_+$, $B_-$, and $C_-$ appear only when $J'/J < 1$; $C_+$ and $C_-$ are for strong distortion and for very small $J'/J$. In the case of (a), the system is on a gapless boundary when there is no effective distortion ($d$=0). All the phases in Figs. \[Phase\_15\](a), (b) and (c) are interpreted by means of the SCS picture in the next section.
In Fig. \[Phase\_20\], we present phase diagrams for $s$=2. Figures 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) are for $t$=0, $t$=$\frac{1}{2}$, $t$=1, and $t$=$\frac{3}{2}$, respectively; spins are arrayed as 2-2-2-2, $\frac{3}{2}$-2-$\frac{5}{2}$-2, 1-2-3-2, and $\frac{1}{2}$-2-$\frac{7}{2}$-2 in a unit cell. Phase $H$ for small $d$ in Figs. 4(a) and (c) is the $s$=2 Haldane phase, which includes the point (1, 0). In the cases of (b) and (d), the system is on a gapless boundary when there is no effective distortion ($d$=0). Some phases develop from small $J'/J$ to large $J'/J$, and the others are restricted in the region $J'/J < 1$.
Singlet-cluster-solid picture
=============================
Disordered phases in the phase diagrams are explained in the SCS picture, which includes the VBS picture as a special case. In the SCS picture, a spin with more than $\frac{1}{2}$ magnitude is decomposed into $\frac{1}{2}$ spins. The original spin state is retrieved by symmetrizing the states of the decomposed $\frac{1}{2}$ spins at each site. A disordered state is represented by a regular array of local singlet clusters of even numbers of $\frac{1}{2}$ spins, while a state in the VBS picture is a direct product of only singlet dimers.
The SCS pictures for the phase diagrams of $s$=1 in Fig. \[Phase\_10\] are shown in Figs. \[SCS\_10\_00\] and \[SCS\_10\_05\]. Figure \[SCS\_10\_00\] explains the phase diagram in Fig. \[Phase\_10\](a) for the 1-1-1-1 spin chain ($s$=1, $t$=0). For each picture, a small circle represents a $\frac{1}{2}$ spin; an original $s$=1 spin is decomposed into two $\frac{1}{2}$ spins. A loop represents a singlet dimer of two $\frac{1}{2}$ spins in it. A dashed line represents a spatially extended singlet state. Picture (a) ((e)) is for a state in the dimer phase $A_+$ ($A_-$), and has advantage for the exchange energy on $J_2$ and/or $J_4$ ($J_1$ and/or $J_3$) interactions because of positive (negative) $d$. Picture (c) is for a translationally invariant state in the Haldane phase $H$. These pictures are nothing but the VBS picture; a ground state is represented only by singlet dimers. Pictures (b) and (d) are for states between $A_+$ and $H$, and between $H$ and $A_-$, respectively; each picture includes an extended singlet state (dashed line) contributing to a gapless excitation.
Figure \[SCS\_10\_05\] explains the phase diagram in Fig. \[Phase\_10\](b) for the $\frac{1}{2}$-1-$\frac{3}{2}$-1 spin chain ($s$=1, $t$=$\frac{1}{2}$). Pictures (c) and (e) are for dimer states $A_+$ and $A_-$, respectively. The state (c) ((e)) has advantage for the exchange energy on $J_2$ and/or $J_4$ ($J_1$ and/or $J_3$) interactions because of positive (negative) distortion $d$. Pictures (a) and (g) are for singlet cluster states in the phases $B_+$ and $B_-$, which are in the region of $J'/J < 1$. In phase $B_+$ ($B_-$), a singlet cluster or dimer including a $J_3$ ($J_2$) interaction is the most unfavorable for the exchange energy because of large $|d|$ and small $J'/J$. Hence clusters of six $\frac{1}{2}$ spins are formed to avoid singlet dimers at $J_3$ ($J_2$) interactions. Pictures (b), (d), and (f) are for gapless states on the phase boundaries, where extended states appear.
The SCS pictures for the phase diagrams of $s$=$\frac{3}{2}$ in Fig. \[Phase\_15\] are shown in Figs. \[SCS\_15\_00\], \[SCS\_15\_05\], and \[SCS\_15\_10\]. Those for phase boundaries are not drawn to reduce the figure sizes. Figure \[SCS\_15\_00\] explains the phase diagram in Fig. \[Phase\_15\](a) for the $\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$ spin chain ($s$=$\frac{3}{2}$, $t$=0). The SCS pictures represent the ground states in phases (a) $B_+$, (b) $A_+$, (c) $A_-$, and (d) $B_-$, and are the same as the VBS pictures. Picture (a) ((d)) is for the dimer phase $B_+$ ($B_-$), where the energy reduction on $J_2$ and/or $J_4$ ($J_1$ and/or $J_3$) interactions is the most favorable because of large $|d|$. Picture (b) ((c)) is for the phase $A_+$ ($A_-$), where the energy reduction on $J_2$ and/or $J_4$ ($J_1$ and/or $J_3$) interactions is favorable to some extent because of smaller but finite $|d|$.
Figure \[SCS\_15\_05\] explains the phase diagram in Fig. \[Phase\_15\](b) for the 1-$\frac{3}{2}$-2-$\frac{3}{2}$ spin chain ($s$=$\frac{3}{2}$, $t$=$\frac{1}{2}$). The SCS pictures represent states in phases (a) $B_+$, (b) $A_+$, (c) $H$, (d) $A_-$, and (e) $B_-$. Picture (c) represents a Haldane-like state. With transitions (c) to (b) and (b) to (a), the number of dimers including $J_3$ interactions decreases. This explains that $d$ in $B_+$ is larger than $d$ in $A_+$, and $d$ in $A_+$ is larger than $d$ in $H$ as seen in Fig. \[Phase\_15\](b). In particular, the SCS pictures in $B_+$ and $B_-$ include singlet clusters of six $\frac{1}{2}$ spins. The large clusters are formed for $J'/J < 1$ to avoid singlet dimers including $J_3$ ($J_2$) interactions.
Figure \[SCS\_15\_10\] explains the phase diagram in Fig. \[Phase\_15\](a) for the $\frac{1}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$-$\frac{5}{2}$-$\frac{3}{2}$ spin chain ($s$=$\frac{3}{2}$, $t$=1). The SCS pictures represent states in phases (a) $C_+$, (b) $B_+$, (c) $A_+$, (d) $A_-$, (e) $B_-$, and (f) $C_-$. Large singlet clusters of more than two $\frac{1}{2}$ spins are formed in $C_+$, $B_+$, $B_-$, and $C_-$ for $J'/J < 1$ again.
The SCS pictures of the ground states for arbitrary $s$ and $t$, including the cases of $s$=2 in Fig. \[Phase\_20\], are similar to the above examples. Phases for small values of $|d|$ are represented by VBS pictures, each of which consists of singlet dimers only. The number of possible VBS pictures is $2(s-t)$, and they are between the boundaries of $l$=$2t$ and of $l$=$2s+1$ in Eqs. (\[gapless\_equation\]) and (\[allowed\_l\]). For larger $d$ outside the VBS phases in the ($J'/J$, $d$) space, there appear phases represented by SCS pictures which includes singlet clusters larger than dimers. Generally, as one moves from a phase to another accompanied by increasing (decreasing) $d$ for $d>0$ ($d<0$), the number of singlet dimers on $J_3$ ($J_2$) interactions in the SCS picture decreases by one per unit cell. This explains the total number $2(s+t)+1$ of the phases. The phases explained by SCS pictures including singlet clusters consisting of more than two $\frac{1}{2}$ spins are restricted to small $J'/J$ regions. In fact, singlet dimers including $J_3$ ($J_2$) interactions are energetically unfavorable for small $J'/J$, and the number of them can be reduced for $t \ne 0$ if large clusters not including $J_3$ ($J_2$) interactions are formed.
Summary and discussion
======================
We studied a period-4 antiferromagnetic mixed quantum spin chain consisting of three kinds of spins in the case that the ground state is singlet. The spin magnitudes in a unit cell must be arrayed as $(s-t, s, s+t, s)$ with integer or half-odd integer $s$ and $t$ ($0 \le t < s$). The exchange constants in a unit cell are $(J_1, J_2, J_3, J_4 )$; i. e. there are three parameters except for an energy unit. The spin Hamiltonian is transformed to an NLSM by a previously developed method [@Takano1]. In the NLSM, we find that the number of relevant parameters is not three but two. One of them is a ratio $J'/J$ of the exchange energies without distortion, and the other is the effective distortion parameter $d$. By the gapless equation from the NLSM, we determined $2s+2t$ phase boundaries between gapful disordered phases in the ($J'/J$, $d$) space for each pair of $s$ and $t$. We explained systematically the disordered phases by means of the SCS pictures. In the case of $d=0$, the ground state is in a gapful Haldane-like phase for $s+t$ being an integer, and is on a gapless phase boundary for $s+t$ being a half-odd integer. When $d$ increases (decreases) from $d = 0$, singlet clusters including $J_3$ ($J_2$) interactions successively decreases with phase transitions. If $t \ne 0$, singlet clusters larger than dimers appear for large $|d|$ and small $J'/J$.
We discuss whether a change from an SCS state to another is a phase transition or not. For simplicity, we consider a part of a full SCS state as shown in Fig. \[SCS\_sym\]. State (a) is a VBS state which is a direct product of singlet dimers. This state can gradually change to state (b) without a phase transition, because state (b) is formed by local modifications where a pair of dimers puts together into a singlet cluster of four spins. The change from (a) to (c) is similar. We have used picture (a) as a representative of (a), (b) and (c) in this paper. On the other hand, there is no way to locally modify dimers in (a) to form dimers in (d). That is, the change from (a) to (d) must be realized only by a global recombination of dimers or a phase transition. The wave function for (a) is symmetric but that for (d) is antisymmetric with respect to the spatial reflection about the vertical dotted line. An extended state in (e) appears under the transition where both the dimer states are collapsed.
Finally it is expected that materials realizing period-4 quantum spin chains will be synthesized and experimentally studied. The present paper (and Ref. [@Takano3]) will hopefully work as a guide to investigate such materials.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
I thank Takashi Tonegawa and Kiyomi Okamoto for discussions on the $\frac{1}{2}$-1-$\frac{3}{2}$-1 spin chain. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. [**93A**]{}, 464 (1983); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1153 (1983).
I. Affleck, “Field Theory Methods and Quantum Critical Phenomena” in [*Fields, Strings and Critical Phenomena*]{}, Les Houches 1988, eds. E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin, North-Holland, 1990.
E. Fradkin, [*Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics*]{}, Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1994.
A. M. Tsvelick, [*Quantum Field Theories in Condensed Matter Physics*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
I. Affleck, Nucl. Phys. B [**257**]{}, 397 (1985); [**265**]{}, 409 (1986).
I. Affleck and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. [**B36**]{}, 5291 (1987).
Y. Kato and A. Tanaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 1277 (1994).
S. Yamamoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 4327 (1994).
M. Hagiwara, Y. Narumi, K. Kindo, M. Kohno, H. Nakano, R. Sato, and M. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1312 (1998).
K. Takano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 5124 (1999).
K. Takano, Physica B [**284-288**]{}, 1555 (2000).
K. Takano, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 8863 (2000).
T. Fukui and N. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 8799 (1997).
I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb and H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 799 (1987).
W. Chen and K. Hida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{}, 2910 (1998).
T. Hikihara, T. Tonegawa, M. Kaburagi, T. Nishino, S. Miyashita and H.-J. Mikeska, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{}, 1207 (2000).
A special case of $s$=1 and $t$=$\frac{1}{2}$ has been partially studied; K. Takano, cond-mat/0003274 (unpublished).
E. Lieb and D. Mattis, J. Math. Phys. [**3**]{}, 749 (1962).
The NSLM (\[action-NLSM\]) stands for a general periodic spin chain, if general forms are used for $J^{(i)}$ ($i$=0, 1, 2) [@Takano1].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Ming Yu[^1] , Varun Gupta[^2] , and Mladen Kolar[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: |
Learning Influence-Receptivity Network Structure\
with Guarantee
---
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is partially supported by an IBM Corporation Faculty Research Fund at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. This work was completed in part with resources provided by the University of Chicago Research Computing Center.
[^1]: Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago. Email: <[email protected]>
[^2]: Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago. Email: <[email protected]>
[^3]: Booth School of Business, The University of Chicago. Email: <[email protected]>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The evolution of quantum coherences comes with a set of conservation laws provided that the Hamiltonian governing this evolution conserves the spin-excitation number. At that, coherences do not intertwist during the evolution. Using the transmission line and the receiver in the initial ground state we can transfer the coherences to the receiver without interaction between them, [ although the matrix elements contributing to each particular coherence intertwist in the receiver’s state. ]{} Therefore we propose a tool based on the unitary transformation at the receiver side to [ untwist these elements and thus]{} restore (at least partially) the structure of the sender’s initial density matrix. A communication line with two-qubit sender and receiver is considered as an example of implementation of this technique.'
---
[**[Coherence evolution and transfer supplemented by the state-restoring]{}** ]{}
[ E.B.Fel’dman and A.I. Zenchuk ]{}
[*$^2$Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics, RAS, Chernogolovka, Moscow reg., 142432, Russia*]{}.
Introduction {#Section:Introduction}
============
The multiple quantum (MQ) NMR dynamics is a basic tool of well developed MQ NMR spectroscopy studying the nuclear spin distribution in different systems [@BMGP; @DMF]. [ Working with spin polarization we essentially deal with the diagonal elements of the density matrix. However, the MQ NMR method allows us to split the whole density matrix into $N+1$ parts, and each of these parts contributes into a specific observable quantity called coherence intensity.]{} Thus studying the coherence intensities and the methods of manipulating them becomes an important direction in development of MQ NMR methods. For instance, the problem of relaxation of MQ coherences was studied in [@KS1; @KS2; @AS; @CCGR; @BFVV]. A similar problem in nonopore was considered in [@DFZ]).
In MQ NMR experiment, the special sequence of the magnetic pulses is used to generate the so-called two-spin/two-quantum Hamiltonian ($H_{MQ}$) which is the non-secular part of the dipole-dipole interaction Hamiltonian averaged over fast oscillations. It was shown in the approximation of nearest-neighbor interactions that the $H_{MQ}$ Hamiltonian can be reduced to the flip-flop XX-Hamiltonian ($H_{XX}$) [@Mattis] via the unitary transformation [@DMF]. Notice, that $H_{MQ}$ does not commute with the $z$-projection of the total spin momentum $I_z$, while $[H_{XX},I_z]=0$.
In this paper we consider the evolution problem for the created MQ coherences. Therefore, after creating the coherences, we switch off the irradiation and allow the coherences to evolve independently under the Hamiltonian commuting with $I_z$ (this can be, for instance, $H_{dz}$ Hamiltonian [@Abragam; @Goldman] or $H_{XX}$ flip-flop Hamiltonian). We show that the coherences do not interact during the evolution governed by the Hamiltonian conserving the $z$-projection of the total spin momentum. This fact gives rise to the set of conservation laws associated with such dynamics, namely, the coherence intensity of an arbitrary order conserves. But the density-matrix elements contributing into the same order coherence do intertwist.
In addition, the coherences, created in some subsystem (sender) can be transferred to another subsystem (receiver) through the transmission line without interaction between coherences if only the both receiver and transmission line are in the initial state having only the zero-order coherence. This process can be considered as a particular implementation of the remote state creation in spin systems [@Z_2014; @BZ_2015]. We show that the sender’s density-matrix elements in the receiver’s state can be untwisted using the method based on the unitary transformation of the receiver or, more effectively, of the extended receiver. The theoretical arguments are supplemented with the particular model of communication line having two-node sender and receiver. Notice that the extended receiver was already used in the previous papers concerning the remote state creation [@BZ_2016] with the purpose of proper correcting the created state of the receiver and improving the characteristics of the remote state creation [@Z_2014; @BZ_2015].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\[Section:DC\] we select the matrices $\rho^{(n)}$ responsible for forming the $n$-order coherence intensity and study some extremal values of coherence intensities. The evolution of the coherence intensities is considered in Sec.\[Section:ev\]. The transfer of the coherences from the sender to the receiver is studied in Sec.\[Section:cohtr\]. In Sec.\[Section:model\] we apply the results of previous sections to a particular model of a chain with 2-qubit sender and receiver. The brief discussion of obtained results is given in Sec.\[Section:conclusion\].
Density matrix and coherences {#Section:DC}
=============================
It was shown [ (for instance, see [@FL])]{} that the density matrix of a quantum state can be written as a sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RhoC}
\rho = \sum_{n={-N}}^N \rho^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where each submatrix $ \rho^{(n)}$ consists of the elements of $\rho$ responsible for the spin-state transitions changing the total $z$-projection of the spin momentum by $n$. These elements contribute to the so-called $n$-order coherence intensity $I_n$ which can be registered using the MQ NMR methods. To select the density matrix elements contributing to the $n$-order coherence we turn to the [ density-matrix representation in the multiplicative basis $$\begin{aligned}
\label{multb}
|i_1\dots i_N\rangle,\;\;i_k=0,1,\;\;k=1,\dots,N,\end{aligned}$$ where $i_k$ denotes the state of the $k$th spin. Thus, the transformation from the computational basis to the multiplicative one reads]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mult}
\rho_{ij}= \rho_{i_1\dots i_N;j_1\dots j_N},\;\;\; i=\sum_{n=1}^N i_n 2^{n-1} +1,\;\; j=\sum_{n=1}^N j_n 2^{n-1} +1.\end{aligned}$$ Then, according to the definition, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defI}
I_n(\rho) ={\mbox{Tr}} \Big(\rho^{(n)}\rho^{(-n)}\Big) = \sum_{\sum_k (j_k - i_k) = n} |\rho_{i_1\dots i_N;j_1\dots j_N}|^2,\;\;
|n|\le N.\end{aligned}$$
Extremal values of coherence intensities
----------------------------------------
First of all we find the extremal values of the zero order coherence intensity of $\rho$ provided that all other coherences absent, so that $\rho=\rho_0$. By the definition (\[defI\]), $$\begin{aligned}
I_0={\mbox{Tr}} \Big(\rho_0 \rho_0\Big) = {\mbox{Tr}} \left(U_0\Lambda_0 U_0^+\right)^2 = {\mbox{Tr}} \Lambda_0^2 =
\sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{0i}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the number of spins in the sender, $\Lambda_0={\mbox{diag}}(\lambda_{01},\dots,\lambda_{02^N})$ and $U_0$ are, respectively, the eigenvalue and eigenvector matrices of $\rho$. Therefore we have to find the extremum of $I_0$ with the normalization condition $\sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{0i} =1$. Introducing the Lagrange factor $\alpha$ we reduce the problem to constructing the extremum of the function $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde I_0 = \sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{0i}^2 - \alpha \left( \sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{0i} -1\right).\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating with respect to $\lambda_{0i}$ and equating the result to zero we obtain the system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
2\lambda_{0i}=\alpha,\;\;i=1,\dots,2^N,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, $\lambda_{0i}=\frac{\alpha}{2}$. Using the normalization we have $\alpha=\frac{1}{2^{N-1}}$, so that $\lambda_{0i}=\frac{1}{2^N}$. The second derivative of $\tilde I_0$ shows that this is a minimum. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_0^{min}=\frac{1}{2^N}, \;\;\rho|_{I_{0}^{min}} = \frac{1}{2^N}E,\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is the $2^N\times 2^N$ identity matrix. To find the maximum value of $I_0$ we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{0i}^2 =\left(\sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{0i}\right)^2 -\sum_{i\neq j} \lambda_{0i}\lambda_{0j}=1-\sum_{i\neq j} \lambda_{0i}\lambda_{0j} \le 1. \end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that the unit can be achieved if there is only one nonzero eigenvalue $\lambda_{01}=1$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
I_0^{max}=1, \;\;\rho|_{I_{0}^{max}} = {\mbox{diag}}(1,\underbrace{0,0,\dots0}_{2^N-1}).\end{aligned}$$
Now we proceed to the analysis of the $n$-order coherence intensity for the matrix having only three non-zero coherences of zero- and $\pm n$-order, assuming that the zero-order coherence intensity $I_{0}$ is minimal, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoin}
\rho=\frac{1}{2^N}E + \tilde \rho^{(n)} = U_n \left(\frac{1}{2^N}E +\Lambda_n\right) U^+_n,\;\;\;\tilde \rho^{(n)}=\rho^{(n)} + \rho^{(-n)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda_n={\mbox{diag}}(\lambda_{n1},\dots,\lambda_{n2^N})$ and $U_n$ are the matrices of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$. Of course, $U_n$ is also the eigenvector matrix for the whole $\rho$ in this case and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{constr2}
\sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{ni} =0.\end{aligned}$$
Now we proof one of the interesting property of the eigenvalues for the considered case.
[**Proposition 1.**]{} Eigenvalues $\lambda_{ni}$ appear in pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pairs}
\lambda_{n(2i-1)}= \eta_{ni}, \;\;\lambda_{n(2i)}= -\eta_{ni},
\;\;\;i=1,\dots,2^{N-1}. \end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} First we show that, along with $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$, the odd powers of this matrix are also traceless. For instance, let us show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rr}
{\mbox{Tr}}(\tilde \rho^{(n)})^3 = \sum_{i,j,k} \tilde \rho^{(n)}_{ij} \tilde \rho^{(n)}_{jk} \tilde \rho^{(n)}_{ki} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using the multiplicative basis for the density-matrix elements in the rhs of eq. (\[rr\]), we remark that only such elements $\tilde \rho_{ij}$, $\tilde \rho_{jk}$ and $\tilde \rho_{ki}$ are nonzero that, respectively, $\sum_m i_{m} -\sum_m j_{m} = \pm n$, $\sum_m j_{m} -\sum_m k_{m} = \pm n$ and $\sum_m k_{m} -\sum_m i_{m} = \pm n$. However, summing all these equalities we obtain the identical zero in the lhs and either $\pm 3 n$ or $\pm n$ in the RHS. This contradiction means that there must be zero matrix elements in each term of the sum (\[rr\]), i.e., the trace is zero.
Similar consideration works for higher odd powers of $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$ (however, the sum $\tilde \rho^{(n)} + \tilde \rho^{(k)}$, $k\neq n$, doesn’t possesses this property, i.e., the trace of any its power is non-zero in general). Consequently, along with (\[constr2\]), the following equalities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumni}
\sum_{i=1}^{2^N} \lambda_{ni}^m =0 \;\;{\mbox{for any odd}}\;\;m.\end{aligned}$$ Condition (\[sumni\]) holds for any odd $m$ if only the eigenvalues $\lambda_{ni}$ appear in pairs (\[pairs\]).
To prove this statement, first we assume that all eigenvalues are non-degenerate and let the eigenvalue $\lambda_{n1}$ be maximal by absolute value. We divide sum (\[sumni\]) by $\lambda_{n1}^m$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumni2}
1+\sum_{i=2}^{2^N} \left(\frac{\lambda_{ni}}{\lambda_{n1}}\right)^m =0, \;\;{\mbox{for odd}}\;\;m.\end{aligned}$$ Each term in the sum can not exceed one by absolute value. Now we take the limit $m\to\infty$ in eq.(\[sumni2\]). It is clear that all the terms such that $\left|\frac{\lambda_{ni}}{\lambda_{n1}}\right|<1$ vanish. Since this sum is zero, there must be an eigenvalue $\lambda_{n2}$ such that $\lambda_{n2} = -\lambda_{n1}$. Then, the appropriate term in (\[sumni2\]) yields -1. So, two first terms in sum (\[sumni2\]) cancel each other which reduces (\[sumni2\]) to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumni3}
\sum_{i=3}^{2^N} \lambda_{ni}^m =0, \;\;{\mbox{for odd}}\;\;m.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we select the maximal (by absolute value) of the remaining eigenvalues, repeat our arguments and conclude that there are two more eigenvalues equal by absolute value and having opposite signs. And so on. Finally, after $2^{N-1}$, steps we result in conclusion that all eigenvalues appear in pairs (\[pairs\]).
Let the $(2k+1)$th eigenvalue on the $(2k+1)$-step is $s$-multiple, i.e. $\lambda_{n(2k+1)} =\dots = \lambda_{n(2k+s)}$. Then the sum (\[sumni\]) gets the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumni4}
\sum_{i=2k+1}^{2^N} \left(\frac{\lambda_{ni}}{\lambda_{n(2k+1)}}\right)^m =
s +\sum_{i=2k+s+1}^{2^N} \left(\frac{\lambda_{ni}}{\lambda_{n(2k+1)}}\right)^m,\;\; s\in{{\mathbb N}},\;\;s\le N-2k,\;\;{\mbox{odd}} \;\;m.\end{aligned}$$ Now, to compensate $s$ we need an $s$-multiple eigenvalue, such that $\lambda_{n(2k+s+1)} = \dots = \lambda_{n(2k+2s)} = - \lambda_{n(2k+1)}$. Thus, if there is $s$-multiple positive eigenvalue, there must be an $s$-multiple negative eigenvalue. This ends the proof.
$\Box$
Next, since all the eigenvalues of $\rho$ must be non-negative and the density matrix $\rho$ has the structure (\[rhoin\]), the negative eigenvalues $\eta_{ni}$ can not exceed $\frac{1}{2^N}$ by absolute value. Therefore, the maximal $n$-order coherence intensity corresponds to the case $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{ni} =\frac{1}{2^N}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
I_n^{max}+I_{-n}^{max} = 2 I_n^{max} =\sum_{j=1}^{N_n} \lambda_{ni}^2 =\frac{N_n}{2^{2N}}\le \frac{1}{2^N}, \end{aligned}$$ where $I_n^{max}=I_{-n}^{max}$ and $N_n$ is the number of nonzero eigenvalues of $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$. This number equals to the rank of $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$ which, in turn, can be found as follows.
[**Proposition 2.**]{} The rank of the matrix $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$ can be calculated using the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ran}
N_n={\mbox{ran}}\;\tilde \rho^{(n)} = \sum_{k=0}^{N} \min \left(
\left(N\atop k \right) ,\left(N\atop k+n \right)+\left(N\atop k-n \right) \;\;
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the binomial coefficients $\left(N\atop m \right)=0$ for $m<0$.
[*Proof.*]{} For the $n$-order coherence, the number of states with $k$ excited spins equals $ \left(N\atop k \right)$. The $\pm n$-order coherence collects the elements of $\rho$ responsible for transitions from the states with $k$ excited spins to the states with $k\pm n$ excited spins. All together, there are $\left(N\atop k+n \right)+\left(N\atop k-n \right)$ such transitions. These transitions can be collected into the matrix of $ \left(N\atop k \right)$ columns and $\left(N\atop k+n \right)+\left(N\atop k-n \right)$ rows, whose maximal rank equals $\min \left(
\left(N\atop k \right) ,\left(N\atop k+n \right)+\left(N\atop k-n \right)\right)$. Obviously, the rank of $\tilde \rho^{(n)}$ equals the sum of calculated ranks for different $k=0,\dots,N$, i.e., we obtain formula (\[ran\]).$\Box$
[**Consequence.**]{} For the coherence intensity of the first order ($n=1$) eq.(\[ran\]) yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ran1}
N_1= \sum_{k=0}^{N}
\left(N\atop k \right) = 2^N.\end{aligned}$$
[Proof.]{} We have to show that in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con}
\left(N\atop k \right) \le \left(N\atop k+1 \right)+\left(N\atop k-1 \right),\;\;0\le k \le N.\end{aligned}$$ First we consider the case $k>1$ and $k<N$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intermed1}
\left(N\atop k+1 \right)+\left(N\atop k-1 \right) = \left(N\atop k \right) \left(\frac{N-k}{k+1} + \frac{k}{N-k+1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Let us show that the expression inside the parenthesis is $\ge 1$. After simple transformations, this condition takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ge}
3 k^2 - 3 N k +N^2 -1\ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ where the lhs is a quadratic expression in $k$. The roots of the lhs read $$\begin{aligned}
k_{1,2}=\frac{3 N \pm\sqrt{12-3 N^2}}{6}, \end{aligned}$$ which are imaginary for $N>2$. Therefore the parabola $3 k^2 - 3 N k +N^2$ lies in the upper half-plane $k$ for $N> 2$ and consequently condition (\[ge\]) holds for $N\ge2$. In our case, the minimal $N$ is 2, which corresponds to the 1-qubit sender and 1-qubit receiver without the transmission line between them.
If $k=1$ then, instead of (\[intermed1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(N\atop 2 \right)+\left(N\atop 0 \right) = \left(N\atop 2 \right) +1 = \left(N\atop 1 \right) \frac{N-1}{2} +1 \ge \left(N\atop 1 \right),\;\;N\in{{\mathbb N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore condition (\[con\]) is also satisfied.
If $k=0$, then $\left(N\atop 1 \right)=1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left(N\atop 1 \right)+\left(N\atop -1 \right) = \left(N\atop 1 \right) >\left(N\atop 0 \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ therefore condition (\[con\]) is also satisfied.
The cases $k=N$ can be considered in a similar way. $\Box$
Thus, $N_1$ equals the maximal possible rank $N_1={\mbox{ran}} \;\tilde \rho^{(1)}$, so that $\displaystyle 2 I_1^{max}= \frac{1}{2^{N}}$. [ Similarly, for the $N$-order coherence we have only two nonzero terms in (\[rr\]) which give $N_N=2$ and $2 I_N^{max} =\frac{1}{2^{2N-1}}$. For the intensities of the other-order coherences we do not give similar result for any $N$. The maximal coherence intensities of the $n$-order ($n>0$) for $N=2,\dots,5$ are given in Table \[Table1\].]{} This table shows the ordering of $I_n^{max}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{order}
I_0^{max} > I_1^{max}> \dots >I_N^{max}.\end{aligned}$$
[|c|cc|ccc|cccc|ccccc|]{} $N$ & & &&$n$ & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 &3 & 1 & 2 &3 &4 &1&2&3&4&5 $N_n$& 4 & 2 & 8 & 4 &2& 16 & 12 &4&2&32&24&14&4&2$2 I_n^{max}$&$\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}$& $\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}$&$\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}$&$\displaystyle \frac{1}{128}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{3}{128}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{7}{512}$&$\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{512}$
Regarding the minimum of any non-zero-order coherence intensity, its value is obvious: $$\begin{aligned}
I_n^{min} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Evolution of coherences {#Section:ev}
=======================
Conservation laws
-----------------
First of all we remind a famous conservation law which holds for any evolutionary quantum system.
[**Proposition 3.**]{} The sum of all coherence intensities conserves: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lrho2}
\frac{d}{d t} \sum_{n=-N}^N I_n = \frac{d}{d t}{\mbox{Tr}} \Big( \rho^{(n)}\rho^{(-n)}\Big) =0.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} In fact, [ consider the Liouvile equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L}
i \frac{d \rho}{dt} =[\rho,H].\end{aligned}$$ Using this equation we have $$\begin{aligned}
i{\mbox{Tr}}\frac{d \rho^2}{dt} = {\mbox{Tr}} [\rho^2,H] =0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Tr}}\rho^2 = {\mbox{Tr}}\left(\sum_{n=-N}^N \rho^{(n)}\rho^{(-n)}\right) = \sum_{n=-N}^N {\mbox{Tr}} (\rho^{(n)}\rho^{(-n)}) = \sum_{n=-N}^N I_n\equiv const.\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to eq.(\[Lrho2\])]{}. $\Box$
In addition, if the system evolves under the Hamiltonian commuting with $I_z$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comm}
[H,I_z]=0,
\end{aligned}$$ then there is a family of conservation laws specified as follows.
[**Consequence.**]{} If (\[comm\]) holds then all coherences conserve, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cohI}
\frac{dI_n}{dt} = 0,\;\;\; |n|\le N .\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{}
From eq.(\[L\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
i \rho^{(n)} \frac{d \rho}{dt} + i \frac{d \rho}{dt}\rho^{(-n)} = \rho^{(n)} [ H,\rho] +
[H,\rho] \rho^{(-n)} . \end{aligned}$$ The trace of this equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tr0}
&& {\mbox{Tr}} \left(i \rho^{(n)} \frac{d \rho}{dt} + i \frac{d \rho}{dt}\rho^{(-n)} \right) =
i \frac{d}{dt } {\mbox{Tr}} \Big( \rho^{(n)} \rho^{(-n)}\Big) \equiv \\\nonumber
&&
i \frac{d I_n}{dt } = {\mbox{Tr}}\Big(\rho^{(n)} H\rho-\rho H\rho^{(n)}\Big) -
{\mbox{Tr}}\Big( \rho H \rho^{(-n)}-\rho^{(-n)} H \rho\Big).\end{aligned}$$ We can introduce factors $e^{i \phi I_z}$ and $e^{-i \phi I_z} $ under the trace, substitute expansion (\[RhoC\]) for $\rho$ and use commutation relation (\[comm\]). Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TrTr}
&&
{\mbox{Tr}} \Big(e^{i \phi I_z} (\rho^{(n)} H\rho-\rho H\rho^{(n)} )e^{-i \phi I_z}\Big)
-{\mbox{Tr}} \Big(e^{i \phi I_z} (\rho H \rho^{(-n)}-\rho^{(-n)} H \rho)e^{-i \phi I_z}\Big) =\\\nonumber
&&
\sum_{k=-N}^N \left({\mbox{Tr}} \Big( e^{i \phi (n+k) } (\rho^{(n)} H\rho^{(k)} -\rho^{(k)} H\rho^{(n)})\Big) -
{\mbox{Tr}}\Big( e^{i \phi (k-n)} (\rho^{(k)} H \rho^{(-n)}-\rho^{(-n)} H \rho^{(k)})\Big) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since this trace must be independent on $\phi$ we have $k=-n$ and $k=n$ in the first and the second trace respectively. Therefore expression (\[TrTr\]) is identical to zero and eq.(\[Tr0\]) yields set of conservation lows (\[cohI\]). $\Box$
Equalities (\[cohI\]) represent the set of conservation laws associated with the dynamics of a spin system under the Hamiltonian $H$ commuting with $I_z$.
On map $\rho^{(n)}(0) \to \rho^{(n)}(t)$
-----------------------------------------
Here we derive an important consequence of conservation laws (\[cohI\]) describing the dependence of the elements of the evolutionary matrix $\rho^{(n)}(t)$ on the elements of the initial matrix $\rho^{(n)}(0)$. First of all we notice that the Hamiltonian commuting with $I_z$ has the following block structure: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hn}
H=\sum_{l=0}^N H^{(l)},\end{aligned}$$ where the block $H_l$ governs the dynamics of states with $l$ excited spins ($l$-excitation block). Then any matrix $\rho^{(n)}$ can be also represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(n)}=\sum_{l=0}^{N-n} \rho^{(l,l+n)},\;\;
\rho^{(-n)}=\sum_{l=n}^{N} \rho^{(l,l-n)},\;\;n=0,1,\dots,N.\end{aligned}$$ Then, introducing the evolution operators $$\begin{aligned}
V(t)=e^{-i H t},\;\;\; V^{(l)}(t)=e^{-i H^{(l)} t},\end{aligned}$$ we can write the evolution of the density matrix as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\rho(t)=V(t) \rho(0) V^+(t) = \sum_{n=-N}^N V(t) \rho^{(n)}(0) V^+(t) =\\\nonumber
&&
\sum_{n=0}^N \sum_{l=0}^{N-n} V^{(l)}(t) \rho^{(l,l+n)}(0) (V^{(l+n)}(t))^+ +
\sum_{n=-N}^{-1} \sum_{l=n}^{N} V^{(l)}(t) \rho^{(l,l-n)}(0) (V^{(l-n)}(t))^+ .\end{aligned}$$ Since the operators $V^{(l)}$ do not change the excitation number, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{In0}
&&
\rho(t) =\sum_{n=-N}^N \rho^{(n)}(t),\\\label{In}
&&
\rho^{(n)}(t) = \sum_{l=0}^{N-n} V^{(l)}(t) \rho^{(l,l+n)}(0) (V^{(l+n)}(t))^+\equiv P^{(n)} \left[t, \rho^{(n)}(0)\right],\\\nonumber
&&
\rho^{(-n)} = (\rho^{(n)}(t))^+ = \sum_{l=n}^{N} V^{(l)}(t) \rho^{(l,l-n)}(0) (V^{(l-n)}(t))^+\equiv P^{(-n)} \left[t, \rho^{(-n)}(0)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the linear evolutionary operators $P^{(n)}$ ($P^{(-n)}$) mapping the matrix $\rho^{(n)}(0)$ ($\rho^{(-n)}(0)$) into the evolutionary matrix $\rho^{(n)}(t)$ ($\rho^{(-n)}(t)$) responsible for the same $n$-order ($(-n)$-order) coherence, i.e., the operator $P^{(n)}$ applied to the matrix of the $n$-order coherence doesn’t generate coherences of different order. We notice that, in certain sense, formulas (\[In\]) are similar to the Liouville representation [@Fano]. Hereafter we do not write $t$ in the arguments of $P^{(n)}$ for simplicity.
Coherence transfer from sender to receiver {#Section:cohtr}
==========================================
Coherence transfer as map $\rho^{(S)}(0)\to \rho^{(R)}(t)$ {#Section:map}
----------------------------------------------------------
Now we consider the process of the coherence transfer from the M-qubit sender ($S$) to the M-qubit receiver ($R$) connected by the transmission line ($TL$). The receiver’s density matrix reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoR}
\rho^R(t)={\mbox{Tr}}_{/R}\rho(t)= \sum_{n=-M}^M \rho^{(R;n)}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the trace is taken over all the nodes of the quantum system except the receiver, and $\rho^{(R;n)}$ means the submatrix of $\rho^{(R)}$ contributing into the $n$-order coherence.
To proceed further, we consider the tensor product initial state $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(0)=\rho^{(S)}(0)\otimes \rho^{(TL,R)}(0),\end{aligned}$$ Obviously $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(n)}(0) = \sum_{n_1+n_2=n} \rho^{(S;n_1)}(0)\otimes \rho^{(TL,R;n_2)}(0),\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho^{(S;n)}$ and $\rho^{(TL,R;n)}$ are matrices contributing to the $n$-order coherence of, respectively, $\rho^{(S)}$ and $\rho^{(TL)}$. Using expansion (\[In0\]) and operators $P^{(n)}$ defined in (\[In\]) we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(R)} = {\mbox{Tr}}_{/R} \sum_{n=-N}^N P^{(n)} \left[\rho^{(n)}(0)\right]=
{\mbox{Tr}}_{/R} \sum_{n=-N}^N \sum_{n_1+n_2=n} P^{(n)} \left[\rho^{(S;n_1)}(0)\otimes \rho^{(TL,R;n_2)}(0)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Next we need the following Proposition.
[**Proposition 4.**]{} The partial trace of matrix $\rho$ does not mix coherences of different order and, in addition, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PT}
{\mbox{Tr}}_{/R} \rho^{(n)} = 0,\;\; |n|>M,\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} We split the whole multiplicative basis of quantum state into the $2^M$-dimensional sub-basis $B^{(R)}$ of the receiver’s states and the $2^{N-M}$-dimensional sub-basis of the subsystem consisting of the sender and the transmission line $B^{(S,TL)}$, i.e., $|i\rangle = |i^{S,TL}\rangle \otimes |i^R\rangle $. Then elements of the density matrix $\rho$ are enumerated by the double indexes $i=(i^{S,TL},i^R)$ and $j=(j^{S,TL},j^R)$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{ij}=\rho_{(i^{S,TL},i^R),(j^{S,TL},j^R)}.
$$ Then eq.(\[rhoR\]) written in components reads $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(R)}_{i^Rj^R} = {\mbox{Tr}}_{/R} \rho = \sum_{i^{S,TL}} \rho_{(i^{S,TL},i^R),(i^{S,TL},j^R)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the coherences in the matrix $\rho^{(R)}$ are formed only by the transitions in the subspace spanned by $B^{(R)}$. Therefore, the matrix $\rho^{(R;n)}$ forming the $n$-order coherence of the receiver consists of the elements included into the $n$-order coherence of the whole quantum system. Consequently, trace does not mix coherences.
Since the receiver is an $M$-qubit subsystem, it can form only the coherences of order $n$ such that $|n|\le M$, which agrees with justifies condition (\[PT\]). $\Box$
This Proposition allows us to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rn}
\rho^{(R;n)} = {\mbox{Tr}}_{/R} \sum_{n_1+n_2=n} P^{(n)}\left[ \rho^{(S;n_1)}(0)\otimes \rho^{(TL,R;n_2)}(0)\right],\;\; |n|\le M.\end{aligned}$$
Formula (\[Rn\]) shows that, in general, all the coherences of $\rho^{(S;n)}$ are mixed in any particular order coherence of the receiver’s density matrix $\rho^R$. However, this is not the case if the initial state $\rho^{TL,R}(0)$ consists of elements contributing only to the zero-order coherence. Then (\[Rn\]) gets the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rn2}
\rho^{(R;n)} = {\mbox{Tr}}_{/R} \Big( P^{(n)} \Big[\rho^{(S;n)}(0)\otimes \rho^{(TL,R;0)}(0)\Big]\Big),\;\; |n|\le M.\end{aligned}$$ In this case the elements contributing to the $n$-order coherence of $\rho^S(0)$ contribute only to the $n$-order coherence of $\rho^R(t)$.
Restoring of sender’s state at receiver’s side {#Section:selecting}
----------------------------------------------
In Sec.\[Section:map\] we show that, although the coherences of the sender’s initial state are properly separated in the receiver’s state, the elements contributing to the particular $n$-order coherence of $\rho^S_0$ are mixed in $\rho^R_n$. But we would like to separate the elements of $\rho^S_0$ in $\rho^R(t)$, so that, in the ideal case,: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoij}
&&\rho^R_{ij}(t) = f_{ij}(t) \rho^S_{ij},\;\;(i,j)\neq (2^M,2^M),\\\nonumber
&&\rho^R_{2^M2^M}(t) = 1- \sum_{i=1}^{2^M-1} f_{ii}(t) \rho^S_{ii}.\end{aligned}$$ We refer to the state with elements satisfying (\[rhoij\]) as a completely restored state. Perhaps, relation (\[rhoij\]) can not be realized for all elements of $\rho^R$, in other words, the complete sender’s state restoring is impossible, in general case. However, the simple case of a complete restoring is the transfer of the one-qubit sender state to the one-qubit receiver because in this case there is only one element $\rho^S_{12}$ in $\rho^S$ contributing to the first order coherence in $\rho^R$ and one independent element $\rho^S_{11}$ contributing to the zero-order coherence. In addition, we can notice that the highest order coherences have the form (\[rhoij\]) in general case, because there is only one element of the density matrix contributing to the $\pm M$-order coherence. Regarding the other coherences, we can try to partially restore at least some of the elements using the local unitary transformation at the receiver side.
### Unitary transformation of extended receiver as state-restoring tool {#Section:U}
Thus we can use the unitary transformation at the receiver to (partially) restore the initial sender’s state $\rho^{(S)}(0)$ in the density matrix $\rho^{(R)}(t)$ at some time instant $t$ in the sense of definition (\[rhoij\]). It is simple to estimate that the number of parameters in the unitary transformation $U^{(R)}$ of the receiver itself is not enough to restore all the elements of the density matrix $\rho^{(S)}(0)$. To make the complete restoring possible we must increase the number of parameters in the unitary transformation by extending the receiver to $M^{(ext)}>M$ nodes and use the transformation $U^{(ext)}$ of this extended receiver to restore the state $\rho^{(S)}(0)$.
Thus we consider the $M^{(ext)}$-dimensional extended receiver and require that the above mentioned unitary transformation does not mix different submatrices $\rho^{(n)}$. This is possible if $U$ commutes with the $z$-projection of the total extended receiver’s spin momentum. In this case the matrix $\rho^R$ can be obtained from $\rho$ in three steps: (i) reducing $\rho(t)$ to the density matrix of the extended receiver $\rho^{R_{ext}}(t)$, (ii) applying the restoring unitary transformation $U^{(ext)}$ and (iii) reducing the resulting density matrix $U^{(ext)}\rho^{R_{ext}}(t)(U^{(ext)})^+$ to $\rho^{R}$. To find out the general form of the unitary transformation we consider this transformation in the basis constructed on the matrices $I^{\pm}_j$ and $I_{zj}$. This basis reads:
for the one-qubit subsystem ($i$th qubit of the whole quantum system), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B1}
B^{(i)}: E, I_{zi}, I^+_i, I^-_i;\end{aligned}$$ for the two-qubit subsystem (the $i$th and $j$th qubits), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B2}
B^{(ij)}=B^{(i)}\otimes B^{(j)};\end{aligned}$$ for the three-qubit subsystem (the $i$th, $j$th and $k$th qubits), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B3}
B^{(ijk)}=B^{(ij)}\otimes B^{(k)};\end{aligned}$$ for the four-qubit subsystem (the $i$th, $j$th, $k$th and $m$th qubits), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B4}
B^{(ijkm)}=B^{(ij)}\otimes B^{(km)},\end{aligned}$$ and so on. The elements of the basis commuting with $I_z$ are formed by the pairs $I^+_p I^-_q$ and by the diagonal matrices $I_{zk}$, $E$. Thus, the one-qubit basis (\[B1\]) involves two elements commuting with $I_z$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B1U}
B^{(C;i)}: E, I_{zi}.\end{aligned}$$ The two-qubit basis (\[B2\]) involves $6$ such elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B2U}
B^{(C;ij)}: E, \;\;I_{zi},\;\; I_{zj}, \;\;I_{zi} I_{zj}, \;\;I^+_i I^-_j,\;\; I^+_j I^-_i.\end{aligned}$$ The three-qubit basis (\[B3\]) involves 20 such elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B3U}
B^{(C;ijk)}: E,\;\; I_{zp},\;\; I_{zp} I_{zs},\;\; I_{zi} I_{zj}I_{zk},\;\; I^+_p I^-_s,I^+_p I^-_s I_{zr}, \;\; p,s,r\in \{i,j,k\}, \;r\neq p \neq s .\end{aligned}$$ The four-qubit basis (\[B4\]) involves 70 such elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B4U}
B^{(C;ijkm)} &:& E, \;\;I_{zp}, \;\; I_{zp} I_{zs},\;\; I_{zp} I_{zs}I_{zr},\;\;I_{zi} I_{zj} I_{zk} I_{zm},\;\;
I^+_p I^-_s,\;\;I^+_p I^-_s I_{zr},\;\;I^+_p I^-_s I_{zr} I_{zq}, \\\nonumber
&&
I^+_p I^-_s I^+_r I^-_q,\;\;p,s,r,q \in \{i,j,k,m\},\;\; p\neq s \neq r \neq q ,\end{aligned}$$ and so on. However, there is a common phase which can not effect the elements of the density matrix. Therefore, the number of parameters in the above unitary transformations which can effect the density-matrix elements is less then the dimensionality of the bases (\[B1U\]-\[B4U\]) by one.
Particular model {#Section:model}
================
As a particular model, we consider the spin-1/2 chain with two-qubit sender and receiver and the tensor product initial state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{in2}
\rho(0)=\rho^S(0) \otimes \rho^{TL,R}(0),\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho^S(0)$ is an arbitrary initial state of the sender and $\rho^{TL,R}(0)$ is the initial thermal equilibrium state of the transmission line and receiver, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inTLB}
\rho^{TL,B} &=&\frac{e^{bI_{z}}}{Z},\;\;Z=\left(2 \cosh\frac{b}{2}\right)^{N-2},
\end{aligned}$$ where $b=\frac{1}{k T}$, $T$ is temperature and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. Thus, both $\rho^{(S)}$ and $\rho^{(R)}$ are $4\times 4$ matrices.
Let the evolution of the spin chain be governed by the nearest-neighbor $XX$-Hamiltonian [@Mattis] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{XY}
H=\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} D (I_{ix}I_{(i+1)x} +I_{iy}I_{(i+1)y}), \end{aligned}$$ where $D$ is a coupling constant. Obviously, $[H,I_z]=0$. Using the Jordan-Wigner transformations [@JW; @CG] we can derive the explicit formula for the density matrix of the two-qubit receiver (\[rhoR\]) but we do not represent the details of this derivation for the sake of brevity.
To proceed further, let us write formulas (\[Rn\]) contributing into each particular coherence as follows. For the zero order coherence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coh0}
\rho^{(R;0)}_{ij}&=& \alpha_{ij;11} \rho^S_{11} + \alpha_{ij;22} \rho^S_{22} +
\alpha_{ij;33} \rho^S_{33} + \alpha_{ij;44} \rho^S_{44} +
\alpha_{ij;23} \rho^S_{23} + \alpha_{ij;32} (\rho^S_{23})^*
,\\\nonumber
&&(i,j)= (1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(2,3)\\\nonumber
\rho^{(R;0)}_{44} &=& 1- \sum_{i=1}^3 \rho^R_{ii},\;\;\alpha_{ii;32}=\alpha_{ii;23}^*,\end{aligned}$$ there are $12$ real parameters $\alpha_{ii;jj}$, $i=1,2,3$, $j=1,2,3,4$, and $9$ complex parameters $\alpha_{ii;23}$, $i=1,2,3$, $\alpha_{23;ii}$, $i=1,2,3,4$, $\alpha_{23;23}$ and $\alpha_{23;32}$, i.e., 30 real parameters. For the first order coherence: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coh1}
(\rho^R_1)_{ij}= \alpha_{ij;12} \rho^S_{12} + \alpha_{ij;13} \rho^S_{13} +
\alpha_{ij;24} \rho^S_{24} + \alpha_{ij;34} \rho^S_{34},\;\;
(i,j)= (1,2),(1,3),(2,4),(3,4),\end{aligned}$$ there are 16 complex parameters, or 32 real ones. Finally, for the second order coherence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coh2}
\rho^R_{14}= \alpha_{14;12} \rho^S_{14},\end{aligned}$$ there is one complex parameter (two real ones). In all these formulas, $\alpha_{ij;nm}$ are defined by the interaction Hamiltonian and they depend on the time $t$.
Simple example of $\rho^{(S;1)}$-restoring
------------------------------------------
We see that there are 64 real parameter we would like to adjust in eqs.(\[coh0\]-\[coh2\]). For the purpose of complete restoring of an arbitrary state we need the extended receiver of $M=4$ nodes so that the number of the effective parameters in the unitary transformation described in Sec.\[Section:U\] would be 69. However, for the sake of simplicity, here we use the unitary transformation of the two-qubit receiver to perform a complete restoring of the $\pm1$-order coherence matrices $\rho^{(S;\pm 1)}(0)$ of a special form, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inS}
\rho^{(S;1)} + \rho^{(S;-1)} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&a&a&0\cr
a^*&0&0&a\cr
a^*&0&0&0\cr
0&a^*&0&0
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The unitary transformation constructed on the basis (\[B2U\]) reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U2q}
U=e^{i \phi_1 ( I_1^+I_2^- + I_1^-I_2^+)} e^{ \phi_2 ( I_1^+I_2^- - I_1^-I_2^+)} e^{i \Phi},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi={\mbox{diag}}(\phi_3,\dots,\phi_6)$ is a diagonal matrix and $\phi_i$, $i=1,\dots,6$, are arbitrary real parameters. Eqs. (\[coh1\]) reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coh1ex}
(\rho^R_1)_{ij}=\alpha_{ij} a ,\;\; \alpha_{ij}= \alpha_{ij;12} + \alpha_{ij;13} +
\alpha_{ij;24},\;\;
(i,j)= (1,2),(1,3),(2,4),(3,4).\end{aligned}$$ We consider the chain of $N=20$ nodes and set $b=10$. The time instant for the state registration at the receiver is chosen by the requirement to maximize the maximal-order coherence intensity (the second order in this model) because this intensity has the least maximal possible value according to (\[order\]). This time instance was found numerically and it equals $D t=24.407$.
Next, using the parameters $\phi_i$ of the unitary transformation (\[U2q\]) we can put zero the coefficient $\alpha_{34}$ and thus obtain the completely restored matrices $\rho^{(R;\pm1)}$ in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rt}
\rho^{(R;1)} + \rho^{(R;-1)} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&\alpha_{12} a&\alpha_{13}a&0\cr
\alpha_{12}^*a^*&0&0&\alpha_{24}a\cr
\alpha_{13}^*a^*&0&0&0\cr
0&\alpha_{24}^*a^*&0&0
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The appropriate values of the parameters $\phi_i$ are following: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_1=2.41811,\;\;\phi_2=1.57113,\;\;\phi_k=0,\;\;k=2,\dots,6.\end{aligned}$$ Therewith, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{12}=0.00021 + 0.63897 i,\;\;\;\alpha_{13}=0.00010 - 0.30585 i,\;\;\alpha_{24}=0.00010-0.30582 i .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using the unitary transformation of the receiver we restore the sender’s initial matrices $\rho^{(S;\pm1)}(0)$ in the sense of definition (\[rhoij\]). This result holds for arbitrary admittable initial matrices $\rho^{(S;0)}(0)$ and $\rho^{(S;2)}(0)$.
Conclusion {#Section:conclusion}
==========
The MQ coherence intensities are the characteristics of a density matrix which can be measured in MQ NMR experiments. We show that the coherences evolve independently if only the Hamiltonian governing the spin dynamics conserves the total $z$-projection of the spin momentum. This is an important property of quantum coherences which allows us to store them in the sense that the family of the density-matrix elements contributing into a particular-order coherence do not intertwist with other elements during evolution. In addition, if we connect the spin system with formed coherences (called sender in this case) to the transmission line and receiver we can transfer these coherences without mixing them if only the initial state of $\rho^{(TL,R)}(0)$ has only the zero-order coherence.
We also describe the restoring method which could allow (at least partially) to reconstruct the sender’s initial state. This state-restoring is based on the unitary transformation at the receiver side involving, in general, the so-called extended receiver with the purpose to enlarge the number of parameters in the unitary transformation. The partial state-restoring of two-qubit receiver via the unitary transformation on it is performed as a simplest example. Examples of more accurate restoring involving the extended receiver require large technical work and will be done in a specialized paper.
This work is partially supported by the Program of RAS ”Element base of quantum computers” and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants No.15-07-07928 and 16-03-00056.
[99]{}
J. Baum, M. Munowitz, A. N. Garroway, and A. Pines, J. Chem. Phys. [**83**]{}, 2015 (1985).
S. I. Doronin, I. I. Maksimov, and E. B. Fel’dman, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**91**]{}, 597 (2000).
H.G. Krojanski and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 090501 (2004).
H.G. Krojanski and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 150503 (2006).
G. A. Alvarez and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 230403 (2010).
H.J. Cho, P. Cappellaro, D. G. Gory, and C. Ramanathan, Phys. Rev. B 74, 224434 (2006).
G.A.Bochkin, E.B.Fel’dman, S.G.Vasil’ev, V.I.Volkov, Chem.Phys.Lett. [**680**]{}, 56 (2017).
S. I. Doronin, E. B. Fel’dman, and A. I. Zenchuk, J.Chem.Phys. [**134**]{}, 034102 (2011) A.Abragam. The Principies of Nuclear Magnetism. Clarendon. Oxford. 1961.
M.Goldman. Spin temperature and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Solids. Clarendon. Oxford. 1970.
D.C.Mattis. The many-body problem: An encyclopedia of exactly solved models in one dimension. World Scientific. Singapore. 1993.
A.I.Zenchuk, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 052302(13) (2014)
G. A. Bochkin and A. I. Zenchuk, Phys.Rev.A 91, 062326(11) (2015)
G.A.Bochkin and A.I.Zenchuk, Quant.Inf.Comp. [**16**]{} 1349 (2015)
E.B.Fel’dman, S.Lacelle, Chem.Phys.Lett., [**253**]{}, 27 (1996)
U. Fano, Rev. Mod.Phys. [**29**]{}, 74 (1957).
P.Jordan, E.Wigner, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928) H.B.Cruz, L.L.Goncalves, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. [**14**]{}, 2785 (1981)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that a set of small box-counting dimension can be covered by a Hölder graph from all but a small set of directions, and give sharp bounds for the dimension of the exceptional set, improving a result of B. Hunt and V. Kaloshin. We also observe that, as a consequence, Hölder graphs can have positive doubling measure, answering a question of T. Ojala and T. Rajala.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Torcuato di Tella University\
Av. Figueroa Alcorta 7350 (C1428BCW)\
Buenos Aires\
Argentina
author:
- Eino Rossi
- Pablo Shmerkin
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: Hölder coverings of sets of small dimension
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
Given a set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$, how often does the orthogonal projection to a $k$-plane $V$ have a Hölder inverse? Of course, in order to have an inverse at all, the projection has to be injective. Let $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}$ denote upper box dimension. It follows from elementary dimension inequalities that if $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(A)<(d-1)/2$, then for almost all $v\in S^{d-1}$, the orthogonal projection $P_v:{\mathbb{R}}^d\to \langle v\rangle^\perp$ is indeed injective. In [@HuntKaloshin1999], Hunt and Kaloshin proved that, in this case, for almost all $v\in S^{d-1}$, the set $A$ can be covered by the graph of a Hölder function $f_v:\langle v\rangle^\perp\to \langle v\rangle$. More generally, they showed that if $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(A)<(d-k)/2$, then for almost all linear maps $L$ from ${\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^k$, the restriction $L|_A$ has a Hölder inverse. Hunt and Kaloshin also obtain results for subsets $A$ of infinite-dimensional spaces, where “almost every” is understood in the sense of prevalence. See [@HuntKaloshin1999] for further details.
In this article, we refine Hunt and Kaloshin’s result by providing a bound on the dimension of exceptional directions $v$, and likewise for $k$-planes $V$ for any $k$; see Theorem \[thm:holder\]. Moreover, we show that when $k=1$ this bound is sharp in a rather strong way. While Hunt and Kaloshin state their results in terms of almost all linear maps, our approach is to work with the Grassmannian of $k$ planes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, which is perhaps a more natural parametrization, since many linear maps correspond geometrically to the same projection. We also establish analogous results for spherical projections, and observe that for a special class of sets (homogeneous sets) one can get covers by *Lipschitz* graphs, while this is known to be false in general.
One of the original motivations for this work was a question posed by T. Rajala and T. Ojala in [@OjalaRajala2014]: does every doubling measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ give zero mass to a Hölder graph? It turns out that a strong negative answer follows by combining the aforementioned result of Hunt and Kaloshin with some known constructions of sets of small box dimension which are charged by a doubling measure. Indeed, we observe that there are doubling self-similar measures that charge graphs of Hölder functions of exponent arbitrarily close to $1$. We were initially unaware of Hunt and Kaloshin’s result and an earlier version of this article contained an independent derivation; we thank M. Hochman for bringing the work [@HuntKaloshin1999] to our attention.
Covers of small sets by Hölder graphs
=====================================
A bound on the dimension of exceptional planes
----------------------------------------------
Let us first fix some notation and definitions. Let $\operatorname{dim_H},\operatorname{dim_P}$ and $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}$ denote the Hausdorff, packing and upper box counting (or Minkowski) dimensions respectively. For the definitions and main properties, see for example [@Mattila1995].
We let $G(d,k)$ be the Grassmannian of $k$-planes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. This is a compact smooth manifold of dimension $k(d-k)$. A natural metric compatible with the topology of $G(d,k)$ is given by ${\varrho}(V,W)=\|P_V-P_W\|$, where $P_{\cdot}$ denotes parallel projection, and $\|\cdot\|$ stands for the operator norm. The Hausdorff and box-counting dimensions of $G(d,k)$ in this metric are again $k(d-k)$. We note that the orthogonal group $O(d)$ acts transitively on $G(d,k)$, and that the metric ${\varrho}$ is invariant under this action. Moreover, $G(d,k)$ carries a unique Borel probability measure $\gamma_{d,k}$ invariant under this action. The Grassmannian $G(d,1)$ can be naturally identified with the $(d-1)$ dimensional projective space. For further details about $G(d,k)$ and $\gamma_{d,k}$, the reader is referred to [@Mattila1995 Section 3].
For $w\ge 0$, let ${\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w$ denote the $w$ dimensional Hausdorff content on the Grassmanian $G(d,k)$ (with respect to the metric $d$ defined above). That is, for $E\subset G(d,k)$ $${\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w(E) = \inf\left\{ \sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} \operatorname{diam}(U_i)^w : E \subset \bigcup_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} U_i \right\}.$$ Hausdorff content is an outer measure, but it is in general highly non-additive even on Borel sets. One exception is the value $w=k(d-k)$; in this case $\gamma_{d,k} = {\mathcal{H}}_\infty^{k(d-k)}$. We recall that $\operatorname{dim_H}(E) = \inf \{ w>0: {\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w(E)=0\}$.
We can now state our main theorem:
\[thm:holder\] Let $A\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be a bounded set such that $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(A)<t< (d-k)/2$ and let $(k-1)(d-k) + 2t < w < k(d-k) $. Then the set of planes $V\in G(d,k)$, for which the set $A$ is not contained in the graph of a Hölder function $f_V\colon V^\perp\to V$ of exponent $1-\frac{2t}{w-(k-1)(d-k)}$, has Hausdorff dimension at most $w$.
In particular, the set of $V\in G(d,k)$ such that $A$ is not contained in the graph of a Hölder function $f_V\colon V^\perp\to V$ (without taking exponents into account) has Hausdorff dimension at most $(k-1)(d-k) + 2\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(A)$.
In the proof we will use the following result from elementary geometry. We use the notation $x=O(r)$ to mean $0\le x\le Cr$, where the constant $C$ may depend only on the ambient dimension and $w$, the exponent of the Hausdorff content in question.
\[lem:anglegeneral\] Let $B, B'$ be two balls in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ of radius $r$ that are at distance $R\ge r$ apart, and let $\ell\in G(d,1)$ be the direction determined by their centres. Then any direction determined by points $x\in B$ and $x'\in B'$ makes an angle at most $O(r/R)$ with $\ell$.
For simplicity, denote $(k-1)(d-k)=g$, and note that this is the dimension of $G(d-1,k-1)$. By assumption, there are $s<t$, a constant $C>0$ and families $\mathcal{B}_n$ of balls of radius $2^{-n}$, such that $|\mathcal{B}_n|\le C\, 2^{sn}$ and $A$ is covered by the union of $\mathcal{B}_n$, for each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Let $$\mathcal{C}_n = \left\{ (2B,2B'): (B,B')\in\mathcal{B}_n^2, \,\operatorname{dist}(B,B')\ge 2\cdot 2^{-(1-\frac{2t}{w-g}) n} \right\}.$$ Here $2B$ denotes the ball of the same center as $B$ and twice the radius. Given $\ell\in G(d,1)$ and $V\in G(d,k)$, let $\angle(\ell,V)$ denote the respective angle, i.e. the infimum of the angles between non-zero vectors in $\ell$ and $V$. Let us define $$H_{B,B'}(\delta) = \{ V\in G(d,k) : \angle(\ell(B,B'),V)\leq \delta \},$$ where $\ell(B,B')\in G(d,1)$ has the direction determined by the centers of the balls $B$ and $B'$. By Lemma \[lem:anglegeneral\], the set of $k$-planes which contain a direction determined by two points in $B, B'$, $(B,B')\in{\mathcal{C}}_n$ is then contained in $$\label{eq:lastobservation}
H_{B,B'} \left( O(1)\frac{ 2^{-n} }{ 2^{-n(1-\frac{2t}{w-g}) } } \right)
= H_{B,B'} \left( O(1) 2^{-n(\frac{2t}{w-g})} \right).$$
We need to estimate the $w$-dimensional Hausdorff content of the set $H_{B,B'}(\delta)$ for small $\delta$. The idea is that if $V\in H_{B,B'}(\delta)$, then $V$ contains a vector that makes a small angle with $\ell(B,B')$, which we can complete to an orthonormal basis of $V$; the degrees of freedom then equal the dimension of $G(d-1,k-1)$. To make this idea precise, let $B(V_i,\delta)$ be a cover of $G(d-1,k-1)$ with cardinality $O(1) \delta^{-g}$. Let $\varphi$ be any orthogonal map from ${\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}$ to $\ell(B,B')^\perp\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$, and given $V\in G(d-1,k-1)$ let $\hat{V}\in G(d,k)$ be the plane spanned by $\varphi(V)$ and $\ell(B,B')$. Note that $V\mapsto \hat{V}$ is an isometry onto its image. Furthermore, if $W\in H_{B,B'}(\delta)$, then there are $V\in G(d-1,k-1)$ and an orthogonal map $\psi\in O(d)$ with $\|\psi-I\|=O(\delta)$ such that $W=\psi\hat{V}$. We deduce that $$H_{B,B'}(\delta) \subset \bigcup_{i} B(\hat V_i,O(\delta)),$$ and therefore $$\label{eq:contentbound}
{\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w (H_{B,B'}(\delta)) \leq O(1) \delta^{-g} \delta^w$$ directly from the definition of ${\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w$. Let $M_n\subset G(d,k)$ be the planes which contain a direction determined by two points in $B, B'$ for some $(B,B')\in{\mathcal{C}}_n$. Using equations and , and the obvious bound $|\mathcal{C}_n |\le |\mathcal{B}_n|^2 \le C^2 2^{2sn}$, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w( M_n )
&\leq \sum_{(B,B')\in{\mathcal{C}}_n} {\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w\left( H_{B,B'}\left( O(1) 2^{-n2t/(w-g)}\right) \right) \\
&\leq O(C^2) 2^{n2s} 2^{-n2t}
= O(C^2) 2^{2n (s-t)}
\end{aligned}$$ Since $s<t$, we have that $\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} {\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w\left( M_n \right) < \infty$. Hence the set of $k$-planes which are in infinitely many $M_n$ has ${\mathcal{H}}_\infty^w$ measure zero, and hence Hausdorff dimension at most $w$. It remains to show that if $V$ is only in finitely many of the $M_n$, then $A$ can be covered by the graph of a suitable function $f:V^\perp \to V$. Fix, then, some large $n_0\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $V\in G(d,k) \setminus \cup_{n=n_0}^\infty M_n$, and write $P$ for the orthogonal projection to $V^{\perp}$. Now let $x,x'\in A$ and suppose $$|x-x'| \ge 3\cdot 2^{- (1-\frac{2t}{w-g}) n}$$ for some $n\ge n_0$. Then $x\in B, x'\in B'$ for some $B,B'\in\mathcal{B}_n$, and the projections $P(2B), P(2B')$ are disjoint (otherwise, there would be points $y,y'\in 2B, 2B'$ determining a direction contained in the $k$-plane $V$, contradicting that $V\notin M_n$). This implies that $$|P(x)-P(x')|\ge 2\cdot 2^{-n},$$ thus in particular $P$ is injective on $A$, and therefore $A$ is the graph of a function $f:P(A)\to V$. To show that $f$ is Hölder, let $P(x),P(x')\in P(A)$ so that $2^{-n} \leq |P(x)-P(x')| < 2\cdot 2^{-n}$ for some $n\ge n_0$. By the above observation, $$\begin{aligned}
|f(P(x))-f(P(x'))|&\le |x-x'| = 3\cdot 2^{- (1-\frac{2t}{w-g}) n} \\
&= 3 (2^{-n})^{1-\frac{2t}{w-g}}\\
& \leq 3 ( |P(x)-P(x')| )^{1-\frac{2t}{w-g}}
\end{aligned}$$ This estimate holds for all $n\geq n_0$ (that is, when $|P(x)-P(x')|$ is small), so $f$ is Hölder continuous with exponent $\alpha=(1-\frac{2t}{w-g})$, and a constant $C$ depending on $n_0$ and $w$.
Finally, if $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_k)$ where $f_i$ has $\alpha$-Hölder constant $C_i$, then we extend $f$ to a Hölder function $\widetilde{f}$ on all of $V^\perp$ as follows: $\widetilde{f}=(\widetilde{f}_1,\ldots,\widetilde{f}_k)$, where $$\widetilde{f}_i(y) = \inf_{z\in A} \{ f_i(z) + C_i |y-z|^{\alpha} \}.$$ (The existence of such an extension is classical.) This concludes the proof.
Sharpness of Theorem \[thm:holder\]
-----------------------------------
Theorem \[thm:holder\] is sharp in a number of ways. One cannot replace “Hölder” by “Lipschitz”, since the graph of a Lipschitz function is porous, while a set of small box-counting dimension needs not be porous. Box-counting dimension cannot be replaced by packing (or Hausdorff) dimension, since a dense countable set cannot be the graph of a Hölder function, yet has zero packing (and Hausdorff) dimension and Hausdorff dimension can not be changed to packing dimension in measuring the size of exceptions, see Lemma \[lem:dense-Gdelta-exceptions\]. We will also show that the dimensional threshold on $A$ is also sharp, at least when $k=1$; this depends on the following construction:
\[prop:perc\] For any $t$, there exists a compact set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $\operatorname{dim_H}(A)=\operatorname{dim_B}(A)=t$ such that the direction set $$\operatorname{dir}(A)=\{x-y/|x-y|:x\neq y\in A\}$$ satisfies $\operatorname{dim_H}(\operatorname{dir}(A))=\min(2t,d-1)$. Moreover, if $t>(d-1)/2$, then $A$ can be chosen so that $\operatorname{dir}(A)=S^{d-1}$.
The set $A$ can be taken as the $t$-dimensional fractal percolation limit set in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Before proceeding with the proof, we recall its construction. Let $\mathcal{Q}_n^d$ denote the closed dyadic cubes of side length $2^{-n}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, and let $\mathcal{Q}^d=\cup_n \mathcal{Q}_n^d$. Given $p\in (0,1)$, we define a decreasing sequence of closed subsets of $[0,1]^d$ as follows. Let $A_0=[0,1]^d$, keep each cube $Q\in\mathcal{Q}_1^d$ with probability $p$ with all the choices independent, and let $A_1$ be the union of the retained cubes. Now suppose $A_n$ has defined as a union of cubes in $\mathcal{Q}^d_n$. Keep each cube $Q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_{n+1}^d$, $Q\subset A_n$ with probability $p$, with all choices independent of each other, and of previous stages of the construction, and let $A_{n+1}$ be the union of all selected cubes. Finally, we define $A=\cap_n A_n$.
It is well known that if $p=p_t=2^{t-d}$ for some $t\in (0,d]$ then, conditional on $A\neq \varnothing$, the Hausdorff and box-counting dimension of $A$ is equal to $t$ (on the other hand, if $p\le 2^{-d}$ then $A$ is empty almost surely).
If we let $\nu_n = p^{-n}\mathbf{1}_{A_n}dx$, then almost surely $\nu_n$ converges weakly to a measure $\nu$ supported on $A$, known as the *natural (fractal percolation) measure*. We refer the reader to [@ShmerkinSuomala2017] and references there for further background on fractal percolation.
Fix $t\in (0,d)$, and let $A$ be the fractal percolation limit set constructed with probability $p=2^{t-d}$ (and hence of box-counting dimension $t$).
If $t>(d-1)/2$, then it was shown in [@ShmerkinSuomala2017 Corollary 5.9] (see also [@ShmerkinSuomala2017 Remark 5.10]) that $\operatorname{dir}(A)=S^{d-1}$. Hence we assume that $t\le (d-1)/2$ for the rest of the proof.
Given $v\in G(d,1)$, we denote $$W_v= \{ (x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}^d: y-x\in\langle v\rangle \}\in G(2d,d+1).$$ Write $G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$ for the lines in $G(d,1)$ making an angle $\ge \pi/8$ with all coordinate hyperplanes (the value $\pi/8$ is not important, any positive number will do). Let $\Gamma_0=\{ W_v:v\in G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$. Further, let $\Gamma$ be the collection of all translations of planes in $\Gamma_0$ which hit the unit cube (this is a family of *affine* subspaces of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$).
It easy to check that $\Gamma$ satisfies the assumptions of [@ShmerkinSuomala2017 Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 5.8] (we work with $G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$ instead of $G(d,1)$ to ensure transversality with respect to coordinate hyperplanes). Note that, in our case, $m=2$ and $k=d+1$. Fix two disjoint dyadic cubes $Q_1,Q_2$ of the same level, such that any line joining a point of $Q_1$ with a point of $Q_2$ makes an angle $\ge \pi/8$ with the coordinate hyperplanes. Further, let $\gamma>2(d-t)-(d-1)=d+1-2t$. By [@ShmerkinSuomala2017 Corollary 5.8] applied to $U=Q_1\times Q_2$, and the definition of the natural measure, almost surely $$\label{eq:application-SS}
\sup_{n\in N, W\in\Gamma} 2^{-n\gamma} 2^{2n(d-t)}\mathcal{H}^{d+1}\left( \left(A_n\times A_n\right)\cap (Q_1\times Q_2) \cap W \right) <\infty$$ Write $A'_n=(A_n\times A_n)\cap (Q_1\times Q_2)$ for simplicity. By Fubini’s Theorem and , there is a (random) constant $K>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{2d}\left( A'_n\cap W(2^{-n})\right) &\le \int_{B(0, 2^{-n})\subset W^\perp} \mathcal{H}^{d+1}(A'_n\cap (W+u)) \, du \\
&\le 2^{-n(d-1)}\, K 2^{n(\gamma -2(d-t))}\\
&= K 2^{-2nd} 2^{n(\gamma-(d+1-2t))} =: K 2^{-2nd} 2^{\delta n}\end{aligned}$$ for any $W\in \Gamma_0$ (here $W({\varepsilon})$ denotes the ${\varepsilon}$-neighborhood of $W$). Note that $\delta$ can be made arbitrarily small, and that $K$ depends on $\gamma$ (hence on $\delta$). Since any $Q\in\mathcal{Q}_n^{2d}$ that intersects $W$ is contained in $W(\sqrt{d}2^{-n})$, comparing volumes we deduce that $$\#\{ Q\in\mathcal{Q}_n^{2d}: Q\cap W_v\neq\varnothing\} \le K'_\delta \, 2^{\delta n}$$ for every $v\in G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$ and some new random constant $K'_\delta>0$. On the other hand, since $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are separated, if $v,v'\in G(d,1)$ are at distance $\le 2^{-n}$, then $$W_{v'}\cap (Q_1\times Q_2)\subset (W_v\cap Q_1\times Q_2)(C 2^{-n}),$$ where $C>0$ is an absolute constant. Let $\operatorname{dir}(x,y)\in G(d,1)$ be the direction determined by $x\neq y\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Combining the last two displayed equations, we deduce that for any $2^{-n}$-ball $B$ in $G(d,1)$ whose centre lies in $G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$, $$\label{eq:fiber-cover}
\#\{ Q\in\mathcal{Q}_n^{2d}: Q\subset Q_1\times Q_2, \operatorname{dir}^{-1}(B)\cap Q\neq\varnothing \} \le K''_\delta 2^{\delta n}$$ for some new constant $K''_\delta$.
Now, conditioned on $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ being chosen, $A':=A\times A\cap (Q_1\times Q_2)$ has (up to scaling and translation) the distribution of the product of two independent copies of fractal percolation with the same parameter $p$. Hence, there is a positive probability that $A'$ has Hausdorff (and box) dimension $2t$. Fix a realization such that this happens, and such that holds for all $\delta>0$ (this is possible since for fixed $\delta$ this is an almost sure event, and we only need to consider a sequence $\delta_j\downarrow 0$).
We can now finish the proof. Since $\operatorname{dir}$ is locally Lipschitz outside of the diagonal, we know that $$\operatorname{dim_H}(\operatorname{dir}(A)) \le \operatorname{dim_P}(\operatorname{dir}(A)) \le \operatorname{dim_P}(A\times A) \le 2\operatorname{dim_P}(A)=2t,$$ so the task is to establish the lower bound.
Let $\{B_j\}$ be a cover of $G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$, where $B_j$ is a ball of radius $2^{-n_j}$, with all $n_j$ sufficiently large. Since $Q_1\times Q_2\subset\operatorname{dir}^{-1}(G_{\pi/8}(d,1))$ by our choice of $Q_1, Q_2$, there is a cover of $A'$ consisting, for each $j$, of $K'''_\delta 2^{\delta n_j}$ balls of radius $2^{n_j}$. Hence $$\sum_j K'''_\delta 2^{\delta n_j} 2^{(2t-\delta) n_j} \ge 1 .$$ This, however, shows that $G_{\pi/8}(d,1)$ has Hausdorff dimension $\ge 2t-2\delta$ which, letting $\delta\to 0$, completes the proof.
We believe that fractal percolation should witness the sharpness of Theorem \[thm:holder\] for all values of $k$, but the proof given above strongly uses that $k=1$. We note, however, that it follows directly from the methods from [@ShmerkinSuomala2017] that if $t>(d-k)/2$, then the $t$-dimensional fractal percolation set $A$ has the property that if for every $V\in G(d,k)$ there are points $x,y\in A$ with $y-x\in V$; see [@ShmerkinSuomala2017 Remark 5.10]. Thus in this case there are no exceptional directions at all in Theorem \[thm:holder\].
\[cor:sharpness\] For any $t\in (0,(d-1)/2]$, there exists a compact set $A$ with $\operatorname{dim_H}(A)=\operatorname{dim_B}(A)=t$ such that $$\operatorname{dim_H}\{V\in G(d,1): P_V|_A \text{ is not injective } \} = 2t.$$
Finally, we show that the exceptional set of planes can be (and often is) a dense $G_\delta$ subset of $G(d,k)$. Since dense $G_\delta$ subsets of complete metric spaces have full packing dimension, this also shows that in Theorem \[thm:holder\] one cannot hope to measure the dimension of the exceptional set by packing dimension.
\[lem:dense-Gdelta-exceptions\] Let $0<k<d$. If the direction set of $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is dense in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, then $$E = \{ V\in G(d,k): P_V|_A \text{ has no H\"{o}lder inverse }\}$$ is a dense $G_\delta$ set.
In particular, there are self-similar sets $A$ of all dimensions satisfying this, as well as compact countable sets.
Define a sequence of open sets $$\begin{aligned}
E_N = \{ V\in G(d,k) :\ &\|x-y\| > N \|P_V(x)-P_V(y)\|^{1/N} \text{ for some } x,y\in A \\
&\text{with } \|P_V(x)-P_V(y)\| < 1 \}.\end{aligned}$$ If $V\in G(d,k)$ contains a direction determined by $A$, then $V\in E_N$ for all $N$. Since $\operatorname{dir}(A)$ is dense in $S^{d-1}$, we have that each $E_N$ is dense in $G(d,k)$ (given a basis $(w_1,\ldots,w_k)$ for $W\in G(d,k)$, we find $v\in\operatorname{dir}(A)$ arbitrarily close to $w_1$, so that $(v,w_2,\ldots,w_k)$ spans a $k$-plane in $E_N$, for all $N$, which is close to $W$). It is clear that $E=\cap_{n=1}^{\infty} \cup_{N=n}^{\infty} E_N=\cap_{N=1}^{\infty} E_N$ which is a dense $G_\delta$ set by Baire’s theorem.
If $A$ is a self-similar set such that the linear parts of the similarities generate a dense subgroup of $O(d)$, then it is clear that $A$ spans a dense set of directions. Finally, if $\{ e_j\}$ is any dense subset of $S^{d-1}$, then $\{0\}\cup \{ 2^{-j}e_j\}$ is a compact countable set whose direction set is also dense.
As a corollary, we deduce the following dichotomy:
\[cor:dichotomy\] For any set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$, one of the following alternatives holds:
1. \[enu:joko\] There is a dense $G_\delta$ subset $E$ of $G(d,1)$ such that for each $v\in E$, there is no Hölder function $f_v\colon\langle v\rangle^\perp \to \langle v\rangle$ whose graph covers $A$.
2. \[enu:tai\] There is a nonempty open set $U\subset G(d,1)$ such that for each $v\in U$, there is a Lipschitz function $f_v\colon\langle v\rangle^\perp \to \langle v\rangle$ whose graph covers $A$.
We have seen in Lemma \[lem:dense-Gdelta-exceptions\] that if $\operatorname{dir}(A)$ is dense in $S^{d-1}$ then the first alternative holds. Suppose then that the direction set is not dense. Then there are a nonempty open set $U\subset S^{d-1}$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ such $\operatorname{dist}(U,\operatorname{dir}(A))>{\varepsilon}$. This means that for all points $x\in A$ and $v\in U$, there is a cone in direction $v$, with opening angle ${\varepsilon}$, which does not contain any other point of $A$. It follows (see e.g. the proof of [@Mattila1995 Lemma 15.13]) that the inverse of the orthogonal projection of $A$ to $\langle v \rangle^\perp$ is Lipschitz, and this can be extended to a Lipschitz function on all of $\langle v \rangle^\perp$.
Visibility and Lipschitz coverings
==================================
As discussed in §2.2, one cannot hope to find coverings by Lipschitz graphs in the general case. However, in Corollary \[cor:dichotomy\] we noted that Lipschitz covers do exist when the direction set is not dense. In Proposition \[thm:lipgraph\], we show that for a rich class of non-trivial sets, not only there exists an open set of directions for which there is a Lipschitz covering of the set, but such covering exists in any direction that is not determined by the set.
Lipschitz coverings of homogeneous sets
---------------------------------------
We recall some definitions that originate in the work [@Furstenberg2008]. A set $M\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is a *miniset* of $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ if there is an expanding homothety $h$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ (that is, $h(x)=rx+t$ for some $r>1$ and $t\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$) such that $M\subset h(A)$. A compact set $K$ is called a *microset* of $A$ if there is a sequence $(M_i)$ of minisets of $A$ converging to $K$ in the Hausdorff metric. Finally, a compact set $A$ is called *homogenous*, if every microset of $A$ is also a miniset of $A$. Examples of homogeneous sets include self-similar sets satisfying the strong separation condition for which the linear parts of the similarities contain no rotations, and closed sets invariant under $(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\mapsto (p x_1\bmod 1,\ldots,p x_d\bmod 1)$. For homogenous sets, we can improve Theorem \[thm:holder\] as follows:
\[thm:lipgraph\] For a homogenous set $A$ with $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}A < t < \frac{d-k}{2}$, there is an exceptional set $E\subset G(d,k)$, with $\operatorname{dim_H}E \leq (k-1)(d-k)+ 2t$, so that for all $V\in G(d,k)\setminus E$, there is a Lipschitz function $f_V\colon V^\perp \to V$ whose graph covers $A$.
Let $E$ be the set of $k$-planes where the orthogonal projection of $A$ to $V^\perp$ is not injective. In other words, $E$ is the set of $V\in G(d,k)$ that contain a direction determined by $A$. That is, $$E=\{V\in G(d,k) : \operatorname{dir}(A)\cap V\neq\varnothing \}.$$ It follows directly from Theorem \[thm:holder\] that $\operatorname{dim_H}E \leq (k-1)(d-k)+ 2t$. It remains to show that whenever there is a cover by a graph, the corresponding function is actually Lipschitz. We do this by showing that $E$ is compact. Then any $V\in G(d,k)\setminus E$ has an ${\varepsilon}$-neighborhood of $k$-planes not in $E$, and the existence of the Lipschitz inverse again follows from the proof of [@Mattila1995 Lemma 15.13].
We show first that $\operatorname{dir}(A)$ is compact. By compactness of $S^{d-1}$ it suffices to show that $\operatorname{dir}(A)$ is closed. Let $(e_i)_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}\subset \operatorname{dir}(A)$, with $e_i\to e\in S^{d-1}$. For each $e_i$ we find $x_i$ and $y_i$ in $A$ determining the direction $e_i$. If $|x_i-y_i|\ge 1$ for infinitely many $i$, then by compactness there exist $x,y\in A$ determining the direction $e$. We can then assume that $|x_i-y_i|<1$ for all $i$. Consider the expanding homotheties $h_i(z)=(z-x_i)/|x_i-y_i|$ and note that $f_i(y_i)=e_i$ and $f_i(x_i)=0$. Thus $\{0,e_i\}$ is a miniset of $A$, and further, $\{0,e\}$ is a microset of $A$, by the convergence $e_i\to e$. Since every microset is also a miniset by assumption, there is a homothety $h$ such that $\{0,e\}\subset h(A)$, thus $e\in \operatorname{dir}(A)$.
Again by compactness of $G(d,k)$, it suffices to show that $E$ is closed. Let $(V_i)\subset E$, with $V_i \to V$. For each $V_i$, find $v_i\in \operatorname{dir}(A)\cap V_i$. By the compactness of $\operatorname{dir}(A)$, we can assume that $v_i$ converges to some $v\in \operatorname{dir}(A)$. On the other hand, $v\in V$ by the convergence $V_i\to V$. Thus $V\in E$.
Hölder coverings in polar coordinates and visibility
----------------------------------------------------
Let us now consider a variant of the problem where orthogonal projections are replaced by spherical projections. For $k=1$, Theorem \[thm:holder\] can be re-interpreted as saying that all of the set $A$ is visible (as a Hölder graph) from all points in the hyperplane at infinity, outside of an exceptional set of dimension at most $2t$. What about seeing $A$ from points in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A$? We say that a set $A$ is *visible from a point $h\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A$* if there are no lines through $h$ that meet $A$ in more than one point. Moreover, we may also consider coverings of $A$ by graphs by writing ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus\{h\}$ in polar coordinates centered at $h$ (that is, we identify the point $h+t v$, with $v$ in the unit sphere $S^{d-1}$, with the pair $(v,t)\in S^{d-1}\times (0,\infty)$).
\[thm:visibility\] Let $A\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be a bounded set such that $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(A)<t< (d-1)/2$ and let $2t < w < d-1$. Then the set of points $h\in {\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A$ for which the set $A$ is not contained in the graph of a Hölder function $f_h:S^{d-1}\to (0,\infty)$ of exponent $1-\frac{2t}{w}$, has Hausdorff dimension at most $w+1$.
The proof mimics the proof of Theorem \[thm:holder\] so we only give a sketch. Fix $S>0$. To begin, observe that if $B, B'$ are balls of radius $r$, separated by a distance $R\ge r$, then the set of points $h \in B(0,S)$ which lie on a line through $B$ and $B'$ are contained in $T_{B,B'}(C_S r/R) \cap B(0,S)$, were $$T_{B,B'}(\delta) = \{ x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d : \operatorname{dist}(x,\ell(B,B'))\leq \delta \}$$ is a tube, and $C_S$ is a constant depending only on $S$. Further, by dividing the tube into pieces of length $\delta$, it is easy to see that the $(w+1)$-dimensional Hausdorff content of $T_{B,B'}(\delta)\cap B(0,S)$ is at most $C'_{S}\delta^{w}$, where again $C'_S$ depends only on $S$. With this in hand, the proof continues as the proof of Theorem \[thm:holder\], using the spherical projections $P_h(x)=h-x/|h-x|$ instead of the projections to $V^\perp$. Since the result holds for every $S>0$, so it works in whole ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
Hölder graphs and doubling measures
===================================
A Borel measure $\mu$ on a metric space $X$ is said to be doubling, if there is a constant $C>1$ so that $\mu( B(x,2r) ) \leq C \mu(B(x,r))$ for any $x\in X$ and $r>0$ (for us, $X$ will always be a Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^d$). A set is said to be *thin* if it is of zero measure for all doubling measures of the ambient space. For example, a simple density point argument shows that upper porous sets are thin. We refer the reader to [@OjalaRajalaSuomala2012; @WangWenWen2013] for further discussion and examples of thin sets. If a set is not thin, then we may say that it has positive doubling measure without specifying the measure.
As mentioned in the introduction, we can answer the question of whether all Hölder graphs are thin in the negative. By Theorem \[thm:holder\] or [@HuntKaloshin1999 Theorem 3.1] all that is needed is the existence of a set of small upper box dimension and positive doubling measure. The existence follows from [@KaenmakiRajalaSuomala2012], as explained in Remark \[rem:tapio\] below, but we prefer to exhibit a concrete self-similar example arising in [@GarnettKillipSchul2010] (in fact, this type of construction goes back even further to [@Wu1998]). For the reader’s convenience, we briefly revise the construction. For $\delta>0$ and a probability vector $p=(\delta,1-2\delta,\delta)$, let $\mu$ be the associated ternary Bernoulli (self-similar) measure on the unit interval, extended $1$-periodically to the real line. Since the weights on the sides are equal, the resulting measure is doubling. Given a dimension $d\ge 2$, let $\nu$ be the $d$-fold product $\mu\times\cdots\times\mu$, which is again doubling. See [@GarnettKillipSchul2010 §2.1] for the short proofs of these facts.
We use the convention that the ternary expansion of a number is the lexicographically smallest one, if there are two. Fix $n_1\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and choose $\delta$ so that $k_1:= 3\delta n_1 \in{\mathbb{N}}$, and let $k_\ell=\ell\cdot k_1$ for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Finally, set $S_L = \sum_{\ell=1}^L n_1\cdot \ell =n_1 \cdot L(L+1)/2$.
Now define $K$ to be the set of those points in $[0,1]$ whose ternary expansion contains at most $k_L$ zeros or twos between the positions $S_{L-1}+1$ and $S_L$ (we refer to $S_L$ as construction levels). In other words, let $x_j$ denote the $j$:th digit in the ternary expansion of $x$ and set $$K := \left\{ x\in [0,1] : x_j\in\{0,2\}\text{ for at most $k_L$ values of $j$ with $S_{L-1}< j \leq S_L$} \right\}.$$ Note that the constructions of $K, \mu$ and $\nu$ depend on the parameter $\delta$.
\[lem:GKSdimension\] The upper box dimension of $K$ can be made arbitrarily small
First of all, in the calculation of $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}$ it is enough to consider ternary intervals. At the construction levels $S_L$, we have the natural cover of $K$ by the ternary construction, and the number of intervals is at most $\exp\{ (k_1+\dots+k_L) (1+\log \delta^{-1}) \}$, as it follows from [@GarnettKillipSchul2010 Equation (2.6)]. For $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, set $j_m$ to be the difference from $m$ to the previous level of the construction. In other words, let $L_m$ be the largest integer so that $m-S_{L_m} =:j_m \geq 0$. Note that $j_m \leq (L_m + 1) n_1$. Also, $S_L\geq \tfrac12 L^2 n_1$ for large values of $L$ and so $m \geq\tfrac12 L_m^2 n_1$ for large values of $m$. Thus, letting $N(K,3^{-j})$ be the number of ternary intervals of side-length $3^{-j}$ that touch $K$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \log N(K,3^{-m}) }{ \log 3^m }
&\leq \frac{ \log [N(K,3^{-L_m}) 3^{j_m}] }{ m \log 3 }\\
&\leq \frac{ \log[ \exp\{ S_{L_m} 3\delta (1+\log \delta^{-1}) \}] + j_m \log 3 }{ m \log 3 } \\
&\leq \frac{3}{\log 3} \frac{S_{L_m}}{m} (\delta+\delta\log \delta^{-1}) + \frac{j_m}{ m } \\
&\leq \frac{3}{\log 3} (\delta+\delta\log \delta^{-1}) + \frac{2(L_m + 1) n_1}{L_m^2 n_1}\\
&\to \frac{3}{\log 3} (\delta+\delta\log \delta^{-1})
\end{aligned}$$ as $m\to\infty$. Since $(\delta+\delta\log \delta^{-1}) \to 0$ as $\delta\to 0$, for any ${\varepsilon}$ we can choose $\delta$ so that $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(K)\leq{\varepsilon}$.
It is (implicitly) shown in [@GarnettKillipSchul2010] that $\nu(K^d)>0$ (see, in particular, [@GarnettKillipSchul2010 Equation (2.5)]). In fact, the measure can be made arbitrarily close to one by choosing $n_1$ large enough. Since $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(K^d)\le d \operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(K)$, we get the following corollary of [@HuntKaloshin1999 Theorem 3.1] (and Theorem \[thm:holder\]):
\[cor:holderdoubling\] For any $d\in{\mathbb{N}}_{\ge 2}$ and $\gamma<1$, there are a $\gamma$-Hölder function $f:{\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ and a self-similar doubling measure $\nu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, so that the graph of $f$ has positive measure with respect to $\nu$.
\[rem:tapio\] The existence of sets with small upper box dimension and positive doubling measure also follows from [@KaenmakiRajalaSuomala2012], where it is shown that in any complete doubling metric space there are doubling measures giving full measure to a set of arbitrarily small packing dimension. In particular, in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, there is a doubling measure $\mu$ and a bounded set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ of positive measure, so that $\operatorname{dim_P}(A) \leq {\varepsilon}$. Since packing dimension can be defined in terms of upper box dimension, see for example [@Mattila1995 Section 5.9], one can choose $B\subset A$ so that $\mu(B) > 0$ and $\operatorname{\overline{dim}_B}(B) < 2{\varepsilon}$. We thank T. Rajala for this remark.
[^1]: ER acknowledges the supports of CONICET and the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
[^2]: PS was supported by PICT 2013-1393 and PICT 2014-1480 (ANPCyT)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Anders Johansen, Hubert Klahr'
- Thomas Henning
title: |
High-resolution simulations of planetesimal formation\
in turbulent protoplanetary discs
---
Introduction
============
The formation of km-scale planetesimals from dust particles involves a complex interplay of physical processes, including most importantly collisional sticking [@Weidenschilling1984; @Weidenschilling1997; @DullemondDominik2005], the self-gravity of the particle mid-plane layer [@Safronov1969; @GoldreichWard1973; @Sekiya1998; @YoudinShu2002; @SchraeplerHenning2004; @Johansen+etal2007], and the motion and structure of the turbulent protoplanetary disc gas [@WeidenschillingCuzzi1993; @Johansen+etal2006; @Cuzzi+etal2008].
In the initial growth stages micrometer-sized silicate monomers readily stick to form larger dust aggregates [@Poppe+etal2000; @BlumWurm2008]. Further growth towards macroscopic sizes is hampered by collisional fragmentation and bouncing [@Zsom+etal2010], limiting the maximum particle size to a few cm or less [depending on the assumed velocity threshold for collisional fragmentation, see @Brauer+etal2008a; @Birnstiel+etal2009]. High-speed collisions between small impactors and a large target constitutes a path to net growth [@Wurm+etal2005], but the transport of small particles away from the mid-plane by turbulent diffusion limits the resulting growth rate dramatically [@Johansen+etal2008]. Material properties are also important. [@Wada+etal2009] demonstrated efficient sticking between ice aggregates consisting of $0.1$ $\mu$m monomers at speeds up to 50 m/s.
Turbulence can play a positive role for growth by concentrating mm-sized particles in convection cells [@KlahrHenning1997] and between small-scale eddies [@Cuzzi+etal2008] occurring near the dissipative scale of the turbulence. Larger m-sized particles pile up on large scales (i.e. larger than the gas scale height) in long-lived geostrophic pressure bumps surrounded by axisymmetric zonal flows [@Johansen+etal2009a]. In the model presented in [@Johansen+etal2007] \[hereafter referred to as J07\], approximately meter-sized particles settle to form a thin mid-plane layer in balance between sedimentation and stirring by the gas which has developed turbulence through the magnetorotational instability [@BalbusHawley1991]. Particles then concentrate in nearly axisymmetric gas high-pressure regions which appear spontaneously in the turbulent flow [@FromangNelson2005; @Johansen+etal2006; @Lyra+etal2008a], reaching local column densities up to ten times the average. The passive concentration is augmented as particles locally accelerate the gas towards the Keplerian speed, which leads to accumulation of particles drifting rapidly in from exterior orbits [a manifestation of the streaming instability of @YoudinGoodman2005]. The gravitational attraction between the particles in the overdense regions becomes high enough to initiate first a slow radial contraction, and as the local mass density becomes comparable to the Roche density, a full non-axisymmetric collapse to form gravitationally bound clumps with masses comparable to the 950-km-diameter dwarf planet Ceres ($M_{\rm
Ceres}\approx9.4\times10^{20}\,{\rm kg}$). Such large planetesimal birth sizes are in agreement with constraints from the current observed size distribution of the asteroid belt [@Morbidelli+etal2009] and Neptune Trojans [@SheppardTrujillo2010].
Some of the open questions related to this picture of planetesimal formation is to what degree the results of [@Johansen+etal2007] are affected by the fact that self-gravity was turned on after particles had concentrated in a pressure bumps and how the emergence and amplitude of pressure bumps are affected by numerical resolution. In this paper we present high-resolution and long-time-integration simulations of planetesimal formation in turbulence caused by the magnetorotational instability (MRI). We find that the large-scale geostrophic pressure bumps that are responsible for particle concentration are sustained when going from moderate ($256^3$) to high ($512^3$) resolution. Particle concentration in these pressure bumps is also relatively independent on resolution. We present a long-time-integration simulation performed at moderate resolution ($256^3$) where particles and self-gravity are started at the same time, in contrast to earlier simulations where self-gravity was not turned on until a strong concentration event occurred (J07). We also study the initial burst of planetesimal formation at $512^3$ resolution. We present evidence for collisions between gravitationally bound clumps, observed at both moderate and high resolution, and indications that the Initial Mass Function of gravitationally bound clumps involves masses ranging from a significant fraction of to several times the mass mass of Ceres. We point out that the physical nature of the collisions is unclear, since our numerical algorithm does not allow clumps to contract below the grid size. Gravitational scattering and binary formation are other possible outcomes of the close encounters, in case of resolved dynamics. Finding the Initial Mass Function of planetesimals forming from the gravitationally bound clumps will ultimately require an improved algorithm for the dynamics and interaction of bound clumps as well as the inclusion of particle shattering and coagulation during the gravitational contraction.
The paper is organised as follows. In [Sect. \[s:equations\]]{} we describe the dynamical equations for gas and particles. [Sect. \[s:code\]]{} contains descriptions of a number of improvements made to the Pencil Code in order to be able to perform particle-mesh simulations at up to at least 4096 cores. In [Sect. \[s:parameters\]]{} we explain the choice of simulation parameters. The evolution of gas turbulence and large-scale pressure bumps is analysed in [Sect. \[s:gas\]]{}. Particle concentration in simulations with no self-gravity is described in [Sect. \[s:particles\]]{}. Simulations including particle self-gravity are presented in [Sect. \[s:sgmod\]]{} ($256^3$ resolution) and [Sect. \[s:sghigh\]]{} ($512^3$ resolution). We summarise the paper and discuss the implications of our results in [Sect. \[s:discussion\]]{}.
Dynamical equations {#s:equations}
===================
We perform simulations solving the standard shearing box MHD/drag force/self-gravity equations for gas defined on a fixed grid and solid particles evolved as numerical superparticles. We use the Pencil Code, a sixth order spatial and third order temporal symmetric finite difference code[^1].
We model the dynamics of a protoplanetary disc in the shearing box approximation. The coordinate frame rotates at the Keplerian frequency $\varOmega$ at an arbitrary distance $r_0$ from the central star. The axes are oriented such that the $x$ points radially away from the central gravity source, $y$ points along the Keplerian flow, while $z$ points vertically out of the plane.
Gas velocity
------------
The equation of motion for the gas velocity ${{\boldsymbol u}}$ relative to the Keplerian flow is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eqmot}
\frac{{\partial}{{\boldsymbol u}}}{{\partial}t} +
({{\boldsymbol u}} \cdot {{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}) {{\boldsymbol u}} + u_y^{(0)} \frac{{\partial}{{\boldsymbol u}}}{{\partial}y} &=& 2
\varOmega u_y {{\boldsymbol e}}_x - \frac{1}{2} \varOmega u_x {{\boldsymbol e}}_y + 2 \varOmega
\Delta v {{\boldsymbol e}}_x \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{1}{\rho} {{\boldsymbol J}} \times
({{\boldsymbol B}}+B_0\hat{{{\boldsymbol z}}}) - \frac{1}{\rho}
{{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}P -\frac{\rho_{\rm p}/\rho_{\rm g}}{\tau_{\rm f}}
({{\boldsymbol u}}-\overline{{{\boldsymbol v}}}) + {{\boldsymbol f}}_\nu({{\boldsymbol u}}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The left hand side includes advection both by the velocity field ${{\boldsymbol u}}$ itself and by the linearised Keplerian flow $u_y^{(0)}=-(3/2)\varOmega x$. The first two terms on the right hand side represent the Coriolis force in the $x$- and $y$-directions, modified in the $y$-component by the radial advection of the Keplerian flow, $\dot{u}_y=-u_x {\partial}u_y^{(0)}/{\partial}x$. The third term mimics a global radial pressure gradient which reduces the orbital speed of the gas by the positive amount $\Delta v$. The fourth and fifth terms in [Eq. (\[eq:eqmot\])]{} are the Lorentz and pressure gradient forces. The current density is calculated from Ampère’s law $\mu_0{{\boldsymbol J}}={{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}\times{{\boldsymbol B}}$. The Lorentz force is modified to take into account a mean vertical field component of strength $B_0$. The sixth term is a drag force term is described in Sect.\[s:drag\].
The high-order numerical scheme of the Pencil Code has very little numerical dissipation from time-stepping the advection term [@Brandenburg2003], so we add explicit viscosity through the term ${{\boldsymbol f}}_\nu({{\boldsymbol u}})$ in [Eq. (\[eq:eqmot\])]{}. We use sixth order hyperviscosity with a constant dynamic viscosity $\mu_3=\nu_3\rho$, $${{\boldsymbol f}}_\nu = \frac{\mu_3}{\rho_{\rm g}} \nabla^6 {{\boldsymbol u}} \, .$$ This form of the viscosity conserves momentum. The $\nabla^6$ operator is defined as $\nabla^6={\partial}^6/{\partial}x^6 + {\partial}^6/{\partial}y^6 + {\partial}^6/{\partial}z^6$. It was shown by [@Johansen+etal2009a] that hyperviscosity simulations show zonal flows and pressure bumps very similar to simulations using Navier-Stokes viscosity.
Gas density
-----------
The continuity equation for the gas density $\rho$ is $$\frac{{\partial}\rho}{{\partial}t} + ({{\boldsymbol u}} \cdot {{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}) \rho + u_y^{(0)} \frac{{\partial}\rho }{{\partial}y} = -\rho {{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}\cdot {{\boldsymbol u}} + f_D(\rho) \, .$$ The diffusion term is defined as $$f_{\rm D} = D_3 \nabla^6 \rho \, ,$$ where $D_3$ is the hyperdiffusion coefficient necessary to suppress Nyquist scale wiggles arising in regions where the spatial density variation is high. We adopt an isothermal equation of state with pressure $P=c_{\rm s}^2 \rho$ and (constant) sound speed $c_{\rm s}$.
Induction equation
------------------
The induction equation for the magnetic vector potential ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ is [see @Brandenburg+etal1995 for details] $$\frac{{\partial}{{\boldsymbol A}}}{{\partial}t} + u_y^{(0)} \frac{{\partial}{{\boldsymbol A}}}{{\partial}y} =
{{\boldsymbol u}}\times({{\boldsymbol B}}+B_0\hat{{{\boldsymbol z}}}) + \frac{3}{2} \varOmega A_y
\hat{{{\boldsymbol x}}} + {{\boldsymbol f}}_\eta({{\boldsymbol A}}) \, .$$ The resistivity term is $${{\boldsymbol f}}_\eta = \eta_3 \nabla^6 {{\boldsymbol A}} \, ,$$ where $\eta_3$ is the hyperresistivity coefficient. The magnetic field is calculated from ${{\boldsymbol B}}={{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}\times{{\boldsymbol A}}$.
Particles and drag force scheme {#s:drag}
-------------------------------
The dust component is treated as a number of individual superparticles, the position ${{\boldsymbol x}}$ and velocity ${{\boldsymbol v}}$ of each evolved according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eqmotpar}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{{\boldsymbol x}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} &=& {{\boldsymbol v}} - \frac{3}{2} \varOmega x
{{\boldsymbol e}}_y \, , \\
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{{\boldsymbol v}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} &=&
2 \varOmega v_y {{\boldsymbol e}}_x - \frac{1}{2} \varOmega v_x {{\boldsymbol e}}_y + {{{\boldsymbol \nabla}}}\varPhi - \frac{1}{\tau_{\rm f}} ({{\boldsymbol v}}-\overline{{{\boldsymbol u}}}) \, .
\label{eq:dvpdt}\end{aligned}$$ The particles feel no pressure or Lorentz forces, but are subjected to the gravitational potential $\varPhi$ of their combined mass. Particle collisions are taken into account as well (see Sect. \[s:coll\] below).
Two-way drag forces between gas defined on a fixed grid and Lagrangian particles are calculated through a particle-mesh method [see @YoudinJohansen2007 for details]. First the gas velocity field is interpolated to the position of a particle, using second order spline interpolation. The drag force on the particle is then trivial to calculate. To ensure momentum conservation we then take the drag force and add it with the opposite sign among the 27 nearest grid points, using the Triangular Shaped Cloud scheme to ensure momentum conservation in the assignment [@HockneyEastwood1981].
Units
-----
All simulations are run with natural units, meaning that we set $c_{\rm
s}=\varOmega=\mu_0=\rho_0=1$. Here $\rho_0$ represents the mid-plane gas density, which in our unstratified simulations is the same as the mean density in the box. The time and velocity units are thus $[t]=\varOmega^{-1}$ and $[v]=c_{\rm s}$. The derived unit of the length is the scale height $H\equiv
c_{\rm s}/\varOmega=[l]$. The magnetic field unit is $[B]=c_{\rm
s}\sqrt{\mu_0\rho_0}$.
Self-gravity
------------
The gravitational attraction between the particles is calculated by first assigning the particle mass density $\rho_{\rm p}$ on the grid, using the Triangular Shaped Cloud scheme described above. Then the gravitational potential $\varPhi$ at the grid points is found by inverting the Poisson equation $$\nabla^2 \varPhi = 4 \pi G \rho_{\rm p}$$ using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method (see online supplement of J07). Finally the self-potential of the particles is interpolated to the positions of the particles and the acceleration added to the particle equation of motion (Eq. \[eq:dvpdt\]). We define the strength of self-gravity through the dimensionless parameter $$\tilde{G} = \frac{4 \pi G}{\varOmega^2/\rho_0} \, ,$$ where $\rho_0$ is the gas density in the mid-plane. This is practical since all simulations are run with $\varOmega=\rho_0=c_{\rm s}=1$. Using $\varSigma_{\rm
g}=\sqrt{2\pi} \rho_0 H$ for the gas column density, we obtain a connection between the dimensionless $\tilde{G}$ and the relevant dimensional parameters of the box, $$\label{eq:Sigma}
\varSigma_{\rm g} = 3600 \tilde{G}\,{\rm g\,cm^{-2}}
\left( \frac{H/r}{0.05} \right) \left( \frac{M_\star}{\rm M_\odot}
\right) \left( \frac{r}{5\,{\rm AU}} \right)^{-2} \, .$$ We assume a standard ratio of particle to gas column densities of 0.01. The self-gravity of the gas is ignored in both the Poisson equation and the gas equation of motion.
Collisions {#s:coll}
----------
Particle collisions become important inside dense particle clumps. In J07 the effect of particle collisions was included in a rather crude way by reducing the relative rms speed of particles inside a grid cell on the collisional time-scale, to mimic collisional cooling. Recently [@Rein+etal2010] found that the inclusion of particle collisions suppresses condensation of small scale clumps from the turbulent flow and favours the formation of larger structures.
[@Rein+etal2010] claimed that the lack of collisions is an inherent flaw in the superparticle approach. However, [@LithwickChiang2007] presented a scheme for the collisional evolution of particle rings whereby the collision between two particles occupying the same grid cell is determined by drawing a random number (to determine whether the two particles are at the same vertical position). We have extended this algorithm to model collisions between superparticles based on a Monte Carlo algorithm. We obtain the correct collision frequency by letting nearby superparticle pairs collide on the average once per collisional time-scale of the swarms of physical particles represented by each superparticle.
We have implemented the superparticle collision algorithm in the Pencil Code and will present detailed numerical tests that show its validity in a paper in preparation (Johansen, Youdin, & Lithwick, in preparation). The algorithm gives each particle a chance to interact with all other particles in the same grid cell. The characteristic time-scale $\tau_{\rm coll}^{(ij)}=1/(n_j
\sigma_{ij} \delta v_{ij})$ for a representative particle in the swarm of superparticle $i$ to collide with any particle from the swarm represented by superparticle $j$ is calculated by considering the number density $n_j$ represented by each superparticle, the collisional cross section $\sigma_{ij}$ of two swarm particles, and the relative speed $\delta v_{ij}$ of the two superparticles. For each possible collision a random number $P$ is chosen. If $P$ is smaller than $\delta t/\tau_{\rm coll}$, where $\delta t$ is the time-step set by magnetohydrodynamics, then the two particles collide. The collision outcome is determined as if the two superparticles were actual particles with radii large enough to touch each other. By solving for momentum conservation and energy conservation, with the possibility for inelastic collisions to dissipate kinetic energy to heat and deformation, the two colliding particles acquire their new velocity vectors instantaneously.
All simulations include collisions with a coefficient of restitution of $\epsilon=0.3$ [e.g @BlumMuench1993], meaning that each collision leads to the dissipation of approximately 90% of the relative kinetic energy to deformation and heating of the colliding boulders. We include particle collisions here to obtain a more complete physical modelling. Detailed tests and analysis of the effect of particle collisions on clumping and gravitational collapse will appear in a future publication (Johansen, Youdin, & Lithwick, in preparation).
Computing resources and code optimisation {#s:code}
=========================================
For this project we were kindly granted access to 4096 cores on the “Jugene” Blue Gene/P system at the Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) for a total of five months. Each core at the BlueGene/P has a clock speed of around 800 MHz. The use of the Pencil Code on several thousand cores required both trivial and more fundamental changes to the code. We describe these technical improvements in detail in this appendix.
In the following [nxgrid]{}, [nygrid]{}, [nzgrid]{} refer to the full grid dimension of the problem. We denote the processor number by [ncpus]{} and the directional processor numbers as [nprocx]{}, [nprocy]{}, [nprocz]{}.
Changes made to the Pencil Code
-------------------------------
### Memory optimisation {#s:memory}
![Scaling test for particle-mesh problem with $512^3$ grid cells and $64\times10^6$ particles. The particles are distributed evenly over the grid, so that each core has the same number of particles. The inverse code speed is normalised by the number of time-steps and by either the total number of grid points and particles (top panel) or by the number of grid points and particles per core (bottom panel).[]{data-label="f:timings"}](timings.eps){width="8.7cm"}
We had to remove several uses of [*global*]{} arrays, i.e. 2-D or 3-D arrays of linear size equal to the full grid. This mostly affected certain special initial conditions and boundary conditions. An additional problem was the use of an array of size [(ncpus,ncpus)]{} in the particle communication. This array was replaced by a 1-D array with no problems.
The runtime calculation of 2-D averages (e.g. gas and particle column density) was done in such a way that the whole [(nxgrid,nygrid)]{} array was collected at the root processor in an array of size [(nxgrid,nygrid,ncpus)]{}, before appending a chunk of size [(nxgrid,nygrid)]{} to an output file. The storage array, used for programming convenience in collecting the 2-D average from all the relevant cores, became excessively large at high resolution and processor numbers, and we abandoned the previous method in favour of saving chunks of the column density array into separate files, each maintained by the root processors in the $z$-direction. A similar method was implemented for $y$-averages and $x$-averages.
![Code speed as a function of simulation time (top panel) and maximum particle number on any core (bottom panel) for $256^3$ resolution on 2048 cores. Standard domain decomposition (SDD) quickly becomes unbalanced with particles and achieves only the speed of the particle-laden mid-plane cores. With the Particle Block Domain Decomposition (PBDD) scheme the speed stays close to its optimal value, and the particle number per core (bottom panel) does not rise much beyond $10^4$.[]{data-label="f:speed_t"}](speed_t.eps){width="8.7cm"}
The above-mentioned global arrays had been used in the code for programming convenience and did not imply excessive memory usage at moderate resolution and processor numbers. Purging those arrays in favour of loops or smaller 1-D arrays was relatively straight-forward.
### Particle migration {#s:parmig}
At the end of a sub-time-step each processor checks if any particles have left its spatial domain. Information about the number of migrating particles, and the processors that they will migrate into, is collected at each processor. The Pencil Code would then let all processors exchange migrating particles with all other processors. In practice particles would of course only migrate to neighbouring processors. However, at processor numbers of 512 or higher, the communication load associated with each processor telling all other processors how many particles it wanted to send (mostly zero) was so high that it dominated over both the MHD and the particle evolution equations. Since particles in practice only migrate to the neighbouring processors any way, we solved this problem by letting the processors only communicate the number of migrating particles to the immediate neighbours. Shear-periodic boundary conditions require a (simple) algorithm to determine the three neighbouring processors over the shearing boundary in the beginning of each sub-time-step.
Timings
-------
With the changes described in Sect. \[s:memory\] and Sect. \[s:parmig\] the Pencil Code can be run with gas and particles efficiently at several thousand processors, provided that the particles are well-mixed with the gas.
Run $L_x \times L_y \times L_z$ $N_x \times N_y \times N_z$ $\nu_3=D_3=\eta_3$ $B_0$ $\beta$ $\Delta v$ $\tilde{G}$ $\Delta t$ $t_{\rm par}$ $t_{\rm grav,1}$ $t_{\rm grav,2}$
----- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------- ---------- --------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------------ ------------------
M1 $(1.32)^3$ $256^3$ $2\times10^{-14}$ $0.0015$ $9\times10^5$ $0.05$ N/A $40.0$ N/A N/A N/A
M2 $(1.32)^3$ $256^3$ $2\times10^{-14}$ $0.003$ $2\times10^5$ $0.05$ $0.5$ $40.0$ $20.0$ $20.0$ $33.0$
H $(1.32)^3$ $512^3$ $7\times10^{-16}$ $0.0015$ $9\times10^5$ $0.05$ $0.5$ $40.0$ $32.0$ $35.0$ $37.0$
The first column gives the name of the simulation, while the box size and the grid resolution are given in the following two columns. The next column gives the hyperdiffusivity coefficients. The next two columns give the mean vertical magnetic field and the corresponding plasma-$\beta$. The next column gives the sub-Keplerian velocity difference. The following column shows the particle self-gravity parameter $\tilde{G}$. The last four columns give the total simulation time, the time when particles were released, and the times at which self-gravity was started and self-gravity simulations were stopped. \[t:parameters\]
In [Fig. \[f:timings\]]{} we show timings for a test problem with $512^3$ grid cells and $64\times10^6$ particles. The particles are distributed evenly over the grid, avoiding load balancing challenges described below. We evolve gas and particles for 1000 time-steps, the gas and particles subject to standard shearing box hydrodynamics and two-way drag forces. The lines show various drag force schemes – NGP corresponding to Nearest Grid Point and TSC to Triangular Shaped Cloud [@HockneyEastwood1981]. We achieve near perfect scaling up to 4096 cores. Including self-gravity by a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) method the code slows down by approximately a factor of two, but the scaling is only marginally worse than optimal, with less than 50% slowdown at 4096 cores. This must be seen in the light of the fact that 3-D FFTs involve several transpositions of the global density array, each transposition requiring the majority of grid points to be communicated to another processor (see online supplement of J07).
Particle parallelisation
------------------------
At high resolution it becomes increasingly more important to parallelise efficiently along at least two directions. In earlier publications we had run $256^3$ simulations at 64 processors, with the domain decomposition [nprocy=32]{} and [nprocz=2]{} (J07). Using two processors along the $z$-direction exploits the intrinsic mid-plane symmetry of the particle distribution, while the Keplerian shear suppresses most particle density variation in the azimuthal direction, so that any processor has approximately the same number of particles.
However, at higher resolution we need to either have [nprocz>2]{} or [nprocx>1]{}, both of which is subject to particle clumping (from either sedimentation or from radial concentrations). This would in some cases slow down the code by a factor of 8-10. We therefore developed an improved particle parallelisation, which we denote [*Particle Block Domain Decomposition*]{} (PBDD). This new algorithm is described in detail in the following subsection.
### Particle Block Domain Decomposition
The steps in Particle Block Domain Decomposition scheme are as follows:
1. The fixed mesh points are domain-decomposed in the usual way (with [ ncpus]{}=[nprocx]{}$\times$[nprocy]{}$\times$[nprocz]{}).
2. Particles on each processor are counted in [*bricks*]{} of size [ nbx]{}$\times$[nby]{}$\times$[nbz]{} (typically [nbx]{}$=$[ nby]{}$=$[nbz]{}$=$[4]{}).
3. Bricks are distributed among the processors so that each processor has approximately the same number of particles
4. Adopted bricks are referred to as [*blocks*]{}.
5. The Pencil Code uses a third order Runge-Kutta time-stepping scheme. In the beginning of each sub-time-step particles are counted in blocks and the block counts communicated to the bricks on the parent processors. The particle density assigned to ghost cells is folded across the grid, and the final particle density (defined on the bricks) is communicated back to the adopted blocks. This step is necessary because the drag force time-step depends on the particle density, and each particle assigns density not just to the nearest grid point, but also to the neighbouring grid points.
6. In the beginning of each sub-time-step the gas density and gas velocity field is communicated from the main grid to the adopted particle blocks.
7. Drag forces are added to particles and back to the gas grid points in the adopted blocks. This partition aims at load balancing the calculation of drag forces.
8. At the end of each sub-time-step the drag force contribution to the gas velocity field is communicated from the adopted blocks back to the main grid.
To illustrate the advantage of this scheme we show in [Fig. \[f:speed\_t\]]{} the instantaneous code speed for a problem where the particles have sedimented to the mid-plane of the disc. The grid resolution is $256^3$ and we run on 2048 cores, with 64 cores in the $y$-direction $32$ cores in the $z$-direction. The blue (black) line shows the results of running with standard domain decomposition, while the orange (grey) line shows the speed with the improved Particle Block Domain Decomposition scheme. Due to the concentration of particles in the mid-plane the standard domain decomposition leaves many cores with few or no particles, giving poor load balancing. This problem is alleviated by the use of the PBDD scheme (orange/grey line).
PBDD works well as long as the single blocks do not achieve higher particle density than the optimally distributed particle number ${\tt
npar}/{\tt ncpus}$. In the case of strong clumping, e.g. due to self-gravity, the scheme is no longer as efficient. In such extreme cases one should ideally limit the local particle number in clumps by using sink particles.
Simulation parameters {#s:parameters}
=====================
The main simulations of the paper focus on the dynamics and self-gravity of solid particles moving in a gas flow which has developed turbulence through the magnetorotational instability [@BalbusHawley1991]. We have performed two moderate-resolution simulations (with $256^3$ grid points and $8\times10^6$ particles) and one high-resolution simulation ($512^3$ grid points and $64\times10^6$ particles). Simulation parameters are given in Table \[t:parameters\]. We use a cubic box of dimensions $(1.32 H)^3$.
Note that we use a sub-Keplerian speed difference of $\Delta v=0.05$ which is higher than $\Delta v=0.02$ presented in the main paper of J07. The ability of pressure bumps to trap particles is generally reduced with increasing $\Delta
v$ (see online supplementary information for J07). Particle clumping by streaming instabilities also becomes less efficient as $\Delta v$ is increased [J07, @BaiStone2010c]. Estimates of the radial pressure support in discs can be extracted from models of column density and temperature structure. A gas parcel orbiting at a radial distance $r$ from the star, where the disc aspect ratio is $H/r$ and the mid-plane radial pressure gradient is ${\mathrm{d}}\ln P/{\mathrm{d}}\ln r$, orbits at a sub-Keplerian speed $v=v_{\rm K}-\Delta v$. The speed reduction $\Delta v$ is given by $$\frac{\Delta v}{c_{\rm s}} = -\frac{1}{2} \frac{H}{r} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}\ln P}{{\mathrm{d}}\ln r} \, .$$ In the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula of [@Hayashi1981] ${\mathrm{d}}\ln P/{\mathrm{d}}\ln
r=-3.25$ in the mid-plane [e.g. @Youdin2008]. The resulting scaling of the sub-Keplerian speed with the orbital distance is $$\frac{\Delta v}{c_{\rm s}} \approx 0.05 \left( \frac{r}{\rm AU} \right)^{1/4}
\, .$$ The slightly colder disc model used by [@Brauer+etal2008a] yields instead $$\frac{\Delta v}{c_{\rm s}} \approx 0.04 \left( \frac{r}{\rm AU} \right)^{1/4}
\, .$$ In more complex disc models the pressure profile is changed e.g. in interfaces between regions of weak and strong turbulence [@Lyra+etal2008b]. We use throughout this paper a fixed value of $\Delta v/c_{\rm s}=0.05$.
Another difference from the simulations of J07 is that the turbulent viscosity of the gas flow is around 2-3 times higher, because of the increased turbulent viscosity when going from $256^3$ to $512^3$ (see [Sect. \[s:gas\]]{}). Therefore we had to use a stronger gravity in this paper, $\tilde{G}=0.5$ compared to $\tilde{G}=0.2$ in J07, to see bound particle clumps (planetesimals) forming. We discuss the implications of using a higher disc mass further in our conclusions.
In all simulations we divide the particle component into four size bins, with friction time $\varOmega\tau_{\rm f}=0.25,0.50,0.75,1.00$, respectively. The particles drift radially because of the headwind from the gas orbiting at velocity $u_y=-\Delta v$ relative to the Keplerian flow [@Weidenschilling1977a]. It is important to consider a distribution of particle sizes, since the dependence of the radial drift on the particle sizes can have a negative impact on the ability of the particle mid-plane layer to undergo gravitational collapse [@Weidenschilling1995].
The Minimum Mass Solar Nebula has column density $\varSigma_{\rm g}=1700(r/{\rm
AU})^{-1.5}\,{\rm g\,cm^{-2}} \approx150\,{\rm g\,cm^{-2}}$ at $r=5\,{\rm AU}$ [@Hayashi1981], and thus $\tilde{G}=0.042$ according to [Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\])]{}. Since we use $\sim$10 times higher value for $\tilde{G}$, the mean free path of gas molecules is only $\lambda$$\sim$$10\,{\rm cm}$. Therefore our choice of dimensionless friction times $\varOmega\tau_{\rm f}=0.25,0.50,0.75,1.00$ puts particles in the Stokes drag force regime [@Weidenschilling1977a]. Here the friction time is independent of gas density, and the Stokes number $\varOmega\tau_{\rm f}$ is proportional to particle radius [*squared*]{}, so $\varOmega\tau_{\rm f}=0.25,0.50,0.75,1.00$ correspond to physical particle sizes ranging from $40\,{\rm cm}$ to $80\,{\rm cm}$ (see online supplement of J07). Scaling [Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\])]{} to more distant orbital locations gives smaller physical particles and a gas column density closer to the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula value, since self-gravity is more efficient in regions where the rotational support is lower.
There are several points to be raised about our protoplanetary disc model. The high self-gravity parameter that we use implies not only a very high column density, but also that the gas component is close to gravitational instability. The self-gravity parameter $\tilde{G}$ is connected to the more commonly used $Q$ [where $Q>1$ is the axisymmetric stability criterion for a flat disc in Keplerian rotation, see @Safronov1960; @Toomre1964] through $\tilde{G}\approx1.6 Q^{-1}$. Thus we have $Q\approx3.2$, which means that gas self-gravity should start to affect the dynamics (the disc is not formally gravitationally unstable, but the disc is massive enough to slow down the propagation of sound waves). Another issue with such a massive disc is our assumption of ideal MHD. The high gas column density decreases the ionisation by cosmic rays and X-rays and increases the recombination rate on dust grains [@Sano+etal2000; @Fromang+etal2002]. [@LesurLongaretti2007; @LesurLongaretti2010] have furthermore shown that the ratio of viscosity to resistivity, the magnetic Prandtl number, affects both small-scale and large-scale dynamics of saturated magnetorotational turbulence. Ideally all these effects should be taken into account. However, in this paper we choose to focus on the dynamics of solid particles in gas turbulence. Thus we include many physical effects that are important for particles (drag forces, self-gravity, collisions), while we ignore many other effects that would determine the occurrence and strength of gas turbulence. This approach allows us to perform numerical experiments which yield insight into planetesimal formation with relatively few free parameters.
![Maxwell and Reynolds stresses as a function of time. The Reynolds stress is approximately five times lower than the Maxwell stress. There is a marked increase in the turbulent stresses when increasing the resolution from $256^3$ to $512^3$ at a fixed mean vertical field $B_0=0.0015$, likely due to better resolution of the most unstable MRI wavelength at higher resolution. Using $B_0=0.003$ at $256^3$ gives turbulence properties more similar to $512^3$.[]{data-label="f:stress_t"}](stress_t.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Initial conditions
------------------
The gas is initialised to have unit density everywhere in the box. The magnetic field is constant ${{\boldsymbol B}}=B_0 \hat{{{\boldsymbol e}}}_z$. The gas velocity field is set to be sub-Keplerian with $u_y=-\Delta v$, and we furthermore perturb all components of the velocity field by small random fluctuations with amplitude $\delta v=0.001$, to seed modes that are unstable to the magnetorotational instability. In simulations with particles we give particles random initial positions and zero velocity.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Gas evolution {#s:gas}
=============
We start by describing the evolution of gas without particles, since the large-scale geostrophic pressure bumps appearing in the gas controls particle concentration and thus the overall ability for planetesimals to form by self-gravity. The most important agent for driving gas dynamics is the magnetorotational instability [MRI, @BalbusHawley1991] which exhibits dynamical growth when the vertical component of the magnetic field is not too weak or too strong. The non-stratified MRI saturates to a state of non-linear subsonic fluctuations [e.g. @Hawley+etal1995]. In this state there is an outward angular momentum flux through hydrodynamical Reynolds stresses $\langle \rho u_x u_y \rangle$ and magnetohydrodynamical Maxwell stresses $\langle -\mu_0^{-1} B_x B_y \rangle$.
In [Fig. \[f:stress\_t\]]{} we show the Maxwell and Reynolds stresses as a function of time. Using a mean vertical field of $B_0=0.0015$ (corresponding to plasma-beta of $\beta\approx9\times10^5$) the turbulent viscosity almost triples when going from $256^3$ to $512^3$ grid points. This is in stark contrast with zero net flux simulations that show decreasing turbulence with increasing resolution [@FromangPapaloizou2007]. We interpret the behaviour of our simulations as an effect of underresolving the most unstable wavelength of the magnetorotational instability. Considering a vertical magnetic field of constant strength $B_0$, the most unstable wave number of the MRI is [@BalbusHawley1991] $$k_z = \sqrt{\frac{15}{16}}
\frac{\varOmega}{v_{\rm A}} \, ,$$ where $v_{\rm
A}=B_0/\sqrt{\mu_0 \rho_0}$ is the Alfvén speed. The most unstable wavelength is $\lambda_z=2\pi/k_z$. For $B_0=0.0015$ we get $\lambda_z \approx0.01 H$. The resolution elements are $\delta x\approx0.005 H$ at $256^3$ and $\delta
x\approx0.0026 H$ at $512^3$. Thus we get a significant improvement in the resolution of the most unstable wavelength when going from $256^3$ to $512^3$ grid points. Other authors [@Simon+etal2009; @Yang+etal2009] have reported a similar increase in turbulent activity of net-flux simulations with increasing resolution. Our simulations show that this increase persists up to at least $\beta\approx9\times10^5$.
The original choice of $B_0=0.0015$ was made in J07 in order to prevent the turbulent viscosity from dropping below $\alpha=0.001$. However, we can not obtain the same turbulent viscosity (i.e. $\alpha\sim0.001$) at higher resolution, given the same $B_0$. For this reason we did all $256^3$ experiments on particle dynamics and self-gravity with $B_0=0.003$ ($\beta\approx2\times10^5$), yielding approximately the same turbulent viscosity as in the high-resolution simulation.
The Reynolds and Maxwell stresses can be translated into an average turbulent viscosity [following the notation of @Brandenburg+etal1995], $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \rho u_x u_y \rangle &=& \frac{3}{2} \varOmega \nu_{\rm t}^{\rm
(kin)} \langle \rho \rangle \, , \label{eq:nutkin} \\
-\frac{1}{\mu_0} \langle B_x B_y \rangle &=& \frac{3}{2} \varOmega \nu_{\rm
t}^{\rm (mag)} \langle \rho \rangle \, . \label{eq:nutmag}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\nu_{\rm t}^{\rm (kin)}$ and $\nu_{\rm t}^{\rm (mag)}$ are the turbulent viscosities due to the velocity field and the magnetic field, respectively. We can further normalise the turbulent viscosities by the sound speed $c_{\rm s}$ and gas scale height $H$ [@ShakuraSunyaev1973], $$\alpha = \frac{1}{c_{\rm s} H} \left[ \nu_{\rm t}^{\rm (kin)} + \nu_{\rm
t}^{\rm (mag)} \right] \, .$$ We thus find a turbulent viscosity of $\alpha\approx0.001$, $\alpha\approx0.0022$, and $\alpha\approx0.003$ for runs M1, M2, and H, respectively.
The combination of radial pressure support and two-way drag forces allows systematic relative motion between gas and particles, which is unstable to the streaming instability [@YoudinGoodman2005; @YoudinJohansen2007; @JohansenYoudin2007; @Miniati2010; @BaiStone2010a; @BaiStone2010b]. Streaming instabilities and magnetorotational instabilities can operate in concurrence [J07, @Balsara+etal2009; @Tilley+etal2010]. However, we find that particles concentrate in high-pressure bumps forming due to the MRI, so that streaming instabilities are a secondary effect in the simulations. A necessity for the streaming instability to operate is a solids-to-gas ratio that is locally at least unity. The particle density in the mid-plane layer is reduced by turbulent diffusion (which is mostly caused by the MRI), so in this way an increase in the strength of MRI turbulence can reduce the importance of the SI. Even though streaming instabilities do not appear to be the main driver of particle concentration in our simulations, the back-reaction drag force of the particles on the gas can potentially play a role during the gravitational contraction phase where local particle column densities get very high. The high gas column density needed for gravitational collapse in the current paper may also in reality preclude activity by the magnetorotational instability, given the low ionisation level in the mid-plane, which would make the streaming instability the more likely path to clumping and planetesimal formation.
Pressure bumps
--------------
An important feature of magnetorotational turbulence is the emergence of large-scale slowly overturning pressure bumps [@FromangNelson2005; @Johansen+etal2006]. Such pressure bumps form with a zonal flow envelope due to random excitation of the zonal flow by large-scale variations in the Maxwell stress [@Johansen+etal2009a]. Variations in the mean field magnitude and direction has also been shown to lead to the formation of pressure bumps in the interface region between weak and strong turbulence [@Kato+etal2009; @Kato+etal2010]. Pressure bumps can also be launched by a radial variation in resistivity, e.g. at the edges of dead zones [@Lyra+etal2008b; @Dzyurkevich+etal2010].
Large particles – pebbles, rocks, and boulders – are attracted to the center of pressure bumps, because of the drag force associated with the sub-Keplerian/super-Keplerian zonal flow envelope. In presence of a mean radial pressure gradient the trapping zone is slightly downstream of the pressure bump, where there is a local maximum in the combined pressure.
An efficient way to detect pressure bumps is to average the gas density field over the azimuthal and vertical directions. In [Fig. \[f:rhomx\_t\]]{} we show the gas column density in the $256^3$ and $512^3$ simulations averaged over the $y$-direction, as a function of time. Large-scale pressure bumps are clearly visible, with spatial correlation times of approximately 10-20 orbits. The pressure bump amplitude is around 1%, independent of both resolution and strength of the external field. Larger boxes have been shown to result in higher-amplitude and longer-lived pressure bumps [@Johansen+etal2009a]. We limit ourselves in this paper to a relatively small box, where we can achieve high resolution of the gravitational collapse, but plan to model planetesimal formation in larger boxes in the future.
![The particle column density averaged over the azimuthal direction, as a function of radial coordinate $x$ and time $t$ in orbits. The starting time was chosen to be slightly prior to the emergence of a pressure bump (compare with left-most and right-most plots of [Fig. \[f:rhomx\_t\]]{}). The particles concentrate slightly downstream of the gas pressure bump, with a maximum column density between three and four times the mean particle column density. The particles are between 40 and 80 cm in radius (i.e. boulders) for our adopted disc model.[]{data-label="f:rhopmx_t"}](rhopmx_t.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Particle evolution {#s:particles}
==================
We release the particles at a time when the turbulence has saturated, but choose a time when there is no significant large-scale pressure bump present. Thus we choose $t=20T_{\rm orb}$ for the $256^3$ simulation and $t=32T_{\rm
orb}$ for the $512^3$ simulation (see left-most and right-most plot of [Fig. \[f:rhomx\_t\]]{}). In the particle simulations we always use a mean vertical field $B_0=0.003$ at $256^3$ to get a turbulent viscosity more similar to $512^3$. The four friction time bins ($\varOmega\tau_{\rm
f}=0.25$,$0.50$,$0.75$,$1.00$) correspond to particle sizes between 40 and 80 cm.
{width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"}
{width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"} {width="0.39\linewidth"}
The particles immediately fall towards the mid-plane of the disc, before finding a balance between sedimentation and turbulent stirring. [Fig. \[f:rhopmx\_t\]]{} shows how the presence of gas pressure bumps has a dramatic influence on particle dynamics. The particles display column density concentrations of up to 4 times the average density just downstream of the pressure bumps. At this point the gas moves close to Keplerian, because the (positive) pressure gradient of the bump balances the (negative) radial pressure gradient there. The column density concentration is relatively independent of the resolution, as expected since the pressure bump amplitude is almost the same.
Self-gravity – moderate resolution {#s:sgmod}
==================================
In the moderate-resolution simulation ($256^3$) we release particles and start self-gravity simultaneously at $t=20T_{\rm orb}$. This is different from the approach taken in J07 where self-gravity was turned on after the particles had concentrated in a pressure bump. Thus we address concerns that the continuous self-gravity interaction of the particles would stir up the particle component and prevent the gravitational collapse. After releasing particles we continue the simulation for another thirteen orbits. Some representative particle column density snapshots are shown in [Fig. \[f:selfg256\]]{}. As time progresses the particle column density increases in high-pressure structures with power on length scales ranging from a few percent of a scale height to the full radial domain size. Self-gravity becomes important in these overdense regions, so some local regions begin to contract radially under their own weight, eventually reaching the Roche density and commencing a fully 2-D collapse into discrete clumps.
The Hill sphere of each bound clump is indicated in [Fig. \[f:selfg256\]]{}, together with the mass of particles encompassed inside the Hill radius (in units of the mass of the dwarf planet Ceres). We calculate the Hill radius of clumps at a given time by searching for the point of highest particle column density in the $x$-$y$ plane. We first consider a “circle” of radius one grid point and calculate the two terms relevant for determination of the Hill radius – the tidal term $3\varOmega^2 R$ and the gravitational acceleration $G M_{\rm
p}/R^2$ of a test particle at the edge of the Hill sphere due to the combined gravity of particles inside the Hill sphere. The mass $M_{\rm p}$ contained in a cylinder of radius $R$ must fulfil $$M_{\rm p} \ge \frac{3 \varOmega^2 R^3}{G} \, .$$ The natural constant $G$ is set by the non-dimensional form of the Poisson equation, $$\nabla^2_H \frac{\varPhi}{c_{\rm s}^2} = \frac{4 \pi G}{\varOmega^2/\rho_0}
\frac{\rho_{\rm p}}{\rho_0} \, .$$ Here $\nabla^2_H \equiv {\partial}^2/{\partial}(x/H)^2 + {\partial}^2/{\partial}(y/H)^2 +
{\partial}^2/{\partial}(z/H)^2$. Using natural units for the simulation, with $c_{\rm
s}=\varOmega=H=\rho_0=1$, together with our choice of $$\tilde{G} = \frac{4 \pi G}{\varOmega^2/\rho_0} = 0.5 \, ,$$ we obtain an expression for the gravitational constant $G$. We then check the validity of the expression $$M_{\rm p} = \sum_{i,j} n_z \overline{\rho}_{ij} \delta V \ge \frac{12 \pi
\rho_0 R^3}{\tilde{G}} \, ,
\label{eq:hillcrit}$$ where $\overline{\rho}_{ij}=n_z^{-1} \sum_k \rho_{ijk}$ is the vertically averaged mass density at grid point $(i,j)$ and $\delta V$ is the volume of a grid cell. It is convenient to work with $\overline{\rho}_{ij}$ since this vertical average has been output regularly by the code during the simulation. The sum in [Eq. (\[eq:hillcrit\])]{} is taken over all grid points lying within the circle of radius $R$ centred on the densest point. We continue to increase $R$ in units of $\delta x$ until the boundness criterion is no longer fulfilled. This defines the Hill radius $R$. Strictly speaking our method for finding the Hill radius is only valid if the particles were distributed in a spherically symmetric way. In reality particles are spread across the mid-plane with a scale height of approximately $0.04 H$. We nevertheless find by inspection that the calculated Hill radii correspond well to the regions where the particle flow appears dominated by the self-gravity rather than the Keplerian shear of the main flow and that the mass within the Hill sphere does not fluctuate because of the inclusion of non-bound particles.
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}
The particle-mesh Poisson solver based on Fast Fourier Transforms can not consider the gravitational potential due to structure within a grid cell. From the perspective of the gravity solver the smallest radius of a bound object is thus the grid cell length $\delta x$. This puts a lower limit to the mass of bound structures, since the Hill radius can not be smaller than a grid cell, $$R_{\rm H} = \left( \frac{G M_{\rm min}}{3\varOmega^2} \right)^{1/3} \approx
\delta x \, .$$ This gives a minimum mass of $$\frac{M_{\rm min}}{M_\star} = 3 \left( \frac{\delta x}{r} \right)^3 = 3
\left( \frac{H}{r} \right)^3 \left( \frac{\delta x}{H} \right)^3 \, .$$ Using $M_\star=2.0\times10^{33}\,{\rm g}$, $H/r=0.05$ and $\delta x=0.0052 H$ ($256^3$) or $\delta x=0.0026$ ($512^3$), we get the minimum mass of $M_{\rm
min}\approx0.11 M_{\rm Ceres}$ at $256^3$ and $M_{\rm min}\approx0.014 M_{\rm
Ceres}$ at $512^3$. Less massive objects will inevitably be sheared out due to the gravity softening.
[Fig. \[f:selfg256\]]{} shows that a number of discrete particle clumps condense out of the turbulent flow during the 13 orbits that are run with self-gravity. The most massive clump has the mass of approximately 35 Ceres masses at the end of the simulation, while four smaller clumps have masses between $2.4$ and $4.6$ Ceres masses. The smallest clumps are more than ten times more massive than the minimum resolvable mass.
Planetesimal collision {#s:collision}
----------------------
The 35 Ceres masses particle clump visible in the last panel of [Fig. \[f:selfg256\]]{} is partially the result of a collision between a $13.0$ and a $14.6$ Ceres mass clump at a time around $t=31.6 T_{\rm orb}$. The collision is shown in greater detail in [Fig. \[f:merge\]]{}. The merging starts when two clumps with radial separation of approximately $0.05 H$ shear past each other, bringing their Hill spheres in contact. The less massive clumps passes first directly through the massive clump, appearing distorted on the other side, before merging completely. A third clump collides with the collision product shortly afterwards, adding another 3.5 Ceres masses to the clump.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
The particle-mesh self-gravity solver does not resolve particle self-gravity on scales smaller than a grid cell. The bound particle clumps therefore stop their contraction when the size of a grid cell is reached. This exaggerated size increases the collisional cross section of planetesimal artificially. The clumps behave aerodynamically like a collection of dm-sized particles, while a single dwarf planet sized would have a much longer friction time. Therefore the planetesimal collisions that we observe are not conclusive evidence of a collisionally evolving size distribution. Future convergence tests at extremely high resolution ($1024^3$ or higher), or mesh refinement around the clumps, will be needed to test the validity of the planetesimal mergers.
The system is however [*not*]{} completely dominated by the discrete gravity sources. A significant population of free particles are present even after several bound clumps have formed. Those free particles can act like dynamical friction and thus allow close encounters to lead to merging or binary formation [@Goldreich+etal2002]. In the high-resolution simulation presented in the next section we find clear evidence of a trailing spiral density structure that is involved in the collision between two planetesimals.
Self-gravity – high resolution {#s:sghigh}
==============================
In Section \[s:particles\] we showed that particle concentration is maintained when going from $256^3$ to $512^3$ grid cells. In this section we show that the inclusion of self-gravity at high resolution leads to rapid formation of bound clumps similar to what we observe at moderate resolution. Given the relatively high computational cost of self-gravity simulations we start the self-gravity at $t=35T_{\rm orb}$ in the $512^3$ simulation, three orbits after inserting the particles. The evolution of particle column density is shown in [Fig. \[f:selfg512\]]{}. Due to the smaller grid size bound particle clumps appear visually smaller than in the $256^3$ simulation. The increased compactness of the planetesimals can potentially decrease the probability for planetesimal collisions (Sect. \[s:collision\]), which makes it important to do convergence tests.
The high-resolution simulation proceeds much as the moderate-resolution simulation. Panels 1 and 2 of [Fig. \[f:selfg512\]]{} show how overdense bands of particles contract radially under their own gravity. The increased resolution of the self-gravity solver allows for a number of smaller planetesimals to condense out as the bands reach the local Roche density at smaller radial scales (panel 3). Two of the clumps are born within each other’s Hill spheres. They merge shortly after into a single clump (panel 5). This clump has grown to $7.5$ $M_{\rm Ceres}$ at the end of the simulation, which is the most massive clump in a population of clumps with masses between $0.5$ and $7.5$ $M_{\rm
Ceres}$.
Although we do not reach the same time span as in the low resolution simulation, we do observe two bound clumps colliding. However, the situation is different, since the colliding clumps form very close to each other and merge almost immediately. An interesting aspect is the presence of a particle density structure trailing the less massive clump. The gravitational torque from this structure can play an important role in the collision between the two clumps, since the clumps initially appear to orbit each other progradely. This confirms the trend observed in [@JohansenLacerda2010] for particles to be accreted with prograde angular momentum in the presence of drag forces, which can explain why the largest asteroids tend to spin in the prograde direction[^2]. The gravitational torque from the trailing density structure would be negative in that case and cause the relative planetesimal orbit to shrink.
Clump masses
------------
In [Fig. \[f:mclump\_t\]]{} we show the total mass in bound clumps as a function of time. Finding the physical mass of a clump requires knowledge of the scale height $H$ of the gas, as that sets the physical unit of length. The self-gravity solver in itself only needs to know $\tilde{G}=4 \pi
G/(\varOmega^2/\rho_0)$, which is effectively a combination of density and length scale. When quoting the physical mass we assume orbital distance $r=5\,{\rm AU}$ and aspect ratio $H/r=0.05$. The total mass in particles in the box is $M_{\rm tot}=0.01\varSigma_{\rm gas}L_x L_y \approx 460\,M_{\rm Ceres}$, with $\tilde{G}=0.5$ and $\varSigma_{\rm gas}=1800\,{\rm g\,cm^{-2}}$ from [Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\])]{}.
In both simulations approximately 50 $M_{\rm Ceres}$ of particles are present in bound clumps at the end of the simulation. However, self-gravity was turned on and sustained for very different times in the two different simulations. In the moderate-resolution simulation most mass is bound in a single clump at the end of the simulation. The merger event discussed in Sect. \[s:collision\] is clearly visible around $t=32 T_{\rm orb}$.
[Fig. \[f:mclump\_histo\]]{} shows histograms of the clump masses for moderate resolution (left panel) and high resolution (right panel). At moderate resolution initially only a single clump forms, but seven orbits later there are 5 bound clumps, all of several Ceres masses. The high-resolution run produces many more small clumps in the initial planetesimal formation burst. This is likely an effect of the “hot start” initial condition where we turn on gravity during a concentration event as the high particle density allows smaller regions to undergo collapse.
Summary and discussion {#s:discussion}
======================
In this paper we present (a) the first $512^3$ grid cell simulation of dust dynamics in turbulence driven by the magnetorotational instability and (b) a long time integration of the system performed at $256^3$ grid cells. Perhaps the most important finding is that large-scale pressure bumps and zonal flows in the gas appear relatively independent of the resolution. The same is true for particle concentration in these pressure bumps. While saturation properties of MRI turbulence depend on the implicit or explicit viscosity and resistivity [@LesurLongaretti2007; @FromangPapaloizou2007; @Davis+etal2010], the emergence of large-scale zonal flows appears relatively independent of resolution [this work, @Johansen+etal2009a] and numerical scheme [@FromangStone2009; @StoneGardiner2010]. Particle concentration in pressure bumps can have profound influence on particle coagulation by supplying an environment with high densities and low radial drift speeds [@Brauer+etal2008b], and on formation of planetesimals by gravitational contraction and collapse of overdense regions (this work, J07).
A direct comparison between the moderate-resolution and the high-resolution simulation is more difficult after self-gravity is turned on. The appearance of gravitationally bound clumps is inherently stochastic, as is the amplitude and phase of the first pressure bump to appear. The comparison is furthermore complicated by the extreme computational cost of the high-resolution simulation, which allowed us to evolve the system only for a few orbits after self-gravity is turned on.
A significant improvement over J07 is that the moderate-resolution simulation could be run for much longer time. Therefore we were able to start self-gravity shortly after MRI turbulence had saturated, and to follow the system for more than ten orbits. In J07 self-gravity was turned on during a concentration event, precluding the concurrent evolution of self-gravity and concentration. This “hot start” may artificially increase the number of the forming planetesimals. The “cold start” initial conditions presented here lead to a more gradual formation of planetesimals over more than ten orbits. Still the most massive bound clump had grown to approximately 35 $M_{\rm Ceres}$ at the end of the simulation and was still gradually growing.
The high-resolution simulation was given a “hot start”, to focus computational resources on the most interesting part of the evolution. As expected these initial conditions allow a much higher number of smaller planetesimals to condense out of the flow. The most massive planetesimal at the end of the high-resolution simulation contained 7.5 $M_{\rm Ceres}$ of particles, but this “planetesimal” is accompanied by a number of bound clumps with masses from $0.5$ to $4.5$ $M_{\rm Ceres}$.
The first clumps to condense out is on the order of a few Ceres masses in both the moderate-resolution simulation and the high-resolution simulation. The high-resolution simulation produced additionally a number of sub-Ceres-mass clumps. It thus appears that the higher-resolution simulation samples the initial clump function down to smaller masses. This observation strongly supports the use of simulations of even higher resolution in order to study the broader spectrum of clump masses. Higher resolution will also allow studying simultaneously the concentration of smaller particles in smaller eddies and their role in the planetesimal formation process [@Cuzzi+etal2010].
We emphasize here the difference between the Initial Mass Function of gravitationally bound clumps and of planetesimals. The first can be studied in the simulations that we present in this paper, while the actual masses and radii of planetesimal that form in the bound clumps will require the inclusion of particle shattering and particle sticking. [@ZsomDullemond2008] and [@Zsom+etal2010] used a representative particle approach to model interaction between superparticles in a 0-D particle-in-box approach, based on a compilation of laboratory results for the outcome of collisions depending on particle sizes, composition and relative speed [@Guettler+etal2010]. We plan to implement this particle interaction scheme in the Pencil Code and perform simulations that include the concurrent action of hydrodynamical clumping and particle interaction. This approach will ultimately be needed to determine whether each clump forms a single massive planetesimal or several planetesimals of lower mass.
At both moderate and high resolution we observe the close approach and merging of gravitationally bound clumps. Concerns remain about whether these collisions are real, since our particle-mesh self-gravity algorithm prevents bound clumps from being smaller than a grid cell. Thus the collisional cross section is artificially large. Two observations nevertheless indicate that the collisions can be real: we observe planetesimal mergers at both moderate and high resolution and we see that the environment in which planetesimals merge is rich in unbound particles. Dynamical friction may thus play an important dissipative role in the dynamics and the merging. At high resolution we clearly see a trailing spiral arm exerting a negative torque on a planetesimal born in the vicinity of another planetesimal.
If the transport of newly born planetesimals into each other’s Hill spheres is physical (i.e. moderated by dynamical friction rather than artificial enlargement of planetesimals and numerical viscosity), then that can lead to both mergers and production of binaries. [@Nesvorny+etal2010] recently showed that gravitationally contracting clumps of particles can form wide separation binaries for a range of initial masses and clump rotations and that the properties of the binary orbits are in good agreement with observed Kuiper belt object binaries.
In future simulations strongly bound clusters of particles should be turned into single gravitating sink particles, in order to prevent planetesimals from having artificially large sizes. In the present paper we decided to avoid using sink particles because we wanted to evolve the system in its purest state with as few assumptions as possible. The disadvantage is that the particle clumps become difficult to evolve numerically and hard to load balance. Using sink particles will thus also allow a longer time evolution of the system and use of proper friction times of large bodies.
The measured $\alpha$-value of MRI turbulence at $512^3$ is $\alpha\approx0.003$. At a sound speed of $c_{\rm s}=500$ m/s, the expected collision speed of marginally coupled m-sized boulders, based empirically on the measurements of J07, is $\sim$$\sqrt{\alpha}c_{\rm s}\approx$ 25 – 30 m/s. J07 showed that the actual collision speeds can be a factor of a few lower, because the particle layer damps MRI turbulence locally. In general boulders are expected to shatter when they collide at 10 m/s or higher [@Benz2000]. Much larger km-sized bodies are equally prone to fragmentation as random gravitational torques exerted by the turbulent gas excite relative speeds higher than the gravitational escape speed [@Ida+etal2008; @LeinhardtStewart2009]. A good environment for building planetesimals from boulders may require $\alpha\lesssim0.001$, as in J07. [@Johansen+etal2009b] presented simulations with no MRI turbulence where turbulence and particle clumping is driven by the streaming instability [@YoudinGoodman2005]. They found typical collision speeds as low as a few meters per second.
A second reason to prefer weak turbulence is the amount of mass available in the disc. If we apply our results to $r=5\,{\rm AU}$, then our dimensionless gravity parameter corresponds to a gas column density of $\varSigma_{\rm
gas}\approx 1800\,{\rm g\,cm^{-2}}$, more than ten times higher than the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula [@Weidenschilling1977b; @Hayashi1981]. Turbulence driven by streaming and Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities can form planetesimals for column densities comparable to the Minimum Mass Solar Nebula [@Johansen+etal2009b].
The saturation of the magnetorotational instability is influenced by both the mean magnetic field and small scale dissipation parameters, and the actual saturation level in protoplanetary discs is still unknown. Our results show that planetesimal formation by clumping and self-gravity benefits overall from weaker MRI turbulence with $\alpha\lesssim0.001$. Future improvements in our understanding of protoplanetary disc turbulence will be needed to explore whether such a relatively low level of MRI turbulence is the case in the entire disc or only in smaller regions where the resistivity is high or the mean magnetic field is weak.
This project was made possible through a computing grant for five rack months at the Jugene BlueGene/P supercomputer at Jülich Supercomputing Centre. Each rack contains 4096 cores, giving a total computing grant of approximately 15 million core hours. AJ was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) through Veni grant 639.041.922 and Vidi grant 639.042.607 during part of the project. We are grateful to Tristen Hayfield for discussions on particle load balancing and to Xuening Bai and Andrew Youdin for helpful comments. The anonymous referee is thanked for an insightful referee report. HK has been supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG through grant DFG Forschergruppe 759 “The Formation of Planets: The Critical First Growth Phase”.
Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2010a, , 190, 297 Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2010b, , 722, 1437 Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2010c, , 722, L220 Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, , 376, 21 Balsara, D. S., Tilley, D. A., Rettig, T., & Brittain, S. D. 2009, , 397, 24 Benz, W. 2000, Space Science Reviews, 92, 279 Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Brauer, F. 2009, , 503, L5 Blum, J., & Muench, M. 1993, , 106, 151 Blum, J., & Wurm, G. 2008, , 46, 21 Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, Å., Stein, R.F., & Torkelsson, U. 1995, ApJ, 446, 741 Brandenburg, A. 2003, in Advances in nonlinear dynamos (The Fluid Mechanics of Astrophysics and Geophysics, Vol. 9), ed. A. Ferriz-Mas & M. N' u\~ nez (Taylor & Francis, London and New York), 269-344, astro-ph/0109497 Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., & Henning, Th. 2008a, , 480, 859 Brauer, F., Henning, Th., & Dullemond, C. P. 2008b, , 487, L1 Cuzzi J. N., Hogan R. C., Shariff K., 2008, , 687, 1432 Cuzzi, J. N., Hogan, R. C., & Bottke, W. F. 2010, , 208, 518 Davis, S. W., Stone, J. M., & Pessah, M. E. 2010, , 713, 52 Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2005, , 434, 971 Dzyurkevich, N., Flock, M., Turner, N. J., Klahr, H., & Henning, Th. 2010, , 515, A70 Fromang, S., Terquem, C., & Balbus, S. A. 2002, , 329, 18 Fromang, S., & Nelson, R. P. 2005, , 364, L81 Fromang, S., & Papaloizou, J. 2007, , 476, 1113 Fromang, S., & Stone, J. M. 2009, , 507, 19 Goldreich, P., & Ward, W. R. 1972, , 183, 1051 Goldreich, P., Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2002, , 420, 643 G[ü]{}ttler, C., Blum, J., Zsom, A., Ormel, C. W., & Dullemond, C. P. 2010, , 513, A56 Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, , 440, 742 Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35 Hockney, R. W., & Eastwood, J. W. 1981, Computer simulation using particles (New York: McGraw-Hill) Ida, S., Guillot, T., & Morbidelli, A. 2008, , 686, 1292 Johansen, A., Klahr, H., Henning, Th. 2006, , 636, 1121 Johansen, A., & Youdin, A. 2007, , 662, 627 Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Low, M., Klahr, H., Henning, Th., & Youdin, A. 2007, , 448, 1022 Johansen, A., Brauer, F., Dullemond, C., Klahr, H., & Henning, Th. 2008, , 486, 597 Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Klahr, H. 2009a, , 697, 1269 Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2009b, , 704, L75 Johansen, A., & Lacerda, P. 2010, , 404, 475 Kato, M. T., Nakamura, K., Tandokoro, R., Fujimoto, M., & Ida, S. 2009, , 691, 1697 Kato, M. T., Fujimoto, M., & Ida, S. 2010, , 714, 1155 Klahr, H. H., & Henning, Th. 1997, , 128, 213 Leinhardt, Z. M., & Stewart, S. T. 2009, Icarus, 199, 542 Lesur, G., & Longaretti, P.-Y. 2007, , 378, 1471 Lesur, G., & Longaretti, P.-Y. 2010, arXiv:1012.2690 Lithwick, Y., & Chiang, E. 2007, , 656, 524 Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H., & Piskunov, N. 2008a, , 479, 883 Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H., & Piskunov, N. 2008b, , 491, L41 Miniati, F. 2010, Journal of Computational Physics, 229, 3916 Morbidelli, A., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., & Levison, H. F. 2009, Icarus, 204, 558 Nayakshin, S. 2011, , 410, L1 Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., Youdin, A. N., & Richardson, D. C. 2010, , 140, 785 Poppe, T., Blum, J., & Henning, Th. 2000, , 533, 454 Rein, H., Lesur, G., & Leinhardt, Z. M. 2010, , 511, A69 Safronov, V. S. 1960, Annales d’Astrophysique, 23, 979 Safronov, V. S. 1969, Evoliutsiia doplanetnogo oblaka. (English transl.: Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation of Earth and the Planets, NASA Tech. Transl. F-677, Jerusalem: Israel Sci. Transl. 1972) Sano, T., Miyama, S. M., Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T. 2000, , 543, 486 Schr[ä]{}pler, R., & Henning, Th. 2004, , 614, 960 Sekiya, M. 1998, Icarus, 133, 298 Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, , 24, 337 Sheppard, S. S., & Trujillo, C. A. 2010, , 723, L233 Simon, J. B., Hawley, J. F., & Beckwith, K. 2009, , 690, 974 Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2010, , 189, 142 Toomre, A. 1964, , 139, 1217 Wada, K., Tanaka, H., Suyama, T., Kimura, H., & Yamamoto, T. 2009, , 702, 1490 Tilley, D. A., Balsara, D. S., Brittain, S. D., & Rettig, T. 2010, , 403, 211 Yang, C.-C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Menou, K. 2009, , 707, 1233 Youdin, A., & Shu, F. H. 2002, , 580, 494 Youdin, A., & Goodman, J. 2005, , 620, 459 Youdin, A., & Johansen, A. 2007, , 662, 613 Youdin, A. 2008, in Les Houches Winter School “Physics and Astrophysics of Planetary Systems", arXiv:0807.1114 Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977a, , 180, 57 Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977b, , 51, 153 Weidenschilling, S. J. 1984, Icarus, 60, 553 Weidenschilling, S. J. 1995, Icarus, 116, 433 Weidenschilling, S. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 290 Weidenschilling, S. J., & Cuzzi, J. N. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, 1031–1060 Wurm, G., Paraskov, G., & Krauss, O. 2005, Icarus, 178, 253 Zsom, A., & Dullemond, C. P. 2008, , 489, 931 Zsom, A., Ormel, C. W., Güttler, C., Blum, J., & Dullemond, C. P. 2010, , 513, A57
[^1]: See <http://code.google.com/p/pencil-code/>.
[^2]: Prograde rotation is not readily acquired in standard numerical models where planetesimals accumulate in a gas-free environment, although planetary birth in rotating self-gravitating gas blobs was recently been put forward to explain the prograde rotation of planets [@Nayakshin2011].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We establish the existence of saddle points for a free boundary problem describing the two-dimensional free surface of a ferrofluid which undergoes normal field instability (also known as Rosensweig instability). The starting point consists in the ferro-hydrostatic equations for the magnetic potentials in the ferrofluid and air, and the function describing their interface. The former constitute the strong form for the Euler-Lagrange equations of a convex-concave functional. We extend this functional in order to include interfaces that are not necessarily graphs of functions. Saddle points are then found by iterating the direct method of the calculus of variations and by applying classical results of convex analysis. For the existence part we assume a general (arbitrary) non linear magnetization law. We also treat the case of a linear law: we show, via convex duality arguments, that the saddle point is a constrained minimizer of the relevant energy functional of the physical problem.'
author:
- 'E. Parini[^1] and A. Stylianou[^2]'
title: A free boundary approach to the Rosensweig instability of ferrofluids
---
Introduction
============
The ferro-hydrostatic equations
-------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb R^2$ be open, connected and bounded with a Lipschitz continuous boundary, and $b,\tau>0$. Moreover, let $\mu\in C_b^1(\mathbb R)$, and for a function $\eta:\mathbb R^2\strongly\mathbb R$ define the sets $$\label{boundaries}
\begin{aligned}
D_\eta^+ {}& \defeq \left\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb R^3: (x,y)\in\Omega\ \text{ and }\ z\in\left(\eta(x,y),1\rule{0pt}{10pt}\right)\right\},\\
D_\eta^- {}& \defeq \left\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb R^3: (x,y)\in\Omega\ \text{ and }\ z\in\left(-1,\eta(x,y)\rule{0pt}{10pt}\right)\right\},\\
\partial_{cyl} D {}& \defeq \left\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb R^3: (x,y)\in\partial\Omega\ \text{ and }\ z\in\left(-1,1\right)\right\}\\
\partial_{top} D {}& \defeq \left\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb R^3: (x,y)\in\Omega\ \text{ and }\ z=1\right\},\\
\partial_{bot} D {}& \defeq \left\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb R^3: (x,y)\in\Omega\ \text{ and }\ z=-1\right\},
\end{aligned}$$
and the function $$\label{primitive}
M(s)\defeq\int_0^s t\cdot\mu(t)\;dt.$$ Consider the following problem: Find sufficiently smooth functions $\phi,\psi:\mathbb R^3\strongly\mathbb R$ and $\eta:\mathbb R^2\strongly\mathbb R$ with $|\eta|<1$ that satisfy the boundary value problem $$\label{non_hom_ferroPDE}
\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\Delta \psi {}& = 0 & \text{ in }{}& D_\eta^+,\\
\displaystyle\diver\left(\mu\left(|\nabla\phi|\right)\nabla\phi\right) {}&= 0 & \text{ in } {}&D_\eta^-,\\
\displaystyle\psi_z{}& = \mu(1) & \text{ on } {}&\partial_{top}D,\\
\displaystyle\mu\left(|\nabla\phi|\right)\phi_z {}&= \mu(1) & \text{ on }{}& \partial_{bot} D,\\
\displaystyle\psi {}& = 0 & \text{ on }{}& \partial_{cyl}D,\\
\displaystyle\phi {}& = 0 & \text{ on }{}& \partial_{cyl}D,\\
\end{aligned}$$ together with the compatibility conditions $$\label{compatibility_conditions}
\begin{aligned}
\phi{}&=\psi{}& \text{ on } {}&\Omega\times \{z=\eta(x,y)\}\\
\mu\left(|\nabla\phi|\right)\phi_{\mathbf n}{}&=\psi_{\mathbf n}{}& \text{ on } {}&\Omega\times \{z=\eta(x,y)\},
\end{aligned}$$ and the free surface equation $$\label{free_surface_equation}
\begin{aligned}
M\left(|\nabla\phi|\right)-\frac{1}{2}|\nabla\psi|^2+\sqrt{1+|\nabla\eta|^2}\left(\rule{0pt}{10pt}\psi_z\psi_{\mathbf n}-\mu(|\nabla\phi|)\phi_z\phi_{\mathbf n}\right)\\
+\tau\diver \frac{\nabla \eta}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\eta|^2}}-b\eta-p_0{}&=0,
\end{aligned}$$ on $\Omega\times \{z=\eta(x,y)\}$. Here, $$\mathbf n\defeq\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla\eta|^2}}(-\eta_x,-\eta_y,1),$$ is the unit normal of the surface $\Omega\times\{z=\eta(x,y)\}$ in the direction of positive $z$, and the constant $p_0\defeq M(1)+\mu(1)\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu(1)-1\right)$.
Finally we would like to point out the following notational convention: the dimension of all operators appearing in the paper conform to the dimension of the domain of definition of their arguments, that is, $$\nabla \phi=(\phi_x,\phi_y,\phi_z),\ \diver \eta=\eta_x+\eta_y,\ |\nabla\phi|=(\phi_x^2+\phi_y^2+\phi_z^2)^{1/2},\ |\nabla\eta|=(\eta_x^2+\eta_y^2)^{1/2}, \text{ etc.}$$
Physical attributes and modelling of the normal field instability of a ferrofluid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The system of partial differential equations described in the previous subsection arises as the mathematical model of an incompressible ferrofluid undergoing the so-called *normal field instability* or *Rosensweig instability* (refer for example to Rosensweig’s monograph [@Rosensweig1985]): In an experiment, a vertical magnetic field is applied to a static ferrofluid layer, and various patterns (typically regular cellular hexagons) emerge on the fluid surface as the field strength is increased through a critical value.
Note that the strength of the applied field does not seem to appear in the system; it is rescaled to $1$. The function $\eta$ defines the (rescaled) interface between the ferrofluid and air (or another fluid conforming to a linear magnetization law), that is, they occupy the regions $D_\eta^-$ and $D_\eta^+$ respectively and are subjected to a parallel vertical magnetic field; for more details on extracting the ferrofluid system from Maxwell’s equations and the appropriate rescaling of the initial physical laws see [@GrovesLloydEtAl2017] and references therein. The real functions $M$ and $\mu$ describe the magnetization law for the ferrofluid and the unknown functions $\phi,\psi$ are the magnetic potentials in the ferrofluid and air respectively. A typical case consists in ferrofluids following a nonlinear Langevin law (see [@GollwitzerLloydEtAl2015; @RichterLange2009]), that is, $$\label{mu}\mu(s)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& 1+\frac{M_s}{s}\left(\coth(\gamma s)-\frac{1}{\gamma s}\right),& \text{for } s\neq0,\\
& 1 + \frac{M_s \gamma}{3},& \text{for } s=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $M_s$ is the saturation magnetization and $\gamma$ is the Langevin parameter (they are both positive constants). Lastly, the parameters $b$ and $\tau$ are respectively the rescaled gravity acceleration and the coefficient of surface tension for the ferrofluid.
Since the invention of the ferrofluids ([@Papell1965]) there has been a number of works studying surface instabilities using formal analysis (see [@GrovesLloydEtAl2017] and references therein). A first rigorous treatment of regular patterns assuming a linear magnetization law was given by Twombly and Thomas [@TwomblyThomas1983]. For small amplitude localized patterns and nonlinear laws, Groves *et al* produced a rigorous theory in [@GrovesLloydEtAl2017], using a technique known as *Kirchgässner reduction*.
This work lies between the latter two papers in the following sense: we allow for general nonlinear laws and simultaneously pose no assumption on the smallness of solutions. This is achieved through the study of the problem as a free boundary problem, that is, the originally unknown function $\eta$ that models the free interface of the ferrofluid is replaced by the characteristic function of the set occupied by the ferrofluid. The new set of unknowns (the magnetic potentials of the two fluids and the characteristic function of the ferrofluid) is then found as a critical point of an appropriate functional.
The variational structure of the ferrofluid system
--------------------------------------------------
The equations - describing the ferrofluid system have a variational structure: they correspond to the strong Euler-Lagrange equations of the functional $$\label{functional}
\begin{aligned}
F(u,\eta) = {}& \int_\Omega\left( \int_{-1}^{\eta(x,y)}M(|\nabla u|)\;dz+ \int_{\eta(x,y)}^1\frac{1}{2}|\nabla u|^2\;dz\right)dxdy\\[0.5ex]
{}&+\mu(1)\int_\Omega \left(u|_{z=-1}-u|_{z=1}\right)dxdy\\[0.5ex]
{}&-\int_\Omega\left(\frac{b}{2}\eta^2+p_0\eta\right)dxdy-\tau\int_\Omega \sqrt{1+|\nabla\eta|^2}\,dxdy.
\end{aligned}$$ This means that, assuming that $( u ,\eta)$ is a critical point of $F$ and allowing $$\psi= u |_{D_\eta^+}\in W^{2,2}\left(D_\eta^+\right)\ \text{ and }\ \phi= u |_{D_\eta^-}\in W^{2,2}\left(D_\eta^-\right),$$ and for some smoothness of the interface, for example $\eta\in C^1$ and $|\eta|<1$, one obtains a strong solution to the ferrofluid system of equations.
Note that $F$ is not a “pure” energy functional: it is convex with respect to $u$ and “almost” concave with respect to $\eta$ (the variable integral is not affine but is still bounded). This implies that it does not possess minimizers: taking a highly oscillating interface will produce “energies” that tend to $-\infty$ as the oscillations increase.
The physical parameters $b$ and $\tau$ are of the order of $H^{-2}$, where $H$ denotes the strength of the applied field (see [@GrovesLloydEtAl2017]). Thus, dividing by $-H^2$, letting $H \strongly 0$, and assuming incompressibility of the fluid, we are led to the problem of minimizing the functional $$\eta\mapsto \frac{\tilde b}{2}\int_\Omega\eta^2\;dxdy+\tilde \tau\int_\Omega \sqrt{1+|\nabla\eta|^2}\;dxdy.$$ Due to the absence of side conditions, the minimizer is the function $\eta=0$. This justifies physical intuition that the surface of the ferrofluid remains flat in the absence of external field.
The next observation concerns the mathematical properties of the nonlinear magnetization law. The following lemma can be proven with elementary analytical arguments.
\[mulemma\] Let $\mu,M:\mathbb R\strongly \mathbb R$ be defined by and .
1. $\mu$ is an even function.
2. $\mu\in C(\mathbb R)$ and $1<\mu(s)\leq 1+\frac{M_s \gamma}{3}$ with equality if and only if $s=0$.
3. For all $ s\geq0$ holds that $$\frac{1}{2}s^2\leq M(s)\leq \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\gamma}{3}M_s+1\right)s^2,$$ with equality if and only if $s=0$.
4. $M$ is a convex function.
$1.$ and $2.$ follow from the explicit expression of $\mu$. 3. follows from $2.$, and $4.$ from the fact that a primitive is explicitly computable for a Langevin law: $M(s)=s^2/2+M_s\,\big(\ln\big(\sinh(\gamma s)\big)-\ln s-\ln \gamma\big)/\gamma$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has two direct consequences: First, we have that $p_0>0$ since the expression $\mu(1)\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu(1)-1\right)$ has an infimum value of $-\frac{1}{2}$ for $\mu(1)\strongly 1$ (which is not attained since $\mu(1)>1$) and $M(1)>\frac{1}{2}$. Second, we can define the domain of ; the functional is well defined for $ u \in H^1(D)$ and $\eta \in BV(\Omega)$.
The mathematical setting
========================
A more general framework
------------------------
From now on, and in order to shorten the formulas, we will use the notation $d\mathbf x$ for the Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb R^3$. We will drop the assumption that the interface can be described by the graph of a function $\eta$ and use only the minimal assumptions needed for the magnetization of the ferrofluid. Motivated by the properties of generic Langevin laws, we pose the following:
\[assume\]
1. The physical constants $b,\tau,\mu,p_0\in\mathbb R$ are positive.
2. The function $M:\mathbb R\strongly\mathbb R$ is convex and there exists $C_M>1$ such that $$\label{assumeM}\frac{1}{2}s^2\leq M(s)\leq \frac{C_M}{2} s^2\ \text{ for all $s\in\mathbb R$}.$$
Concerning the magnetic potential, define the space $$\label{Wcyl}H^1_{cyl}(D)\defeq\big\{ u \in H^1(D): u |_{\partial_{cyl}D}=0\big\}$$ equipped with the norm $\lnorm u\rnorm_{cyl}\defeq \lnorm \nabla u\rnorm_{L^2}$ which, due to Poincaré’s inequality, is equivalent to the standard Sobolev norm. In contrast to [@GrovesLloydEtAl2017], we address the problem in a weaker form, namely as a free boundary problem. To that end, define the set of characteristic functions $$\label{X} X (D)\defeq \bigg\{\chi\in BV(D): \chi\in\{0,1\}\text{ in } D,\ \int_D \chi\;d\mathbf x=|\Omega|\bigg\}$$ and note that it is a weakly-$*$ closed subset of $BV(D)$ (every $L^1$ convergent sequence has an a.e. convergent subsequence and thus the limit function will be a.e. either $0$ or $1$. The integrals then converge to the correct value due to the dominated convergence theorem). The volume condition is due to the fact that the ferrofluid is assumed to be incompressible.
We consider the functional $J:H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X (D)\strongly \mathbb R$ defined by $$\label{GeneralFunctional}
\begin{aligned}
J( u ,\chi) \defeq {}& \int_D \left(\chi\,M(|\nabla u |)+\frac{1}{2}(1-\chi)\,|\nabla u |^2\right) d\mathbf x+\mu\int_\Omega \left( u |_{z=-1}- u |_{z=1}\right)dxdy\\[5pt]
{}&-\int_D\left(b\,z\,\chi+p_0\,\chi\right)d\mathbf x-\tau\int_D |\nabla\chi|,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\int_D |\nabla\chi|$ denotes the total variation of $\chi$, and note that $$\label{GeneralFunctional1}
J( u ,\chi)=J_1( u ,\chi)-J_2(\chi)-\mu\int_D u _z\;d\mathbf x,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_1( u ,\chi) \defeq {}& \int_D \left(\chi\,M(|\nabla u |)+\frac{1}{2}(1-\chi)\,|\nabla u |^2\right) d\mathbf x,\\
J_2(\chi)\defeq {}& \int_D\left(b\,z\,\chi+p_0\,\chi\right)d\mathbf x+\tau\int_D |\nabla\chi|.\end{aligned}$$
The reason to consider the above functional lies in the following: as already mentioned, critical points of are weak solutions of the ferrofluid problem -. The functional $J$ defined above is an appropriate extension of where we have dropped the assumption that the interface can be described by the graph of $\eta$. The function $\eta$ is replaced by a function $\chi$ which, as a characteristic function, yields the set that is occupied by the ferrofluid. Precisely, for a function $\eta\in BV(\Omega)$ holds (see eg. [@Giusti1984 Theorem 16.4, p.163]) $$J( u ,\chi_{\{z<\eta\}})=F( u ,\eta)-\frac{b}{2}|\Omega|.$$
All in all, critical points $( u ,\chi)$ with $\chi$ being the characteristic function of some open $D_F\subset D$ with appropriately smooth boundary will satisfy problem - locally, in the sense that the part of $\partial D_F$ that lies inside $D$ is locally the graph of $\eta$, and $$\label{subst}
\psi\defeq u |_{D\setminus D_F}\ \text{ and } \ \phi\defeq u |_{D_F}$$ satisfy the differential equations in a weak sense. These critical points are sought as saddle points of $J$ since the functional is now convex-concave: $J_2$ is convex, $J_1(\cdot,\chi)$ is convex and $J_1( u ,\cdot)$ is affine.
The framework of abstract minimax theory of convex-concave functions
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we proceed with the exposition we give some definitions, following the analysis of *saddle* or *convex-concave* functions given in [@BarbuPrecupanu2012] and [@PapageorgiouKyritsi2009].
Let $\mathrm X $ and $\mathrm Y $ be two nonempty sets and $\Phi: \mathrm X \times \mathrm Y \strongly \mathbb R\cup \{+\infty\}$ a function. We say that $(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y_0)$ is a *saddle point* of $\Phi$, if we have $$\Phi(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y)\leq\Phi(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y_0)\leq \Phi(\mathrm x,\mathrm y_0)$$ for all $(\mathrm x,\mathrm y)\in \mathrm X \times \mathrm Y $.
Let $\mathrm X $ and $\mathrm Y $ be two nonempty sets and $\Phi: \mathrm X \times \mathrm Y \strongly \mathbb R\cup \{+\infty\}$ a function. We say that $\Phi$ has a *saddle value* $c$ if $$\adjustlimits\sup_{\mathrm y\in \mathrm Y }\inf_{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X }\Phi(\mathrm x,\mathrm y)=\adjustlimits\inf_{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X }\sup_{\mathrm y\in \mathrm Y }\Phi(\mathrm x,\mathrm y)\eqdef c.$$
Let $\mathrm X $ and $\mathrm Y $ be two nonempty sets and $\Phi: \mathrm X \times \mathrm Y \strongly \mathbb R\cup \{+\infty\}$ a function. We say that $\Phi$ *satisfies a minimax equality* at $(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y_0)\in \mathrm X \times \mathrm Y $ if:
1. The function $\Phi$ has a saddle value.
2. There exists $\mathrm x_0\in \mathrm X $ such that $\displaystyle\sup_{\mathrm y\in \mathrm Y }\Phi(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y)=\adjustlimits\inf_{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X }\sup_{\mathrm y\in \mathrm Y }\Phi(\mathrm x,\mathrm y)$.
3. There exists $\mathrm y_0\in \mathrm Y $ such that $\displaystyle\inf_{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X }\Phi(\mathrm x,\mathrm y_0)=\adjustlimits\sup_{\mathrm y\in \mathrm Y }\inf_{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X }\Phi(\mathrm x,\mathrm y)$.
One can then directly prove the following fundamental result.
\[minimaxEq\] Let $\mathrm X $ and $\mathrm Y $ be two nonempty sets and $\Phi: \mathrm X \times \mathrm Y \strongly \mathbb R\cup \{+\infty\}$. The function $\Phi$ satisfies a minimax equality at $(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y_0)$ if and only if $(\mathrm x_0,\mathrm y_0)$ is a saddle point of $\Phi$ in $\mathrm X \times \mathrm Y $.
We outline the strategy for proving existence of saddle points: The special type of coupling between $u$ and $\chi$ that occurs only in $J_1$ allows us to iteratively apply the direct method of the calculus of variations to solve the min-max and the max-min problem. The next step is to show that the functional has a saddle value, that is, the max-min and the min-max problems are solved at the same value. To that end, we will use a tool from [@PapageorgiouKyritsi2009], a “coincidence theorem”, which is a corollary of a classical result of Knaster, Kuratowski and Mazurkiewicz [@KnasterKuratowskiEtAl1929]; we provide it here without a proof.
\[KKM\] Assume that $\mathbf X$ and $\mathbf Y$ are Hausdorff topological vector spaces, $\mathrm X\subseteq\mathbf X$ and $\mathrm Y\subseteq \mathbf Y$ are nonempty, compact and convex sets, and $F,G:\mathrm X\strongly 2^{\mathrm Y}$ are two set-valued maps that satisfy:
1. For all $\mathrm x\in \mathrm X$, the set $F(\mathrm x)$ is open in $\mathrm Y$ and the set $G(\mathrm x)$ is not empty and convex.
2. For all $\mathrm y\in\mathrm Y$, the set $G^{-1}(\mathrm y)\defeq\{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X:\mathrm y\in G(\mathrm x)\}$ is open in $\mathrm X$ and the set $F^{-1}(\mathrm y)\defeq\{\mathrm x\in \mathrm X:y\in F(\mathrm x)\}$ is not empty and convex.
Then there exists $\mathrm x_0\in \mathrm X$ such that $F(\mathrm x_0)\cap G(\mathrm x_0)\neq \emptyset$.
With the help of the latter and applying Proposition \[minimaxEq\], we will prove the existence of saddle points for $J$ in the next section.
The main results
================
Existence of saddle points
--------------------------
We begin the section with our main existence theorem and its proof.
\[ExThm\] The functional $J$, defined by , possesses a non-trivial saddle point $$( u _0,\chi_0)\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X (D),$$ that is, $u_0\nequiv 0$ and $$J( u _0,\chi_0)=\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)}\max_{\chi\in X (D)} J( u ,\chi).$$
We are looking for two pairs of functions $( u _{\mathrm{Mm}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}),( u _{\mathrm{mM}},\chi_{\mathrm{mM}})\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X (D)$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
J( u _{\mathrm{Mm}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}) {}& = \max_{\chi\in X(D)}\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi),\label{1n}\\[0.5ex]
J( u _{\mathrm{mM}},\chi_{\mathrm{mM}}) {}& = \min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)}\max_{\chi\in X(D)} J( u ,\chi).\label{2n}
\end{aligned}$$ We first deal with the max-min case : Fix $\chi\in X (D)$ and note that $$\label{phiz} \int_D u _z\;d\mathbf x\leq \int_D | u _z|\;d\mathbf x\leq \lnorm u _z\rnorm_{L^2(D)} \lnorm 1 \rnorm_{L^2(D)}\leq \sqrt{|D|}\lnorm u \rnorm_{cyl}.$$ This, together with the growth condition on $M$ and we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
J( u ,\chi)\geq{}& \int_D \left(\chi\,\frac{1}{2}\,|\nabla u |^2+\frac{1}{2}(1-\chi)\,|\nabla u |^2\right) d\mathbf x-\mu\,\int_D u _z\;d\mathbf x-J_2(\chi)\notag\\
\geq{}& \frac{1}{2}\,\lnorm u \rnorm_{cyl}^2-\mu\,\sqrt{|D|}\lnorm u \rnorm_{cyl}-J_2(\chi),\label{coercivity}
\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the functional $J(\cdot,\chi)$ is bounded below and, in turn, the existence of a minimizing sequence $\{ u _{k,\chi}\}_{k\in\mathbb N}\subset H^1_{cyl}(D)$. Relation implies that this sequence is bounded and thus possesses a weak limit $ u _{\chi}\in H^1_{cyl}(D)$. Moreover, the functional $J(\cdot,\chi)$ is weakly lower semi-continuous: the real function $h:\mathbb R^3\times D\strongly \mathbb R$ with $$h(\xi,x,y,z)= \chi(x,y,z)\,M(|\xi|)+\frac{1}{2}\Big(1-\chi(x,y,z)\Big)\,|\xi|^2-\mu\,\xi_3$$ is Carathéodory, satisfies $h(\xi,x,y,z)\geq \frac{1}{2}\,|\xi|^2-\mu\,\xi_3\in L^1(D)$ for almost all $\xi$, and it is strictly convex in $\xi$ a.e. in $D$ (since $M$ is convex and $\xi\mapsto |\xi|^2$ is strictly convex); see for example [@Struwe2008 Theorem 1.6]. Moreover, the boundary integral term is weakly continuous, since the trace operator is compact from $H^1(D)$ into $L^2(\partial D)$ (see for example [@Necas2012 Theorem 6.2, p.103]). Thus, $ u _{\chi}\in H^1_{cyl}(D)$ is a unique minimizer of $J(\cdot,\chi)$ in $H^1_{cyl}(D)$.
The set $$\label{SetMax} \mathbf X\defeq \big\{J( u _{\chi},\chi)=\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi):\chi \in X(D)\big\}$$ is bounded above: $$\label{UpBnd}
J( u _{\chi},\chi)\leq J(0,\chi) = -J_2(\chi) \leq \frac{b}{2}\,|\Omega|.$$ This implies that there exists a sequence $\{\chi_{k}\}_{k\in \mathbb N}\subseteq X(D)$ such that, if we denote $ u _k\defeq u _{\chi_k}$, $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}J( u _{k},\chi_{k}) = \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi_{k})= \sup \mathbf X.$$ Suppose that $J_2(\chi_k) \to +\infty$. Then, we have by $J( u _{k},\chi_k)\to -\infty$, a contradiction, since $\sup \mathbf X>-\infty$. Therefore, $J_2(\chi_k)$ is uniformly bounded, and therefore there exists a function $\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}\in X(D)$ such that $\chi_k \wstar \chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}$ in $BV(D)$ up to a subsequence. We claim that the functional $J( u ,\cdot)$ is weakly-$*$ upper semi-continuous, so that $$\label{USC} J( u ,\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})\geq \limsup_{k\rightarrow \infty} J( u ,\chi_{k})\geq \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi_{k})=\sup \mathbf X,$$ for all $ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)$, and thus $$\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})=J( u _{\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})\geq \sup \mathbf X.$$ However, $J( u _{\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})\in\mathbf X$ and thus $J( u _{\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})= \sup \mathbf X$ so that we have solved with $u_{\mathrm{Mm}}\defeq u _{\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}}$.
*Proof of the claim.* Fix $ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)$ and take a sequence $\{\chi_{k}\}_{k\in \mathbb N}\subset X(D)$ and $\chi\in X(D)$ such that $\chi_{k}\wstar \chi$. Since the total variation is weakly-$*$ lower semi-continuous in $BV(D)$ and $\chi_{k}\wstar \chi$ implies $\chi_{k}\strongly \chi$ in $L^1(D)$ we get that $J_2$ is lower semi-continuous. To finish the proof of the claim we need to prove that $J_1( u ,\cdot)$ is continuous with respect to the $L^1$-topology: consider the sequence of real numbers $\big\{J_1( u ,\chi_{k})\big\}_{k\in\mathbb N}$ and pick an arbitrary subsequence $\big\{J_1( u ,\chi_{k_l})\big\}_{l\in\mathbb N}$. For the sequence of functions $\{\chi_{k_l}\}_{l\in \mathbb N}$ it still holds that $\chi_{k_l}\strongly \chi$ in $L^1(D)$, and thus we can extract a subsequence $\{\chi_{k_{l_m}}\}_{m\in \mathbb N}$ converging to $\chi$ almost everywhere. Moreover, since $C_M>1$ $$\chi_{k_{l_m}}\, M(|\nabla u|)+\frac{1}{2}\,(1-\chi_{k_{l_m}})\,|\nabla u|^2\leq \frac{1}{2}\,|\nabla u|^2+\frac{1}{2}\,\chi_{k_{l_m}}\,(C_M-1)\,|\nabla u|^2\leq \frac{C_M}{2}\,|\nabla u|^2$$ so that, using Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we get $$J_1( u ,\chi_{k_{l_m}})\strongly J_1( u ,\chi).$$ All in all, we have shown that each subsequence $\big\{J_1( u ,\chi_{k_l})\big\}_{l\in\mathbb N}$ possesses a further subsequence that converges to the same limit, namely to $J_1( u ,\chi)$. Thus $$J_1( u ,\chi_{n,k})\strongly J_1( u ,\chi_{n})$$ which finishes the proof of the claim.
Next, we solve the min-max problem in a similar manner: using and the growth condition of $M$ we get $$J(u,\chi) \leq \frac{C_M}{2}\lnorm u\rnorm_{cyl}^2+\mu\,\sqrt{|D|}\,\lnorm u\rnorm_{cyl}+\frac{b}{2}\,|\Omega|-\min\{p_0,\tau\}\,\lnorm \chi\rnorm_{BV},$$ since $$\begin{aligned}
J_2(\chi)= {}& b \int_\Omega\left(\int_{-1}^0 z\,\chi\; dz+\int_{0}^1 z\,\chi\; dz\right)dxdy+p_0\int_D|\chi|\; d\mathbf x+\tau\int_D |\nabla\chi|\\
\geq{}&b \int_\Omega\int_{-1}^0 z\,\chi\; dzdxdy+p_0\int_D|\chi|\; d\mathbf x+\tau\int_D |\nabla\chi|\\
\geq{}&-\frac{b}{2}\,|\Omega|+p_0\int_D|\chi|\; d\mathbf x+\tau\int_D |\nabla\chi|\\
\geq{}&-\frac{b}{2}\,|\Omega|+\min\{p_0,\tau\}\,\left(\int_D|\chi|\; d\mathbf x+\int_D |\nabla\chi|\right),\end{aligned}$$ so that there exists a bounded maximizing sequence $\{\chi_{k,u}\}_{k\in\mathbb N}\subset X(D)$. Thus, there exists $\chi_{u}\in X(D)$ which, by the weak-$*$ upper semi-continuity of $J(u,\cdot)$, is a maximizer of $J(u,\cdot)$. The set $$\label{SetMin} \mathbf Y\defeq \big\{J(u,\chi_u)=\max_{ \chi \in X(D)} J( u ,\chi):u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)\big\}$$ is bounded below: $$\label{LowBnd}
\begin{aligned}
J(u,\chi_u)\geq {}& J(u,\chi_{\{z>0\}})\\
= {}&\int_\Omega \int_0^1 M(|\nabla u |)\;dzdxdy+\frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega \int_{-1}^0 |\nabla u | ^2\;dzdxdy-\mu\int_D u_z\;d\mathbf x\\
{}& -\int_\Omega\int_0^1 (b\,z+p_0)\;dzdxdy-\tau\,\int_D|\nabla\chi_{\{z>0\}}|\\
\geq {}& \frac{1}{2}\, \lnorm u\rnorm_{cyl}^2-\mu \, \sqrt{|D|}\,\lnorm u\rnorm_{cyl}-(b+p_0+\tau)\,|\Omega|\\
\geq {}& -(b+p_0+\tau+\mu^2)\,|\Omega|
\end{aligned}$$ for all $u\in H^1_{cyl}(D)$. Thus there exists a sequence $\{u_k\}_{k\in\mathbb N}$ such that $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}J(u_{k},\chi_{k}) = \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \max_{ \chi \in X(D)} J( u_k ,\chi)= \inf \mathbf Y,$$ where again $\chi_k\defeq \chi_{u_k}$. Estimate implies that $\{u_k\}_{k\in\mathbb N}$ is a bounded sequence in $H^1_{cyl}(D)$ and thus there exists $u_{\mathrm{mM}}\in H^1_{cyl}(D)$ such that $u_k\weakly u_{\mathrm{mM}}$. As already shown, $J(\cdot,\chi)$ is weakly lower semi-continuous so that $$\label{LSC} J( u_{mM} ,\chi)\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty} J( u_{k} ,\chi)\leq \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \max_{ \chi \in X(D)} J( u_k ,\chi)=\inf \mathbf Y,$$ for all $\chi\in X(D)$. Taking the maximum over $\chi$ we get $J( u_{mM} ,\chi_{u_{mM}})\leq\inf \mathbf Y$ and, since $J( u_{mM} ,\chi_{u_{mM}})\in \mathbf Y$, we get $J(u_{\mathrm{mM}},\chi_{\mathrm{mM}})=\inf \mathbf Y$ where $\chi_{\mathrm{mM}}\defeq \chi_{u_{\mathrm{mM}}}$.
The last step is to prove that the functional $J$ has a saddle value, that is, $$J( u _{\mathrm{Mm}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})=J( u _{\mathrm{mM}},\chi_{\mathrm{mM}})$$ To that end, first note that we directly obtain that $$\max_{\chi\in X(D)}\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi)\leq \min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)}\max_{\chi\in X(D)} J( u ,\chi),$$ that is, $$J( u _{\mathrm{Mm}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}}) \leq J( u _{\mathrm{mM}},\chi_{\mathrm{mM}}).$$ We will need the closed convex hull of $X(D)$, namely $$\clconv X(D)=\bigg\{\rho\in BV(D):0\leq \rho\leq 1\text{ a.e. in } D,\ \int_D \rho\;d\mathbf x=|\Omega|\bigg\}.$$ Note that $\clconv X(D)$ is a weakly-$*$ closed and convex subset of $BV(D)$ and that all partial semi-continuity properties of $J$ still hold in it. Assume there exists $c\in\mathbb R$ such that $$\label{contra}
\max_{\chi\in X(D)}\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)} J( u ,\chi)<c< \min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)}\max_{\chi\in X(D)} J( u ,\chi),$$ and define the set-valued maps $F,G:H^1_{cyl}(D)\strongly 2^{\clconv X(D)}$ by $$F( u )\defeq \big\{\rho\in \clconv X(D):J( u ,\rho)<c\big\}\ \text{ and }\ G( u )\defeq \big\{\rho\in \clconv X(D):J( u ,\rho)>c\big\}.$$ Since $J( u ,\cdot)$ is weakly-$*$ upper semi-continuous we get that $F( u )$ is open for each $ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)$. For each $ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)$ the set $G( u )$ is not empty, due to , and convex: let $\rho_1,\rho_2\in\clconv X(D)$ such that $J( u ,\rho_1),J( u ,\rho_2)>c$ and $t\in [0,1]$ and calculate $$\label{convex}
J\big( u ,t\,\rho_1+(1-t)\,\rho_2\big)\geq t\,J( u ,\rho_1)+(1-t)\,J( u ,\rho_2)>t\,c+(1-t)\,c=c,$$ since the functional $J( u ,\cdot)$ is concave. Moreover, $G^{-1}(\rho)=\big\{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D):J( u ,\rho)>c\big\}$ is open for each $\rho\in\clconv X(D)$, since $J(\cdot,\rho)$ is lower semi-continuous, and $F^{-1}(\rho)=\big\{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D):J( u ,\rho)<c\big\}$ is not empty (due to ) and convex for every $\rho\in\clconv X(D)$, since $J(\cdot,\rho)$ is convex (argue just like ). Thus, applying Proposition \[KKM\] ($BV(D)$ is isomorphic to the dual of a separable Banach space–see for example [@AmbrosioFuscoEtAl2000 Remark 3.12, p. 124]–and the weak-$*$ topology is always Hausdorff in the dual of a Banach space) to obtain $(\tilde u,\tilde \rho)\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times \clconv X(D)$ such that $\tilde \rho\in F(\tilde u)\cap G(\tilde u)$, i.e., $c<J(\tilde u,\tilde\rho)<c$, a contradiction.
Thus, Proposition \[minimaxEq\] implies that the functional $J$ possesses a saddle point $( u_0,\chi_0)\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X(D)$, i.e., $$\label{PhiRhoSaddle} J( u_0,\chi)\leq J( u_0,\chi_0)\leq J( u ,\chi_0)\ \text{ for all }\ ( u ,\chi)\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X(D),$$ given by $( u_0,\chi_0)=( u _{\mathrm{mM}},\chi_{\mathrm{Mm}})$.
Finally we illustrate the non-triviality of the saddle point: Let $\varphi\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$ satisfy $\varphi\geq0$ and set $\tilde u(x,y,z)\defeq z\, \varphi(x,y)$, so that $\tilde u\in H^1_{cyl}(D)$. It holds that $$\int_D\tilde u_z\;d\mathbf x=\int_D\varphi\;d\mathbf x=2\int_\Omega\varphi\;dxdy>0.$$ For any $\chi\in X(D)$ and $\varepsilon>0$ we obtain using that $$\begin{aligned}
J(\varepsilon\,\tilde u,\chi) \leq {}&\varepsilon^2 \int_D\left(\frac{C_M\,\chi}{2}|\nabla \tilde u|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}|\nabla \tilde u|^2\right)d\mathbf x-\varepsilon\,\mu\int_D\tilde u_z \;d\mathbf x-J_2(\chi)\\
= {}&\varepsilon^2 \int_D\left(\frac{C_M\,\chi}{2}|\nabla \tilde u|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}|\nabla \tilde u|^2\right)d\mathbf x-\varepsilon\,\mu\int_\Omega \varphi \;dxdy+J(0,\chi).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $\varepsilon$ small we get $J(\varepsilon\,\tilde u,\chi)<J(0,\chi)$, in particular for $\chi=\chi_0$.
Qualitative properties of the optimal configuration
---------------------------------------------------
Let $(u_0,\chi_0)$ be a saddle point of $\mathcal{E}$. Define the set that the ferrofluid occupies by $$\label{D_F}
D_F:= \{x \in D\,|\,\chi_0(x)=1\}.$$ For all $(u,\chi)\in H_{cyl}^1(D)\times X(D)$ holds $$J(u_0,\chi)\leq J(u,\chi_0).$$ Moreover $$J(u_0,\chi)\geq \frac{1}{2}\int_D |\nabla u_0|^2\,d\mathbf x-\mu\,\int_D(u_0)_z\,d\mathbf x -J_2(\chi)$$ and $$J(u,\chi_0)\leq \frac{C_M}{2}\int_D |\nabla u|^2\,d\mathbf x-\mu\,\int_D(u)_z\,d\mathbf x -J_2(\chi_0),$$ so that altogether $$\label{eq8}\frac{1}{2}\,\big(\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}^2-C_M\,\lnorm u\rnorm_{cyl}^2\big)-\mu\,\int_D \big((u_0)_z-u_z\big)\,d\mathbf x\leq J_2(\chi)-J_2(\chi_0).$$ This enables us to prove an estimate on the norm of the optimal solution.
\[u0norm\] It holds that $\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}\leq 2\,\mu\,\sqrt{|D|}$.
For $u=0$ and $\chi=\chi_0$ in we get that $$\frac{1}{2}\,\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}^2\leq \mu\,\int_D (u_0)_z\,d\mathbf x\leq \mu\,\sqrt{|D|}\,\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}.$$ The last inequality is due to .
The gravity term in $J_2$ allows us to prove an estimate that justifies the physical intuition that a heavy ferrofluid (with $b$ large) will not float in the air.
\[prop\_bottom\] Let $D_F$ be as in and $\partial_{bot} D$, the bottom part of the boundary, as in . Then $$\dist(D_F,\partial_{bot}D)\leq \frac{\mu^2}{b}\left(1-\frac{1}{C_M}\right).$$
If $d:=\dist(D_F,\partial_{bot}D)= 0$ there is nothing to prove. Suppose that $d >0$. For any $\delta \in [0,d)$, define $A_\delta\eqdef D_F-(0,0,\delta)$, and note that $\dist(A_\delta,\partial_{bot}D)>0$. Let $\alpha \in [0,C_M^{-\frac{1}{2}})$ (to be chosen appropriately) and set $u=\alpha\, u_0$ in inequality to obtain [$$\begin{aligned}
J_2(\chi)-J_2(\chi_0)\geq {}& \frac{1}{2} \big(1-C_M\,\alpha^2\big)\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}^2-\mu\,\big(1-\alpha\big)\int_D(u_0)_z\,d\mathbf x\\
\geq {}& \frac{1}{2} \big(1-C_M\,\alpha^2\big)\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}^2-\mu\,\big(1-\alpha\big)\,\sqrt{|D|}\,\lnorm u_0\rnorm_{cyl}\\[1ex]
\geq {}& -\frac{\mu^2\,|D|\,(1-\alpha)^2}{2(1-C_M\,\alpha^2)}
\end{aligned}$$]{} Setting $\chi=\chi_{A_\delta}$, the left-hand side becomes $$J_2(\chi_{A_\delta})-J_2(\chi_0)=b\int_D z\,(\chi_{A_\delta}-\chi_0)\,d\mathbf x,$$ since a rigid motion of $D_F$ away from the boundary does not change its perimeter. It holds that $$\int_{D_F} z\,d\mathbf x=\int_{A_\delta} (z+\delta)\,d\mathbf x=\int_{A_\delta} z\,d\mathbf x+\delta\,|\Omega|,$$ so that, altogether, we get $$-\frac{\mu^2\,(1-\alpha)^2}{(1-C_M\,\alpha^2)} \leq -b\,\delta,$$ or, equivalently, $$\delta\leq \frac{\mu^2\,(1-\alpha)^2}{b(1-C_M\,\alpha^2)}.$$ The function on the right hand side is minimized for $\alpha=\alpha_* \defeq C_M^{-1} < C_M^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. Choosing $\alpha=\alpha_*$ we obtain $$\label{eq4}\delta\leq \frac{\mu^2}{b}\left(1-\frac{1}{C_M}\right),$$ and taking the supremum on all admissible $\delta$ we finish the proof.
The same argumentation provides with a proof that there will be no disconnected ferrofluid bubbles floating far from the rest of the ferrofluid mass. A complementary argument can be used to show that there cannot be any air bubbles in the ferrofluid too close to the interface.
One could have chosen to eliminate the quadratic part of by choosing $u=C_M^{-1/2}\,u_0$ to obtain a bound directly. The argumentation in the proof above aims to illustrate that the result of Proposition \[prop\_bottom\] is optimal, in the sense that a different rescaling of the optimal solution will not provide with a better estimate. This, of course, does not mean that the proposition is optimal per se: We expect that an explicit relation between the parameters exists, that acts as a necessary and sufficient condition for asserting that $\dist(D_F,\partial_{bot}D)=0$. This follows physical intuition, since a light ferrofluid in a strong magnetic field will completely leave the bottom and stick to the upper part of the container. However, finding such a relation needs sharper density estimates for the optimal solution, whose extraction and manipulation lies beyond the scope of this paper.
Duality theory for linear magnetization laws {#duality}
--------------------------------------------
In this section we focus in the linear case, that is, we assume that $$M(s)=\frac{\mu}{2}\, s^2$$ for a fixed $\mu>1$. We prove that the saddle point that we found is a minimizer of the energy functional of the system. In fact, we show that the energy functional is conjugate to our convex-concave functional $J$. The main impact of this section is that, after obtaining Theorem \[EquivThm\], we can apply regularity results that have been developed for minimizers of free discontinuity problems to the saddle point from Theorem \[ExThm\], in order to obtain Theorem \[LinRegularity\] and Corollary \[LinRegularity1\].
Among the first works studying properties of optimal configurations that are minimizers of a corresponding energy we should mention those by Ambrosio and Buttazzo [@AmbrosioButtazzo1993] and by Lin [@Lin1993]. Apart from other technical results, Ambrosio and Buttazzo also proved Hölder continuity of the optimal solution and openness of the optimal set, whereas Lin worked in a space of currents. There has been a number of works following; Larsen [@Larsen2003] showed $C^1$ regularity away from the boundary for the components of the optimal set; Fusco and Julin [@FuscoJulin2015] dealt with the so-called *Taylor cones* – conical points on the free surface of a fluid inside an electric field – and with refined regularity assertions on the minimizers; De Philippis and Figalli [@DePhilippisFigalli2015] studied the dimension of the set of singularities of the boundary of the optimal set; Carozza *et al* [@CarozzaEtAl2014] deal also with energies with general potentials. Many other works on this subject can be found in the references in these citations; this list is by far not exhaustive.
The main result of this section is given in its end, following the necessary discussion on duality theory. We follow the notation and exposition of Ekeland-Temam [@EkelandTemam1999 Chapter III, 4].
Fix $\chi \in X(D)$ and define $V\defeq H^1_{cyl}(D)$ and $Y\defeq L^2(D,\mathbb R^3)\cong Y^*$. Moreover, define $$\label{NewJ}
J_\chi(\nabla u) \defeq J(u,\chi)= \int_D f_\chi(\nabla u)\; d\mathbf x-J_2(\chi),$$ where $f_\chi:D\times\mathbb R^3\strongly \mathbb R$ defined by $$\label{integrant}
f_\chi(\xi)\defeq \frac{\mu\,\chi}{2}\,|\xi |^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}\,|\xi |^2-(0,0,\mu)\cdot \xi.$$ Moreover, define the family of perturbations $\Phi_\chi:V\times Y\strongly \mathbb R$ by $$\Phi_\chi(u,p)\defeq J_\chi(\nabla u-p).$$ In the previous section we have shown that there exists a unique solution $u_\chi\in V$ to the minimization problem $$\label{P} \min_{u\in V} J_\chi(\nabla u)=\min_{u\in V} \Phi_\chi(u,0).$$ The dual problem is $$\label{P*pre} \sup_{p^*\in Y} \big\{-\Phi^*_\chi(0,p^*)\big\}$$ and it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^*_\chi(0,p^*) {}& =\sup\bigg\{\int_D p^*\cdot p\;d\mathbf x-J_\chi(\nabla u- p):u\in V,p\in Y\bigg\}\\
{}&= \sup\left\{\sup\bigg\{\int_D p^*\cdot p\;d\mathbf x-J_\chi(\nabla u- p):p\in Y\bigg\}:u\in V\right\}\\
{}&= \sup\left\{\sup\bigg\{\int_Dp^*\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x-\int_D p^*\cdot q\;d\mathbf x-J_\chi(q):\nabla u-q\in Y\bigg\}:u\in V\right\}\\
{}&= \sup\left\{\sup\bigg\{\int_Dp^*\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x-\int_D p^*\cdot q\;d\mathbf x-J_\chi(q):q\in Y\bigg\}:u\in V\right\}\\
{}&=\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{4}
&\sup\bigg\{-\int_D p^*\cdot q\;d\mathbf x-J_\chi(q):q\in Y\bigg\},{}&& \text{ when } p^*\in Y_d,\\
&+\infty, {}&& \text{ otherwise }
\end{alignedat}
\right.\\[0.5em]
{}&=\left\{
\begin{alignedat}{4}
&J^*_\chi(-p^*),{}&& \text{ when } p^*\in Y_d,\\
&+\infty, {}&& \text{ otherwise, }
\end{alignedat}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$Y_d\defeq \left\{p^*\in Y:\int_D p^*\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x=0\text{ for all }u\in V\right\}.$$ Thus, is equivalent to $$\label{P*pre1} \sup_{p^*\in Y_d}\left\{-J^*_\chi(-p^*)\right\}=-\inf_{p^*\in Y_d} J^*_\chi(-p^*).$$ Next, we calculate the conjugate functional with the help of [@EkelandTemam1999 Proposition 1.2, p.78] $$\label{dual1} J^*_\chi(p^*)=\int_D f^*_\chi(p^*)\;d\mathbf x+J_2(\chi),$$ since $J_2(\chi)$ is a constant and $f^*_\chi(p^*)$ is calculated pointwise in $D$, so that, $$\begin{aligned}
f^*_\chi(p^*){}&=\left\{\
\begin{aligned}
\left(\xi\mapsto \frac{1}{2}|\xi|^2-(0,0,\mu)\cdot \xi\right)^*(p^*) &\quad \text{ for } \chi=0,\\
\left(\xi\mapsto \frac{\mu}{2}|\xi|^2-(0,0,\mu)\cdot \xi\right)^*(p^*) &\quad \text{ for }\chi=1,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\\[0.5em]
{}&=\frac{\chi}{2\,\mu}\big|p^*+(0,0,\mu)\big|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}\big|p^*+(0,0,\mu)\big|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used classical properties of the convex conjugate (ex. [@HiriartUrrutyLemarechal1993 Proposition 1.3.1, p.42]). Thus, the dual problem becomes $$\label{P*} -\inf_{p^*\in Y_d} \tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p^*),$$ where $$\label{FunctionalE} \tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p^*)\defeq \int_D\left\{\frac{\chi}{2\,\mu}\,\big|p^*-(0,0,\mu)\big|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}\,\big|p^*-(0,0,\mu)\big|^2\right\}d\mathbf x+J_2(\chi).$$ Next, we calculate the derivative of the perturbations $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle \Phi_\chi'(u,p),(v,q)\rangle\\
&=\int_D\Big\{\chi\,\mu\,(\nabla u-p)\cdot (\nabla v-q)+(1-\chi)\,(\nabla u-p)\cdot(\nabla v-q)-(0,0,\mu)\cdot (\nabla v-q)\Big\}\;d\mathbf x,\end{aligned}$$ so that the differential satisfies $$\mathrm d \Phi_\chi(u,p)=\left(
\begin{aligned}
\chi\,\mu\,(\nabla u-p)+(1-\chi)\,(\nabla u-p)-(0,0,\mu)\\
-\chi\,\mu\,(\nabla u-p)-(1-\chi)\,(\nabla u-p)+(0,0,\mu)
\end{aligned}
\right)^\top\in Y\times Y\subset V^*\times Y.$$ According to [@EkelandTemam1999 Proposition 5.1, p.21], $$\Phi_\chi(u,0)+\Phi^*_\chi(0,p^*)=0$$ is equivalent to $$\label{subdiff}
(0,p^*)\in \partial\Phi_\chi(u,0),$$ the latter denoting the subdifferential of $\Phi_\chi$. But $\Phi_\chi$ is differentiable, so that $\partial\Phi_\chi (u,0)=\{\mathrm d\Phi_\chi (u,0)\}$. Thus, is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
0{}&=\chi\,\mu\,\nabla u+(1-\chi)\,\nabla u-(0,0,\mu) &\quad \text{(in the sense of distributions)} \label{eq1}\\
p^*{}&=-\chi\,\mu\,\nabla u-(1-\chi)\,\nabla u+(0,0,\mu), &\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ where translates to $$\label{eq3}\int_D\Big(\chi\,\mu\,\nabla u+(1-\chi)\,\nabla u-(0,0,\mu)\Big)\cdot\nabla v\;d\mathbf x=0\text{ for all } v\in V.$$ A solution to the equation is $u=u_\chi$, the minimizer of the primal problem . Set $$p_\chi^*\defeq -\chi\,\mu\,\nabla u_\chi-(1-\chi)\,\nabla u_\chi+(0,0,\mu).$$ Then, from [@EkelandTemam1999 Proposition 2.4, p.53] we get that $p_\chi^*$ is a solution to the dual problem . Define $\mathcal E_\chi:Y\strongly\mathbb R$ by $$\label{energy}
\mathcal E_\chi(q)\defeq \int_D\left(\frac{\chi\,\mu}{2}\,|q|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}\,|q|^2\right)d\mathbf x+J_2(\chi).$$ We have the following:
\[dual-new\] The function $u_\chi$ satisfies $$\label{eq10}
\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u_\chi)=\min\left\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u): u\in V_\chi\right\}=\min_{p^*\in Y_d}\tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p^*),$$ where the space $V_\chi$ is defined by $$\label{Space}V_\chi\defeq \left\{v\in V:\int_D \big(-\chi\,\mu\,\nabla v-(1-\chi)\,\nabla v+(0,0,\mu)\big)\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x=0\text{ for all } u\in V\right\}.$$ In particular, it holds $$\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u_\chi)=\min\left\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u): u\in V_\chi\text{ and } u =u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\right\}.$$
First note that $$\begin{aligned}
{}&\min_{p^*\in Y_d}\tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p^*) = \tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p_\chi^*)\\
{}&\quad=\int_D\left(\frac{\chi}{2\,\mu}\,\big|\chi\,\mu\,\nabla u_\chi+(1-\chi)\,\nabla u_\chi\big|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}\,\big|\chi\,\mu\,\nabla u_\chi+(1-\chi)\,\nabla u_\chi\big|^2\right)d\mathbf x+J_2(\chi)\\
{}&\quad =\int_D\left(\frac{\chi\,\mu}{2}\,|\nabla u_\chi|^2+\frac{1-\chi}{2}\,|\nabla u_\chi|^2\right)d\mathbf x+J_2(\chi).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u_\chi)={}&\min\Big\{\tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p^*):p^*\in Y_d\Big\}\\
={}&\min\bigg\{\tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi(p^*):p^*\in Y\text{ and }\int_D p^*\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x=0\text{ for all }u\in V\bigg\}\\
={}&\min\bigg\{\tilde{\mathcal E}_\chi\big(-\chi\,\mu\,q-(1-\chi)\,q+(0,0,\mu)\big):q\in Y\text{ and}\\
{}&\qquad \int_D \big(-\chi\,\mu\,q-(1-\chi)\,q+(0,0,\mu)\big)\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x=0\text{ for all } u\in V\bigg\}\\
={}&\min\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(q):q\in Y\text{ and}\\
{}&\qquad \int_D \big(-\chi\,\mu\,q-(1-\chi)\,q+(0,0,\mu)\big)\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x=0\text{ for all } u\in V\bigg\}\\
\leq{}&\inf\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since from its definition $u_\chi\in V_\chi$, we obtain that $$\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u_\chi)=\min_{u\in V_\chi}\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u).$$ Since the minimization problem does not change when we consider it in the class of functions that satisfy the “correct” (i.e., $u=u_\chi$ on $\partial D$) boundary condition, we obtain $$u_\chi=\argmin\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\text{ and }v=u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}.$$
We can now prove the following:
\[EquivThm\] Define the energy functional $$\mathcal E(u,\chi)\defeq \mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u)-\int_D(0,0,\mu)\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x,$$ where $\mathcal E_\chi$ is given by , and let $( u _0,\chi_0)\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X (D)$ satisfy $$J( u _0,\chi_0)=\min_{ u \in H^1_{cyl}(D)}\max_{\chi\in X (D)} J( u ,\chi).$$ Then $( u _0,\chi_0)$ satisfies $$\mathcal E(u_0,\chi_0)=\min\bigg\{\mathcal E(u,\chi):(u,\chi)\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X (D)\text{ with } u=u_0\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}.$$
From the discussion above we get that for $\chi\in X(D)$, the dual problem is equivalent to the problem $$\max\bigg\{-\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\text{ and } v =u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\},$$ where $V_\chi$ is defined in . From [@EkelandTemam1999 Proposition 2.4, p.53] we get that $$\label{eq5}
\max\bigg\{-\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\text{ and } v =u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}=\min\bigg\{J( v,\chi):v\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\bigg\}$$ and, from Lemma \[dual-new\], that $$\label{eq6}
u_\chi=\argmin\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\text{ and } v =u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}$$ for all $\chi\in X(D)$. Since the function $$\chi\mapsto \min\bigg\{J( v,\chi):v\in H^1_{cyl}(D)\bigg\}$$ (minimizers are unique so the mapping is well-defined as a real function) is maximized for $\chi=\chi_0$, we get that $\chi_0$ maximizes $$\begin{aligned}
\chi\mapsto {}& \max\bigg\{-\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\text{ and } v =u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}\\
{}& =-\min\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla v):v\in V_\chi\text{ and } v =u_\chi\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}\\
{}& =-\mathcal E_\chi(u_\chi),
\end{aligned}$$ where, the last equality is due to . Using equation again, we get that $$\mathcal E_{\chi_0}(\nabla u_0)=\min\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u):(u,\chi)\in V_0\times X (D)\text{ with } u=u_0\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\},$$ where $V_0\defeq V_{\chi_0}$. Because of $$\int_D (0,0,\mu)\cdot \nabla u_0\;d\mathbf x = \int_D (u_0)_z\;d\mathbf x = \int_\Omega \left(u_0|_{z=1}-u_0|_{z=-1}\right)dxdy,$$ we can add the missing term on both sides to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal E_{\chi_0}(u_0){}&-\int_D(0,0,\mu)\cdot\nabla u_0\;d\mathbf x\\
{}&=\min\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u)-\int_D(0,0,\mu)\cdot\nabla u_0\;d\mathbf x:(u,\chi)\in V_0\times X (D)\text{ with } u=u_0\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}\\
{}&=\min\bigg\{\mathcal E_\chi(\nabla u)-\int_D(0,0,\mu)\cdot\nabla u\;d\mathbf x:(u,\chi)\in V_0\times X (D)\text{ with } u=u_0\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ that is, $$\label{eq9}
\mathcal E(u_0,\chi_0)=\min\bigg\{\mathcal E(u,\chi):(u,\chi)\in V_0\times X (D)\text{ with } u=u_0\text{ on }\partial D\bigg\}.$$ In order to finish the proof, note that the minimizer of $\mathcal E$ in $H^1_{cyl}(D)\times X (D)$ belongs to $V_0\times X (D)$, since the side condition in $V_0$ is nothing else than the partial Euler-Lagrange equation of $\mathcal E$.
Since $(u_0,\chi_0)$ minimizes an energy functional, it is possible to apply the theory developed in the references to obtain regularity results. More precisely, we have the following proposition.
\[LinRegularity\] Let $(u_0,\chi_0)$ be a minimizer of $\mathcal{E}$ and $D_F$ be given by , that is, the set occupied by the ferrofluid. Then $u \in C^{0,\frac{1}{2}}_{loc}(D)$, and $\partial D_F\cap D$ is locally a $C^{1,\alpha}$-submanifold of $\mathbb R^3$ for some $\alpha \in( 0,1)$, that is, up to a relatively closed singular set $\Sigma$ which satisfies $\mathcal{H}^{2}(\Sigma)=0$. Here $\mathcal H^2$ denotes the $2$-dimensional Hausdorff measure in $\mathbb R^3$, restricted on $\partial D_F\cap D$.
Because of Theorem \[EquivThm\], The regularity results of [@LinKohn1999 Theorem 1.1] and [@LinKohn1999 Theorem 1.2] apply and provide the claim. In the notation of that paper, we need to set $F(x,u,p)=\frac{1}{2}|p|^2$, and $G(x,u,p)=\frac{\mu-1}{2} |p|^2 + bz + p_0$ (note that $\mu>1$ by assumption).
As a direct consequence of the above we obtain that the optimal set is equivalent to a relatively open set.
\[LinRegularity1\] Let $(u_0,\chi_0)$ be a minimizer of $\mathcal{E}$ and $D_F$ as in Theorem \[LinRegularity\]. Let $\tilde \chi$ be the characteristic function of the set $D_F\setminus(\partial D_F\cap D)$. Then $\mathcal E(u_0,\tilde \chi)\leq \mathcal E(u_0,\chi_0)$.
Theorem \[LinRegularity\] implies that $\mathcal H^3(\partial D_F\cap D)=0$ since the set $(\partial D_F\cap D)\setminus \Sigma$ is a $2$-dimensional submanifold. So we get from the definition of the perimeter that $\int_D|\nabla \tilde \chi|= \int_D|\nabla\chi_0|$ which implies the corollary.
Thus in the linear case one can obtain a solution as a minimizer instead of a saddle point. That, in turn, allows for the application of the deep theory which was developed in the references listed in the beginning of Section \[duality\] for minimizers of free discontinuity problems.
[^1]: Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, 39 Rue Frederic Joliot Curie, 13453 Marseille, France
[^2]: Institut für Mathematik, Universität Kassel, 34132 Kassel, Germany
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report a detailed spectral study of Swift J1357.2-0933 low-mass X-ray binary during its 2017 outburst using [*Swift*]{} and [*NuSTAR*]{} observations. We fit the data with two component advective flow (TCAF) model and power-law model. We observe that the source is in hard state during the outburst, where the size of the Compton cloud changes significantly with disc accretion rate. The typical disc accretion rate for this source is $\sim 1.5-2.0~\%$ of the Eddington accretion rate $(\dot M_{Edd})$. The model fitted intermediate shock compression ratio gives an indication of the presence of jet, which is reported in the literature in different energy bands. We also split NuSTAR data into three equal segments and fit with the model. We check spectral stability using color-color diagram and accretion rate ratio (ARR) vs. intensity diagram using different segments of the light curve but do not find any significant variation in the hardness ratio or in the accretion rate ratio. To estimate the mass of the candidate, we use an important characteristics of TCAF that the the model normalization always remains a constant. We found that the mass comes out to be in the range of $4.0-6.8~M_\odot$. From the model fitted results, we study the disc geometry and different physical parameters of the flow in each observation. The count rate of the source appears to decay in a time scale of $\sim 45 day$.'
author:
- |
Santanu Mondal[^1]$^{1,2}$ and Sandip K. Chakrabarti[^2]$^{2,3}$\
$^{1}$Instituto de Física y Astronomía, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Valparaíso, Gran Bretana N 1111, Playa Ancha, Valparaíso, Chile\
$^{2}$Indian Centre for Space Physics, Chalantika 43, Garia Station Rd., Kolkata, 700084, India\
$^{3}$S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Kolkata, 700098, India
title: 'Implications on accretion flow dynamics from spectral study of Swift J1357.2-0933'
---
[black hole physics, accretion, accretion discs, binaries: close, stars: individual (Swift J1357.2-0933)]{}
Introduction
============
In a black hole binary, matter falls onto the compact object while transporting angular momentum outwards and mass inwards converting half of its gravitational potential energy into thermal energy and radiation energy. Thus, it is interesting to study the accretion dynamics both in temporal and spatial domains. Unlike a persistent source, where accretion rates could be steady for a long time, in an outburst source, rates are supposed to be varying. Outbursting black hole candidates (BHCs) spend most of the times in the quiescence state and occasionally undergo bright X-ray outbursts, which are definitely due to a huge increase of accretion rate. One of the most natural ways to achieve this is by varying viscosity. It is possible that an outburst may be triggered by enhancement of viscosity at the piling radius of matter. Chakrabarti (1990, 1996) suggested that when the rise of viscous process increases the viscosity parameter above a critical value, the low angular momentum flow can acquire a Keplerian distribution which becomes a SS73-like standard disk in presence of cooling (Shakura & Sunyaev, 1973). Based on this Chakrabarti (1997) concluded that the regular rise and fall of the accretion rate is due to the enhancement and reduction of viscosity at the outer regions of the disc.
Transient BHCs show several components in their spectra, namely, blackbody, power-law and an iron line at around 6.4keV. These distinct components are primarily from the optically thick and thin flow components. It is observed that the spectra change their shape during the outburst following a cycle from hard to soft through intermediate states i.e., see, the hardness intensity diagram (HID, Homan & Belloni 2005; Nandi et al. 2012). Several attempts were made to explain changes in the spectral shape and its variation (Remillard & McClintock 2006 for a review). However, there was a lack of physical understanding behind this. Most of the studies are qualitative and phenomenological. It is believed that changes in the accretion rate may be responsible for changes in spectral states (Maccarone & Coppi 2003; Meyer-Hofmeister et al. 2004 and references therein). However, causes of the change in accretion rate on a daily basis, the origin of corona and its temperature, optical depth etc. were not very clear.
The problems were satisfactorily resolved when proper usage of the solution of transonic flows in presence of viscosity was used. In a Two Component Advective Flow (TCAF, Chakrabarti & Titarchuk 1995, hereafter, CT95) solution, a Keplerian disc which arises out of higher viscosity is immersed inside a hot sub-Keplerian flow of lower viscosity. This sub-Keplerian, low angular momentum hot matter forms an axisymmetric shock due to the dominance of the centrifugal force (Chakrabarti 1990; Molteni, Lanzafame & Chakrabarti 1994). The subsonic region between the shock boundary to the inner sonic point is hot and puffed up and behaves as the Compton cloud, which upscatters intercepted soft photons from the standard disc. This region also supplies matter to the jet and outflow (Chakrabarti 1999a, hereafter C99a). This is called the CENtrifugal barrier dominated BOundary Layer or CENBOL. This region could be oscillatory when its cooling time scale roughly matches with the infall (compression) timescale inside CENBOL (MSC96; Chakrabarti & Manickam 2000; Chakrabarti et al. 2015). Recently, Chakrabarti et al. (2015) applied the resonance condition for H 1743-322 black hole candidate and showed that the low frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (LFQPOs) are produced when cooling time scale roughly matches with the infall time scale. Transonic solution by Mondal & Chakrabarti (2013; CT95) shows that cooling mechanism is also responsible for the change in spectral states. The presence of two components as in CT95 is established by many other authors in the literature (Smith et al. 2001, 2002; Wu et al. 2002; Ghosh & Chakrabarti, 2018).
After the implementation of TCAF in XSPEC (Debnath et al. 2014) and fitting data of several black hole candidates, one obtains physical parameters of the underlying inflow, such as the accretion rates of the disk and halo components, the shock location and the shock strength. If the mass is unknown, this will also be found out from the spectral fit (e.g., Molla et al. 2016; Bhatterjee et al. 2017). A plot of photon count variation with accretion rate ratio (ARR) gives the so call ARR intensity diagram (ARRID, Mondal et al. 2014b; Jana et al. 2016) and directly shows why the spectral state changes. The changes in accretion rates on a daily basis is due to changes in viscosity parameter during the outburst (Mondal et al. 2017). The time scale of the changes can also be estimated from the model fitted accretion rates (Jana et al. 2016). From the spectral fits, QPO frequencies can be predicted as well (Debnath et al. 2014; Chakrabarti et al. 2015; Chatterjee et al. 2016).
Till date, many faint X-ray binaries have been discovered and with even fainter companions. Swift J1357.2-0933 has one of the shortest orbital periods and is a very faint black hole X-ray transient. The source was first detected in 2011 by the [*Swift*]{} Burst Alert Telescope (Barthelmy et al. 2005; Krimm et al. 2011). The distance to the source is not confirmed. This can range from $\sim 1.5$ - 6.3 kpc (Rau et al. 2011; Shahbaz et al. 2013). There is also a large discrepancy in mass measurement of the source. The mass of the black hole is estimated to be $> 3.6~M_\odot$ by Corral-Santana et al. (2013) and $> 9.3~M_\odot$ by Mata Sànchez et al. (2015). Corral-Santana et al. (2013) also estimated the orbital period to be $2.8\pm0.3~hrs$ from the time-resolved optical spectroscopy. They observed recurring dips on 2-8 min time-scales in the optical lightcurve, although the RXTE and XMM-Newton data do not show any of the above evidences (Armas Padilla et al. 2014). The observed broad, double-peaked $H_{\alpha}$ profile supports a high orbital inclination (Torres et al. 2015). Very recently, Russell et al. (2018) found an evolving jet synchrotron emission using long term optical monitoring of the source.
In the earlier outburst during 2011, the source had a variable accretion and showed very regular temporal and spectral evolution. The detailed multiwavelengh lightcurve is studied by Weng & Zhang (2015). Recently, Swift J1357.2-0933 showed renewed activity on 2017 April 20 (Drake et al. 2017) and April 21 (Sivakoff et al. 2017, observed by Swift/XRT). Very recently, Stiele & Kong (2018) observed the source by NuSTAR and there is a simultaneous observation in Swift/XRT as well. Thus the present outburst covers a broadband energy range. In this paper, we use the above data to study the flow dynamics of the source during its 2017 outburst.
The paper is organized as follows: in the next Section, we present the observation and data analysis procedure. In §3, we discuss about the model fitted results and geometry of the disc during the outburst. We also estimate the mass from the model fit. In §4, we calculate various physical quantities of the disc from model fitted parameters to infer about the disc properties. Finally, in §5, we draw our brief concluding remarks.
Observation and data analysis
=============================
In the present manuscript, we analyze both Swift/XRT (Gehrel et al., 2004) and NuSTAR (Harrison et al. 2013) satellite observations of the BHC Swift J1357.2-0933 during its 2017 outburst.
Swift
-----
In our present analysis, we use 0.5-7.0 keV Swift/XRT observation of Swift J1357.2-0933 during 2017 outburst, the timings of which overlap with the NuSTAR observations presented below. The observation IDs are 00088094002 (Photon Counting mode, PC) and 00031918066 (Windowed Timing mode, WT). We use [*xrtpipeline v0.13.2*]{} task to extract the event fits file from the raw XRT data. All filtering tasks are done by [*FTOOLS*]{}. To generate source and background spectra we run [*xselect*]{} task. We use swxpc0to4s6\_20130101v014.rmf and swxwt0to2s6\_20130101v015.rmf file for the response matrix. The $\it grppha$ task is used to group the data. We use 10 bins in each group. We use same binning for both the observations and also in NuSTAR data, which we discuss in the next section.
NuSTAR
------
We analyze two NuSTAR observations with observation IDs: 90201057002 (hereafter O1, combined with 00088094002) and 90301005002 (hereafter O2, combined with 00031918066) of BHC Swift J1357.2-0933 with energy range 2.0-70 keV. NuSTAR data were extracted using the standard NUSTARDAS v1.3.1 software. We run ‘nupipeline’ task to produce cleaned event lists and ‘nuproducts’ for spectral file generation. We use $30^{''}$ radius region for the source extraction and $45^{''}$ for the background using “ds9”. The data is grouped by “grppha” command, where we group the whole energy bin with 10 bins in each group. We choose the same binning and fitting criteria for both the observations. However, the data quality of O2 is not good and above $\sim 20$ keV it is highly noisy. Thus the count at different energy ranges in O2 is not similar to O1. We split the NuSTAR observations into three different time ranges (S1, S2, and S3) each of which contains $\sim 24~ksec$ (for O1) and $\sim 15~ksec$ (for O2) data. For that purpose, first we make our own “GTI” files for each time range using “gtibuild” task in SAS environment and use those GTI files during data extraction. For spectral fitting of the data we use XSPEC (Arnaud, 1996) version 12.8.1. We fit the data using 1) Power-law (PL), and 2) TCAF models. The detailed spectral fitting with other phenomenological models and with reflection model (relxill) are discussed in Stiele & Kong (2018). Using relxill model and assuming high inclination, they found that the disc is truncated close to the black hole independent of spin parameter. Here, we mainly focus on the TCAF model fitted parameters to study the physical properties of the disc and its geometry during the outburst. To fit the spectra with the TCAF model in XSPEC, we have a TCAF model generated [*fits*]{} file (Debnath et al. 2014). We follow the same analysis procedure for TCAF fitting with Swift and NuSTAR data as discussed in Mondal et al. (2016). We use the absorption model $\it{TBabs}$ (Wilms et al. 2000) with hydrogen column density fixed at 1.3$\times$ 10$^{21}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$ throughout the analysis. In the above absorption model solar abundance vector set to “wilm”, which includes cosmic absorption with grains and $H_2$ and those absorptions which are not included in the paper are set to zero. We keep the mass as a free parameter in order to estimate it from the TCAF itself.
Model fitted results and disc geometry
======================================
We study the BHC Swift J1357.2-0933 using Swift/XRT and NuSTAR observations with PL model. PL model fitted photon index is $\sim 1.7-1.8$. Thus the object is in a hard state. We also fit the data with the TCAF solution based fits file which uses five physical parameters: The parameters are as follows (i) Mass of the black hole, (ii) disc accretion rate, (iii) halo accretion rate, (iv) location of the shock, and (v) shock compression ratio. Parameters (ii) to (v) collectively give the electron density and temperature, photon spectrum and density, the fraction of photons intercepted by the CENBOL from the disk, as well as the reflection of hard photons from the CENBOL by the disc. All of these depend on the mass of the black hole. According to CT95, if one increases the halo rate keeping other parameters frozen, the model will produce a hard spectrum. Similarly, increasing the disc rate leaving other parameters frozen, will produce a soft spectrum. When the location of the shock is increased keeping other parameters fixed, spectrum will be harder. A similar effect is seen for compression ratio also (see also, Chakrabarti 1997). In general, in an outburst, all the parameters will change smoothly in a multidimensional space. The model fitted results for both the observations are given in Table 1. In Fig. 1(a-b), we present the TCAF model fitted spectra. The model fitted parameters show that the disc rate was higher on the second day. Opposite is true for the halo rate. In both the observations, the ratio of the halo rate and disc rate is larger than unity, i.e., the flow is dominated by the sub-Keplerian rate. This is an indication of the hard state. At some point in time, before the second observation day, viscosity may have started to go up, and the Keplerian disc rate also started to increase. However, this was not enough so as to change the spectral state (as a minimum viscosity is required for such changes (Mondal et al. 2017). The PL model fitted photon index also indicates a hard spectral state.
As the shock is the outer boundary of the Compton cloud, the movement of the shock shows a change in size of the Compton cloud. On the second day of observation, the shock moved closer to the black hole as compared to the first day from $X_s=81.00~r_g$ to $\sim 36.66~r_g$ (where, Schwarzschild radius $r_g=2GM_{BH}/c^2$). This type of behavior is observed routinely in all the black holes during the rising phase of the outburst. The behavior of advancing inner edge of the disc was studied by several authors for various outbursting candidates (Esin et al. 1997; Tomsick et al. 2009; Dutta & Chakrabarti 2010; Shidatsu et al. 2011; Nandi et al. 2012). The shock compression ratio (the ratio of the post-shock to pre-shock flow density experienced by the low angular momentum component) is always observed to be higher than unity and is generally of intermediate strength. In this case, the jets and outflows are expected to be strong (C99a; Chakrabarti 1999b). For the compression ratio given in the Table, the expected outflow/inflow ratio will be $3.4-4.2~\%$. This jet may appear and disappear during the transition phase of the outburst, although the actual interrelation between the jet properties and the X-ray spectral state evolution is still debate (Kalemci et al. 2005; Dincer et al. 2014). Several attempts have been taken (Tomsick et al. 2009; Petrucci et al. 2014 and references therein) to understand the evolution of the Compton cloud and spectral state transitions as a function of luminosity during the outburst. Recent transonic solution of Mondal et al. (2014a) following the same flow geometry and jet configuration of C99a, showed that since the jet removes a significant amount of matter from CENBOL, it is easier to cool the Compton cloud. Thus, a change in spectral states in presence of jet is expected to be faster. Following the above model understanding and the values of the model fitted parameters, we conclude that the source was in rising hard state of the outburst during the observations.
-0.4 cm
Obs. model1 (PL) model2 (TCAF)
------ ------------------------- ---------------------------- -- --
1 $\Gamma=1.678\pm0.007$ $M_{BH}=6.84\pm0.39$
$norm=0.018\pm0.001$ $\dot{m}_d=0.017\pm0.001$
$\chi^2/dof=792.95/798$ $\dot{m}_h=0.378\pm 0.021$
– $X_s=81.04\pm7.91$
– $R=2.74\pm0.34$
– $\chi^2/dof=804.56/805$
2 $\Gamma=1.811\pm0.015$ $M_{BH}=4.01\pm0.34$
$norm=0.0088\pm0.0003$ $\dot{m}_d=0.019\pm0.004$
$\chi^2/dof=451.98/442$ $\dot{m}_h=0.213\pm 0.013$
– $X_s=36.66\pm4.42$
– $R=2.0\pm0.16$
– $\chi^2/dof=473.12/446$
: \[table1\] PL and TCAF model fitted parameters of combined Swift/XRT and NuSTAR observation
In Fig. 2, we show the hardness intensity diagram (HID) and accretion rate ratio intensity diagram (ARRID) after splitting the data in three segments of equal time interval. The HID shows that the hardness ratio varied from 1.7 to 2.2. Thus one can say that the source is moderately variable. After fitting the data segments with TCAF model, we see that the ARR in ARRID varies by a factor of about 2. From both the diagrams, we note that the flow was not rapidly evolving.
In a series of papers with TCAF model fits, constant normalization was used for a given object observed by a given instrument as it is a conversion factor between the observed flux and the model flux. In Fig. 1, to fit the data we obtained model normalization $1.12$ for NuSTAR observations, whereas Swift observations the fitting procedure produces the normalization values of $0.31$ for O1 and $1.13$ for O2. The freedom in absorption does not improve the fit significantly, rather gives a factor of $10$ difference in $N_H$ between O1 and O2. As the normalization is not chosen by hand and it comes out as a fitted parameter, the ratio of the normalizations is important. The relative normalization for the two instruments can be calculated from the ratio of the model normalizations obtained from the fits of each instrument’s spectrum. There could be several reasons for getting different normalizations in Swift data in O1 and O2: 1) if the Swift and NuSTAR data are not strictly simultaneous, 2) there could be a pile-up issue, and 3) if the source is close to the PC/WT switch point, then it may be relatively faint for WT. As the source was not highly variable during that period, the point 1 cannot be a reason for the difference in normalization. The pile-up could be an issue as the count rate is above $0.5$ cnts/sec. We should mention that we have performed the analysis using pile-up corrected spectrum files for PC mode generated by online Swift/XRT product generator (Evans et al. 2009). However, the difference in normalization persists. The model fitted parameter values also remained unchanged with an acceptable reduced $\chi^2 (\sim 1.0)$ keeping the mass of the source within $4.0~M_\odot - 6.8~M_\odot$. The third point should not be the reason for difference in normalization as the source is sufficiently bright for WT mode.
These leads us to conclude that the difference in normalization could be due to other physical processes inside the accretion disc which were not incorporated in TCAF. As discussed in Jana et al. (2016) and Molla et al. (2017), the presence of jet is a reason for the difference in normalization. During the present outburst period, activity in jet was observed for this source. Thus the presence of jet/outflow could be a reason behind the variation of normalization constant.
Estimation of different physical quantities of the disc
=======================================================
In this Section, we estimate some physical parameters of the disc using TCAF model fitted parameters. From Kepler’s law, one can derive a relation between orbital period ($P$) and orbital separation $a$ as follows: $$a=3.5\times10^{10}m_2^{1/3}(1+q)^{1/3}P(hr)^{2/3},
\eqno{(1)}$$ where $q$ ($=m_1/m_2$) is the mass ratio of the component stars. Outer disc radius ($r_{out}$) of the primary star is calculated from the Roche lobe radius of the primary following Eggleton (1983) as, $$r_{Rl,1}=\frac{0.49\times~a~q^{2/3}}{0.6\times~q^{2/3}+ln[1+q^{1/3}]}.
\eqno{(2)}$$ In this work, we consider that the outer edge of the disc ($r_{out}$) is 70% of the Roche lobe radius. We use the values of P (= 2.8 hrs) and companion mass ($= 0.17~M_\odot$) in Eq. 2, already derived by Corral-Santana et al. (2013), to estimate Roche lobe radius, which appears to be $r_{out}=0.68\times10^{11}$. Using the above derived outer disc radius and model fitted accretion rate, we calculate kinematic viscosity ($\nu$) and surface density ($\Sigma$) of the disc. It is to be noted that the disc accretion rate which we are using from TCAF fit is constant throughout the disc, thus we assume that the accretion at $r_{out}$ is same as the model fit value. We use standard disc equations (SS73) below to derive the above two physical parameters ($\nu$ and $\Sigma$): $$\Sigma\simeq \frac{\dot{M}_{d}}{3\pi\nu},
\eqno{(3)}$$ where, $\nu$ is calculated using $SS73\alpha$ disc model ($\nu$=$\alpha C_s H$). Here $C_s^2(=\frac{kT}{\mu m_p})$ and $H (=\frac{C_s}{\Omega_K} = 0.024)$ are the sound speed at the outer radius of the disc, height of the disc and $\Omega_K$ is the Keplerian angular velocity at that point respectively. The temperature of the disc is calculated from the disc accretion rate. The estimated values of $\Sigma$ and $\nu$ are $\sim 49.1~gm/cm^2$ and $\sim 4.0\times10^{14}~cm^2/sec$ respectively. During our calculation, we consider that the disc is not self-gravitating i.e., vertical hydrostatic equilibrium is maintained against the pull of the gravity. The computed low surface density and kinematic viscosity are indicating a stable disc. In the context of disc stability, Weng & Zhang (2015) mentioned that the high ratio of near UV luminosity to X-ray luminosity indicates that the irradiation is unimportant in this outburst, while the near-exponential decay profile and the long decay time-scale conflicts with the disc thermal-viscous instability model. Hence they suggested that the disc is thermally stable during the outburst. Armas Padilla et al. (2013) also found that the correlation between Swift/UVOT v-band and XRT data is consistent with a non-irradiated accretion disc.
Here, we present the chain of logical steps used to fit the observed lightcurve: (i) we have mass and disc accretion rate from TCAF fit, (ii) using (i) we estimate disc temperature thus the sound speed, (iii) we also have orbital period ($P$) and mass function ($q$) from literature, (iv) outer disc radius is estimated using Eq. 1 from the parameters of (iii), (v) once (ii) and (iv) are known one can estimate height of the disc, Keplerian angular frequency, and disc kinematic viscosity to estimate the viscous time scale, and (vi) finally, we extract SS73-$\alpha$ parameter for which the derived and the fitted $\tau$ values are consistent. Here, $\alpha$ takes the value 0.25 to give a decay timescale ($\tau$) of $\sim 45$ days. To fit the observed count rate using decay timescale, we use an exponential decay function, which is given by: $$f=A~exp(-t/\tau),
\eqno{(4)}$$ where $A$ is a normalization constant, which takes the value of $3.91\pm0.16$ with exponential decay timescale ($\tau$) around $45.28\pm4.78~days$. The estimated SS73 disc viscosity parameter ($\alpha=0.25$) becomes same order as those obtained for other observed candidates (Nagarkoti & Chakrabarti 2016; Mondal et al. 2017). Here we consider $A$ as a constant, however it should depend on the source distance and the physical properties of the disc. The detailed calculation is beyond the scope of this paper. In Fig. 3, we show exponential decay function fitted with the observed count rate.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
In this paper, we analyzed Swift/XRT and NuSTAR spectra of a known Galactic stellar mass black hole source Swift J1357.2-0933 during its 2017 outburst using a phenomenological PL model and a physical TCAF solution. We find that on both the observation dates, the sub-Keplerian halo accretion rate is higher than the Keplerian accretion rate. In the second observed day, the disc rate is increased as compared to first observed day and opposite variation is seen in the sub-Keplerian rate. The object was in hard state on both the days. As the halo rate is higher than the disc rate and the shock compression ratio is always greater than unity, the shock moved inward due to cooling. This could be the signature of the hard state in the rising phase of the outburst. The shock was seen to move at $\sim 0.15$ m/s which is similar to the shock velocity in other outbursts (Debnath et al. 2010 for GX 339-4; Mondal et al. 2015 for H 1743-322 and references therein). This indicates that the outburst probably remained in the rising phase and no other spectral state has been missed in between these $\sim 40~days$. It is to be noted that the companion of this candidate is a star evolved through nuclear fusion (Shahbaz et al. 2013) with an initial mass $\sim 1.5~M_\odot$, which has evolved to $0.17~M_\odot$. Thus there is a possibility that the accretion is mostly dominated by companion winds and thus the halo rate is always higher. Our model fitted disc rate is $\sim 1.5-2$% of $\dot M_{Edd}$. As the disc rate increases and the shock location decreased in $\sim 40$ days, viscosity must have gone up since the first observation. As the shock compression ratio is in intermediate strength, in this case, the jets and outflows are expected to be strong with outflow/inflow rate ratio 3.4-4.2%. From TCAF model fit, we estimate the mass range for this black hole candidate to be $4.0-6.8~M_\odot$. However, a few more observations would have reduced the error-bar significantly.
We also study different physical parameters of the disc. For that, we calculate the surface density, kinematic viscosity and disc aspect ratio etc. of the disc using the model fitted parameters. We find that the disc surface density is not high enough signifying that the disc is stable in nature. The estimated surface density is also reasonable to produce a consistent $\alpha$ value to study the decay of the lightcurve. We find that the lightcurve fits with exponential decay function with the decay time scale of $\sim 45~day$, which is consistent with the derived decay time scale when $\alpha$=0.25. Thus from the model fit we can study the spectra, disc properties, lightcurve decay and estimate viscosity parameter at a time.
Acknowledgment
==============
We thank anonymous referee for useful comments on the manuscript. SM acknowledges Swift team (especially Kim Page) for useful discussions on Swift data fitting and Patricia Arèvalo for commenting on the preliminary version of the paper. SM acknowledges FONDECYT fellowship grand (\# 3160350) for this work. This research has made use of the NuSTAR Data Analysis Software (NuSTARDAS) jointly developed by the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC, Italy) and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech, USA), and the XRT Data Analysis Software (XRTDAS) developed under the responsibility of the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC), Italy. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
\#1
=2 0in 14.5cm 1cm 13.5cm [\#1]{}
Armas Padilla, M., Degenaar, N., Russell, D. M., & Wijnands, R. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3083 Armas Padilla, M., Wijnands, R., Altamirano, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3908 Arnaud, K.A., ASP Conf. Ser., Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G.H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 101, 17 (1996) Bhattacharjee, A., Banerjee, I., Banerjee, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1372 Chakrabarti, S. K. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 7 Chakrabarti, S. K. 1990, ApJ, 362, 406 Chakrabarti, S. K. 1996, ApJ, 464, 664 Chakrabarti, S. K. 1997, ApJ, 484, 313 Chakrabarti, S. K. 1999a, A & A, 351, 185 Chakrabarti, S. K. 1999b, Ind. J. Phys., 73B, 6, 931 Chakrabarti, S. K., & Titarchuk, L.G. 1995, ApJ, 455, 623 Chakrabarti, S. K., & Manickam, S. G. 2000, ApJ, 531, L41 Chakrabarti, S. K., Mondal, S. & Debnath, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3451 Chatterjee, D., Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 88 Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., & Muñoz-Darias, T., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 1048 Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Mondal, S. 2014, MNRAS, 440, L121 Debnath, D., Mondal, S., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1984 Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Nandi, A. 2010, A&A, 520, 98 Dincer, T., Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., et al., 2014, ApJ, 795, 74 Dutta, B. G., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2136 Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865 Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177 Gehrels et al., 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005 Ghosh, A.& Chakrabarti, S.K., 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1210 Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., & Christensen, F. E., et al., 2013, ApJ, 770, 103 Homan J., & Belloni T. 2005, Ap&SS, 300, 107 Jana, A., Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 107 Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Buxton, M. M., et al., 2005, ApJ, 622, 508 Krimm, H. A., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W., et al. 2011, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 3138 Maccarone, T. C., & Coppi, P. S. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 189 Mata Sànchez, D., Muñoz-Darias, T., Casares, J., Corral-Santana, J. M., & Shahbaz, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2199 McClintock, J. E. & Remillard, R. A. 2006, in Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, Cambridge, Astrophysical Ser., vol. 39, ed. W. Lewin & M. van der Klis (Cambridge Univ. Press), 157 Meyer-Hofmeister, E., Liu, B. F., & Meyer, F. 2004, A&A, 432, 181 Molla, A. A., Debnath, D., Chakrabarti, S. K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3163 Molla, A. A., Chakrabarti, S. K., Debnath, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 88 Molteni, D., Lanzafame, G., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 1994, ApJ, 425, 161 Molteni, D., Sponholz, H., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 1996, ApJ, 457, 805 Mondal, S. & Chakrabarti, S. K. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2716 Mondal, S., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Debnath, D. 2014a, Ap&SS, 353, 223 Mondal, S., Debnath, D., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 2014b, ApJ, 786, 4 Mondal, S., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Debnath, D. 2015, ApJ, 798, 57 Mondal, S., Chakrabarti, S. K., & Debnath, D. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 309 Mondal, S., Chakrabarti, S. K., Nagarkoti, S., & Arévalo, P. 2017, ApJ, 850, 47 Nagarkoti, S., & Chakrabarti S. K. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 850 Nandi A., Debnath D., Mandal S., & Chakrabarti S. K. 2012, A&A, 542, 56 Petrucci, P. O., Cabanac, C., Corbel, S., et al., 2014, A&A, 564, A37 Rau, A., Greiner, J., & Filgas, R. 2011, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 3140 Russell, D. M., Qasim, A. A., Bernardini, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 90 Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 Shahbaz, T., Russell, D. M., Zurita, C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2696 Shidatsu, M., et al., 2011, PASJ, 63, 785 Sivakoff, G. R., Tetarenko, B. E., Shaw, A. W., & Bahramian, A. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, No. 10314, 314 Smith, D. M., Heindl, W. A., Markwardt, C. B., et al., 2001, ApJL, 554, L41 Smith, D. M., Heindl, W. A., & Swank, J. H., 2002, ApJ, 569, 362 Stiele, H., & Kong, A. K. H. 2018, ApJ, 852, 34 Tomsick, J. A., Yamaoka, K., Corbel, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, L87 Torres, M. A. P., Jonker, P. G., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4292 Weng, S.-S., & Zhang, S.-N., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 486 Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914 Wu, K., Soria, R., Campbell-Wilson, D., et al., 2002, ApJ, 565, 1161
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that recently measured transverse momentum spectra of identified particles exhibit geometrical scaling (GS) in scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}=(\tilde{m}_{\rm T}/Q_0)^{2} (\tilde{m}_{\rm T}/ W)^{\lambda}$ where $\tilde{m}_{\rm T}=\sqrt{m^2+p^2_{\rm T}}-m$. We explore consequences of GS and show that both mid rapidity multiplicity and mean transverse momenta grow as powers of scattering energy. Furthermore, assuming Tsallis-like parametrization of the spectra we calculate the coefficients of this growth. We also show that Tsallis temperature is related to the average saturation scale.'
address: |
M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagellonian University,\
Reymonta 4, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
author:
- Michal Praszalowicz
title: Geometrical scaling for identified particles
---
Introduction
============
Geometrical scaling (GS) [@Stasto:2000er] has been observed both in Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS) at HERA [@GolecBiernat:1998js; @Praszalowicz:2012zh] and in particle production in hadronic collisions [@McLerran:2010ex; @Praszalowicz:2011tc; @Praszalowicz:2011rm]. It is an immediate consequence of the existence of an intermediate energy scale called saturation scale, denoted hereafter as $Q_{\mathrm{s}}$. Saturation [@sat1; @sat2] (for a review see [@Mueller:2001fv; @McLerran:2010ub]) appears due to the nonlinearities of parton evolution at small Bjorken $x$. General form of this evolution is given by the so-called JIMWLK equations [@jimwlk] which in the large $N_{\mathrm{c}}$ limit reduce to the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation [@BK]. These equations have traveling wave solutions which explicitly exhibit GS [@Munier:2003vc]. An effective theory relevant for the small Bjorken $x$ region is so called Color Glass Condensate (CGC) [@MLV]. For the purpose of present work the details of the saturation are not of primary importance; it is the very existence of the saturation scale which plays the crucial role.
For processes with an external scale ($Q^{2}$ in DIS or $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}$ of an observed particle produced in hadron-hadron scattering) larger than a typical non-perturbative energy scale $\Lambda^{2}$ being of the order of a couple of hundreds MeV, and smaller than, say, 10 GeV where perturbative QCD can be applied, observables like photon-proton cross-section or charged particle multiplicity depend only upon the ratio of this scale to $Q^{2}_{\mathrm{s}}$ called scaling variable $\tau$. This property is referred to as geometrical scaling [@Stasto:2000er]. However, in a situation where two (or more) external energy scales are present, there exist more than one such ratios, what implies violation or at least modification of GS. Indeed, as we have shown in Ref. [@Praszalowicz:2013uu], particle production in forward rapidity region provides a *bona fide* example of GS violation. Another possible case of interest are spectra of identified particles where particle masses provide yet another external energy scale that might lead to GS violation [@Stebel:2013kca]. It is the purpose of the present paper to see whether this is really the case.
It is well known that particle spectra at low and medium transverse momenta can be described by thermal distributions in transverse mass $m_{\mathrm{T}%
}=\sqrt{p^{2}_{\mathrm{T}}+m^{2}}$ with “temperature” $T$ which is a function of the scattering energy [@Hagedorn]. One may therefore hope that in some limited range geometrical scaling can be still present with pertinent scaling variable being $m^{2}_{\mathrm{T}}/Q^{2}_{\mathrm{s}}$. It is also known that more accurate fits are obtained by means of Tsallis-like parametrization [@Tsallis] where particle multiplicity distribution takes the following form (see *e.g.* [@Chatrchyan:2012qb]): $$\frac{1}{p_{\text{T}}}\frac{d^{2}N}{dydp_{\text{T}}}=C\frac{dN}{dy}\left[
1+\frac{m_{\mathrm{T}}-m}{n\,T}\right] ^{-n}\label{Tsallis}%$$ with$$C=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{n\,T\left( n\,T+(n-2)m\right) }.\label{normC}%$$ Coefficient $C$ in Eq. (\[normC\]) ensures proper normalization of (\[Tsallis\]). Here $n$ and $T$ are free fit parameters that depend on particle species. In the limit $n \rightarrow\infty$ distribution (\[Tsallis\]) tends to the exponent $\exp(-m_{\mathrm{T}}/T)$, *i.e.* to the thermal distribution mentioned above. Formula (\[Tsallis\]) suggests yet another possibility of scaling variable, namely $\tilde{m}^{2}%
_{\mathrm{T}}/Q^{2}_{\mathrm{s}}$ where $$\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}=m_{\mathrm{T}}-m=\sqrt{p^{2}_{\mathrm{T}}+m^{2}}-m
.\label{tildemT}%$$ Subtracting $m$ from $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ in (\[tildemT\]) contributes in the large $n$ limit to an overall factor and does not influence the functional dependence of thermal distribution. For finite $n$, as we shall see, it has a significant impact on the shape of the multiplicity distribution. Moreover, variable $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ is “more similar” to $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ as it vanishes for $p_{\mathrm{T}} \rightarrow0$ for all particle species, while $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ goes to the species dependent threshold value $m_{\alpha}$. For large transverse momenta both $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ tend to $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.
Saturation scale $Q_{\mathrm{s}}$ characterizes small Bjorken $x$ gluon cloud developed in the colliding hadrons due to the BFKL-like evolution. It depends upon gluons’ $x$’s which for elastic scattering of massless gluons are given by $$x=\frac{p_{\mathrm{T}}}{\sqrt{s}}\,e^{\pm y}\label{Bjx}%$$ where $W=\sqrt{s}$ denotes c.m.s. scattering energy, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\pm
y$ refer to the transverse momentum and to the rapidities of scattered gluons. Saturation scale used originally in Refs. [@Stasto:2000er; @GolecBiernat:1998js] takes the following form $$Q_{\mathrm{s}}^{2} = Q_{0}^{2} \left( \frac{x}{x_{0}}\right) ^{-\lambda
}\label{Qsdef}%$$ where $x_{0}$ is of the order of $10^{-3} - 10^{-4}$. Throughout this paper we shall assume $x_{0} =10^{-3} $. Our results, however, are not sensitive neither to this choice nor to the value of $Q_{0}$ for which we take 1 GeV/$c$. It follows from Eq. (\[Bjx\]) that in the case of (unidentified) charged particles spectra, scaling variable is naturally given as [@McLerran:2010ex] $$\tau_{p_{\rm T}} =\frac{p_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{\mathrm{s}}^{2}}=\frac{p_{\text{T}}^{2}%
}{Q_{0}^{2}} \left( \frac{p_{\text{T}}}{W}\right) ^{\lambda}.\label{taupdef}%$$ Due to our choice of $x_{0}$, transverse momentum in Eq. (\[taupdef\]) is given in GeV/$c$ and scattering energy $W$ in TeV. This form of scaling variable has been successfully tested against data for p-p collisions at the LHC [@McLerran:2010ex; @Praszalowicz:2011tc; @Praszalowicz:2011rm] and also at lower energies of NA61-SHINE experiment at CERN SPS [@Praszalowicz:2013uu], as well as in the case of heavy ion collisions at RHIC [@Praszalowicz:2011rm].
Here we propose that in the case of identified particles another scaling variable should be used in which $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ is replaced by $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ ($\tilde
{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling), *i.e.* $$\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}} =\frac{\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{0}^{2}}\left(
\frac{\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}}{W}\right) ^{\lambda}.\label{taumtdef}%$$ This choice is purely phenomenological for the following reasons. Firstly, the gluon cloud is in principle not sensitive to the mass of the particle it finally is fragmenting to, so in principle one should take $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ as an argument of the saturation scale. In this case the proper scaling variable would be $$\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T} p_{\rm T}} =\frac{\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{0}^{2}}\left(
\frac{p_{\text{T}}}{W}\right) ^{\lambda}.\label{taumtpdef}%$$ We shall show, however, that this choice ($\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}%
$$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling) does not really differ numerically from the one given by Eq. (\[taumtdef\]). On the other hand Eq. (\[taumtdef\]) has an advantage over (\[taumtpdef\]) since, as we shall see, it allows to calculate analytically many properties of the spectra assuming Tsallis form of the scaling function (\[Tsallis\]).
Secondly, if we would take seriously kinematics for massive particle production, then Bjorken $x$ would be given by Eq. (\[Bjx\]) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ replaced by $m_{\mathrm{T}}$. Hence the natural choice for the scaling variable would be ($m_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling) $$\tau_{{m}_{\text{T}}} =\frac{{m}_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{0}^{2}}\left( \frac{m_{\text{T}}}%
{W}\right) ^{\lambda}.\label{taumdef}%$$ We shall show, however, that for this choice of the scaling variable GS is not present.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[scaling\] we shall test GS scaling hypothesis on the recent ALICE data for identified particles [@ALICE]. We will see that $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra exhibit $\tilde
{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$–scaling in variable (\[taumtdef\]). After that, in Sect. \[conseq\], we shall examine the consequences of GS as far as the energy dependence of total multiplicity and mean transverse momentum is concerned. We shall see that power-like growth of both of them is a natural consequence of GS. Finally in Sect. \[shape\] we shall match hypothesis of GS and phenomenological observation that particle spectra are well described by the Tsallis-like distribution. It will be shown that Tsallis temperature is proportional to the average saturation scale depending only on the scattering energy $W$, whereas Tsallis exponent $n$ is in the first approximation energy independent. Finally, we shall conclude in Sect. \[concl\].
Scaling properties of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions of identified particles {#scaling}
============================================================================
Throughout this paper we shall use recent ALICE data for the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra at 0.9, 2.76 and 7 TeV [@ALICE]. In the latter case the data cover wide $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range from 0.1 to 19 GeV/$c$ (for pions). Unfortunately available pion data for 0.9 TeV span over much narrower range: 0.1 - 2.5 GeV/$c$, and for 2.76 TeV from 2.1 to 19 GeV/$c$, and similarly for kaons and protons where, however, there is no overlap between 0.9 TeV and 2.76 TeV points. For this reason the analysis presented in this paper can be only qualitative.
![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="fig:rpT"}](Alice_RpT_000.pdf "fig:") ![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="fig:rpT"}](Alice_RpT_020.pdf "fig:")\
![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="fig:rpT"}](Alice_RpT_027.pdf "fig:") ![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="fig:rpT"}](Alice_RpT_030.pdf "fig:")
In order to asses the quality of GS we shall apply the *method of ratios* used previously in Refs. [@Praszalowicz:2011rm; @Praszalowicz:2013uu] in the context of hadron scattering and in Refs. [@Praszalowicz:2012zh] for DIS. Hypothesis of GS means that particle spectra measured at different energies $W$ are equal when expressed in terms of scaling variable $\tau$ (\[taupdef\]) – (\[taumtpdef\]) or (\[taumdef\]). Therefore for each particle species $\alpha$ we have $$\left. \frac{1}{p_{\text{T}}}\frac{d^{2}N_{\alpha}}{dy dp_{\text{T}}}\right\vert
_{\left\vert y\right\vert <y_{0}}=\frac{1}{Q_{0}^{2}}F_{\alpha}(\tau
)\label{GS}%$$ where $F_{\alpha}(\tau)$ is energy independent function of scaling variable $\tau$ which, however, may depend on particle species $\alpha$. Here $y_{0}$ is the rapidity cut (assumed to be small) which we shall omit in the following. Therefore, if hypothesis of GS is true, we expect that the ratios of multiplicity distributions at two different energies $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ (denoted hereafter as $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$) should be equal to unity if expressed in terms of scaling variable $\tau$. For the purpose of the present analysis we chose $W_{1}=7$ TeV as the reference energy.
In Fig. \[fig:rpT\] we plot ratios $R_{7/0.9}$ and $R_{7/2.76}$ as functions of scaling variable $\sqrt{\tau}=\sqrt{\tau_{p_{\rm T}}}$ (\[taupdef\]) for different choices of exponent $\lambda$ entering the definition of the saturation scale $Q_{\mathrm{s}}$ (\[Qsdef\]). We see that for $\lambda=0$ when $\sqrt
{\tau_{p_{\rm T}}}=p_{\mathrm{T}}/Q_{0}$ ratios are substantially larger than 1 and grow with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. When $\lambda$ is increased the ratios get smaller and flatter. One can see that the optimal value of exponent $\lambda$ is somewhere between 0.2 and 0.27. This value is a bit smaller than the value $\lambda=0.27$ obtained in the analysis of unidentified NSD spectra measured by the CMS collaboration at the LHC [@McLerran:2010ex]. We can see that there is a dip in these ratios around $\sqrt{\tau} \sim 1$ which is especially pronounced for pions. Finally, let us remark that we plot $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ only up to $\sqrt{\tau}=6$; we shall see that for larger values of $\sqrt{\tau}$ the ratios get larger than 1 and start growing with $\sqrt{\tau}$. Hence we conclude that there is a window of GS delimited from below by nonperturbative physics and from above by perturbative production of particles with high transverse momentum [@Praszalowicz:2013uu].
Although one can conclude from Fig. 1 that GS works reasonably well for standard scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ (\[taupdef\]), we are going to examine now the hypothesis that the proper scaling variable for identified particles is $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ of Eq. (\[taumtdef\]). To this end in Fig. \[ratiosmT\] we plot again ratios $R_{7/0.9}$ and $R_{7/2.76}$ for four different choices of exponent $\lambda$ as functions of scaling variable $\sqrt{\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}}$. We see that the dip for small values of $\tau$ has basically disappeared for kaons and protons and has been largely reduced for pions. Moreover, good quality GS scaling has been achieved for larger value of exponent $\lambda\sim 0.27 - 0.3$ in fair agreement with analysis of DIS [@Praszalowicz:2012zh]. In order to quantify this statement one has to wait, however, until lower energy data is published for larger $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range similar to the one at $W_{1}=7$ TeV.
![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m_{\rm T}}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="ratiosmT"}](Alice_RmT_000.pdf "fig:") ![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m_{\rm T}}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="ratiosmT"}](Alice_RmT_020.pdf "fig:")\
![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m_{\rm T}}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="ratiosmT"}](Alice_RmT_027.pdf "fig:") ![Illustration of geometrical scaling in scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$. Multiplicity ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ for $W_{1}=7$ TeV are plotted as functions of scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m_{\rm T}}}$ for pions (red triangles: “up” for $W_{2}
=2.76$ TeV, “down” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) kaons (blue triangles: “right” for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV, “left” for $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) and protons (back circles for $W_{2} =2.76$ TeV and black squares $W_{2}=0.9$ TeV) for different values of the exponent $\lambda$ a) $\lambda=0$, b) $\lambda=0.2$, c) $\lambda=0.27$ and d) $\lambda=0.3$.[]{data-label="ratiosmT"}](Alice_RmT_030.pdf "fig:")
Quantitative analysis should also determine the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ window where GS should work. Here in Fig. \[largeratios\] we simply extend the $x$ axis of Fig. 1.c and Fig. \[ratiosmT\].c for the case of scaling in variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}}$ respectively. We see, as expected from the properties of $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ as a function of transverse momentum, that the difference between the quality of GS in these two variables shows only for small $\tau$’s. We can also see from Fig. \[largeratios\] that GS window closes for $\tau\sim5$.
![Ratios $R$ from Fig. 1.c and Fig. \[ratiosmT\].c for extended horizontal axis.[]{data-label="largeratios"}](Alice_RpT_027L.pdf "fig:") ![Ratios $R$ from Fig. 1.c and Fig. \[ratiosmT\].c for extended horizontal axis.[]{data-label="largeratios"}](Alice_RmT_027L.pdf "fig:")
Before closing this Section, let us see how scaling properties are affected by going from scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ (\[taupdef\]) to $\tau_{\tilde
{m}_{\mathrm{T}}}$ (\[taumtdef\]) and what would be the difference in scaling properties if we had chosen $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ as an argument in the saturation scale leading to scaling variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}%
}p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ (\[taumtpdef\]), so called $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}%
$$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling. This is illustrated in Fig. \[ratiosmandpT\].a – \[ratiosmandpT\].c where full symbols refer to the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling (\[taupdef\]) and open symbols to $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling or $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling. One can see very small difference between open symbols indicating that scaling variables $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}}$ (\[taumtdef\]) and $\tau_{\tilde
{m}_{\mathrm{T}}p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ (\[taumtpdef\]) exhibit GS of the same quality. On the contrary $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling in variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$ (\[taupdef\]) is visibly worse than any form of scaling variable involving $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$.
Finally in Fig. \[ratiosmandpT\].d, on the example of protons, we compare $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling and ${m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling for $\lambda=0.27$. One can see that no GS has been achieved in the latter case. Qualitatively the same behavior can be observed for other values of $\lambda$.
![Panels a) – c): comparison of geometrical scaling in three different variables: $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T} p_{\rm T}}$ for $\lambda=0.27$. Full symbols correspond to ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ plotted in terms of the scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, open symbols to $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}%
p_{\rm T}}$, note negligible differences between the latter two forms of scaling variable. Panel a) corresponds to pions, b) to kaons and c) to protons. In panel d) we show comparison of geometrical scaling for protons in scaling variables $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{m_{\rm T}}$, no GS can be achieved in the latter case.[]{data-label="ratiosmandpT"}](pi_RmT_pT_027.pdf "fig:") ![Panels a) – c): comparison of geometrical scaling in three different variables: $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T} p_{\rm T}}$ for $\lambda=0.27$. Full symbols correspond to ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ plotted in terms of the scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, open symbols to $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}%
p_{\rm T}}$, note negligible differences between the latter two forms of scaling variable. Panel a) corresponds to pions, b) to kaons and c) to protons. In panel d) we show comparison of geometrical scaling for protons in scaling variables $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{m_{\rm T}}$, no GS can be achieved in the latter case.[]{data-label="ratiosmandpT"}](Ka_RmT_pT_027.pdf "fig:")\
![Panels a) – c): comparison of geometrical scaling in three different variables: $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T} p_{\rm T}}$ for $\lambda=0.27$. Full symbols correspond to ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ plotted in terms of the scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, open symbols to $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}%
p_{\rm T}}$, note negligible differences between the latter two forms of scaling variable. Panel a) corresponds to pions, b) to kaons and c) to protons. In panel d) we show comparison of geometrical scaling for protons in scaling variables $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{m_{\rm T}}$, no GS can be achieved in the latter case.[]{data-label="ratiosmandpT"}](pr_RmT_pT_027.pdf "fig:") ![Panels a) – c): comparison of geometrical scaling in three different variables: $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T} p_{\rm T}}$ for $\lambda=0.27$. Full symbols correspond to ratios $R_{W_{1}/W_{2}}$ plotted in terms of the scaling variable $\tau_{p_{\rm T}}$, open symbols to $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}%
p_{\rm T}}$, note negligible differences between the latter two forms of scaling variable. Panel a) corresponds to pions, b) to kaons and c) to protons. In panel d) we show comparison of geometrical scaling for protons in scaling variables $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ and $\tau_{m_{\rm T}}$, no GS can be achieved in the latter case.[]{data-label="ratiosmandpT"}](pr_RmT0_pT_027.pdf "fig:")
Let us remark that recently CMS collaboration has published data on identified spectra [@Chatrchyan:2012qb], however for much smaller range of transverse momenta. Pion and proton spectra have been measured up to 1.5 – 1.7 GeV/$c$ respectively, whereas kaons up to 1 GeV/$c$ only. In this region ratios $R_{W_1/W_2}$ develop a dip and therefore an attempt to draw conclusions on GS in this case may lead to an underestimate of exponent $\lambda$ [@sikler2].
The examples presented in this Section illustrate that for identified particles geometrical scaling of good quality is observed for scaling variable (\[taumtdef\]) within the window $0.5 <\sqrt{\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}} < 6$ for kaons and protons with lower bound shifted to 1.5 for pions. In the next Section we are going to investigate the consequences of this observation as far as the universal shape of scaling function $F_{\alpha}(\tau)$ is concerned.
Consequences of geometrical scaling {#conseq}
===================================
In what follows we shall assume that scaling variable $\tau=\tau_{\tilde
{m}_{\mathrm{T}}}$. We shall also suppress for the moment index $\alpha$ referring to the particle species. Let us first examine the energy dependence of mid rapidity multiplicity density and of average transverse momentum of produced particles. Following Eq. (\[GS\]), mid rapidity density is given by an integral $$\frac{dN}{dy}=\frac{1}{2\,Q_{0}^{2}}\int F(\tau) \,dp^{2}_{\text{T}%
}\label{GSint}%$$ which requires change of variables:$$dp_{\text{T}}^{2}=2(\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}+m_{\alpha})\,d\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}%$$ with$$\begin{aligned}
d\tilde{m}_{\text{T}} & =\frac{Q_{0}}{2+\lambda}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}%
}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\tau^{1/(2+\lambda)}\frac{d\tau}{\tau
}.\label{change}%\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[change\]) we arrive at (restoring dependence on particle species $\alpha$) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN_{\alpha}}{dy} & =b_{\alpha}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right)
^{2\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\left[ 1+\frac{a_{\alpha}}{b_{\alpha}}\frac{m_{\alpha
}}{Q_{0}}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{-\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\right]
.\label{dNdy}%\end{aligned}$$ We see therefore that mid rapidity identified particle density contains a universal leading term and a correction proportional to the particle mass both rising as powers of energy. The power like rise of mid rapidity density for charged (unidentified) particles has been confirmed up to the LHC energies [@:2009dt] and the leading power being 0.23 is in agreement with $2\lambda/(2+\lambda) \approx0.23$ for $\lambda=0.27$ [@McLerran:2010ex] . For large energies and small particle masses one can neglect the second term in Eq. (\[dNdy\]).
Constants $a_{\alpha}$ and $b_{\alpha}$ read:$$b_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2+\lambda}%
%TCIMACRO{\dint }%
%BeginExpansion
{\displaystyle\int}
%EndExpansion
F_{\alpha}(\tau)\tau^{-\lambda/(2+\lambda)}d\tau,\;a_{\alpha}=\frac
{1}{2+\lambda}%
%TCIMACRO{\dint }%
%BeginExpansion
{\displaystyle\int}
%EndExpansion
F_{\alpha}(\tau)\tau^{-(\lambda+1)/(2+\lambda)}d\tau.\label{abalpha}%$$
We shall show now that GS leads also to the power-like dependence of the mean transverse momentum on the scattering energy. For massive particles we have:$$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{T}} & =Q_{0}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda
)}\tau^{1/(2+\lambda)}\sqrt{1+2\frac{m_{\alpha}}{Q_{0}}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}%
}\right) ^{-\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\tau^{-1/(2+\lambda)}}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that for large energies the second term under the square root is suppressed (and also for small masses) so after expansion for large $W$ we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{T}} & =Q_{0}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda
)}\tau^{1/(2+\lambda)}+m_{\alpha}+ \ldots.\end{aligned}$$
We define mean transverse momentum as:$$\left\langle p_{\text{T}}\right\rangle =\frac{\frac{1}{2 Q_{0}^{2}}
%TCIMACRO{\dint }%
%BeginExpansion
{\displaystyle\int}
%EndExpansion
p_{\text{T}}F_{\alpha}(\tau)dp_{\text{T}}^{2}}{\frac{1}{2 Q_{0}^{2}}
%TCIMACRO{\dint }%
%BeginExpansion
{\displaystyle\int}
%EndExpansion
F_{\alpha}(\tau)dp_{\text{T}}^{2}}.\label{meanpt}%$$ Denominator of (\[meanpt\]) is given by Eq.(\[dNdy\]) whereas the numerator, after expanding in powers of $m_{\alpha}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\text{num.}}{Q_{0}} & =\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{2\lambda
/(2+\lambda)}\left( c_{\alpha}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda
/(2+\lambda)}+2b_{\alpha}\frac{m_{\alpha}}{Q_{0}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ with$$c_{a}=\frac{1}{2+\lambda}%
%TCIMACRO{\dint }%
%BeginExpansion
{\displaystyle\int}
%EndExpansion
F_{\alpha}(\tau)\tau^{-(\lambda-1)/(2+\lambda)}d\tau.\label{calpha}%$$ Hence mean $p_{\text{T}}$ reads$$\left\langle p_{\text{T}}\right\rangle =Q_{0}\frac{c_{\alpha}\left( \frac
{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda)}+2b_{\alpha}\frac{m_{\alpha}}{Q_{0}}%
}{b_{\alpha}+a_{\alpha}\frac{m_{\alpha}}{Q_{0}}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right)
^{-\lambda/(2+\lambda)}}\simeq Q_{0}\frac{c_{\alpha}}{b_{\alpha}}\left(
\frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda)}+m_{\alpha}\left(
2-\frac{a_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}}{b_{\alpha}^{2}}\right) .\label{meanpt1}%$$ We see that mean transverse momentum behaves as a constant (proportional to the particle mass) plus a power of energy, which is also confirmed by the recent data up to the LHC energies [@:2009dt]. Let us remark that formulae (\[dNdy\]) and (\[meanpt1\]) imply in the leading order $$\left\langle p_{\text{T}}\right\rangle =A+B\sqrt{dN/dy}.$$
Universal shape of geometrical scaling and Tsallis-like parametrization {#shape}
=======================================================================
We shall now be more specific and use a particular form of function $F_{\alpha}(\tau)$. This will allow us to calculate explicitly constants $a_{\alpha
},b_{\beta}$ and $c_{\alpha}$. To this end we shall use the experimental observation that identified particles spectra can be well described in terms of Tsallis-like parametrization of Eq. (\[Tsallis\]) with species dependent temperature $T=T_{\alpha}$ and exponent $n=n_{\alpha}$. In actual fits to the data $n_{\alpha}$ is of the order $5$ to 9 [@Chatrchyan:2012qb], therefore we may use an approximation$$C_{\alpha}\simeq\frac{\gamma_{\alpha} }{T_{\alpha}^{2}}\label{Cappr}%$$ where constant $\gamma_{\alpha} $ restores the correct normalization being only a function of $n_{\alpha}$. Inserting (\[Cappr\]) and (\[change\]) into (\[Tsallis\]) we obtain:$$\frac{d^{2}N_{\alpha}}{dydp_{\text{T}}^{2}}=\frac{\gamma_{\alpha} }
{2T_{\alpha}^{2}}\frac{dN_{\alpha}}{dy}\left[ 1+\frac{Q_{0}\left( \frac
{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\tau^{1/(2+\lambda)}}{n_{\alpha
}\,T_{\alpha}}\right] ^{-n_{\alpha}}.$$ Finally, we shall use leading term for energy dependence of the mid rapidity multiplicity distribution (\[dNdy\]) which gives $$\frac{d^{2}N_{\alpha}}{dydp_{\text{T}}^{2}}=\frac{\gamma_{\alpha} }
{2T_{\alpha}^{2}}b_{\alpha}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{2\lambda
/(2+\lambda)}\left[ 1+\frac{Q_{0}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right)
^{\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\tau^{1/(2+\lambda)}}{n_{\alpha}\,T_{\alpha}}\right]
^{-n_{\alpha}}.\label{dNetc}%$$ The right hand side of Eq.(\[dNetc\]) should be an energy independent function of scaling variable $\tau$ only. Within approximations used so far there exists a simple solution to this requirement:$$T_{\alpha}=\kappa_{\alpha} \,Q_{0}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right)
^{\lambda/(2+\lambda)}\label{Tsol}%$$ where $\kappa_{\alpha}$ is a constant. Therefore GS predictions for Tsallis parameters are that $T_{\alpha}$ depends on energy as a power[^1], whereas $n_{\alpha}$ is a constant. A complete fit to high energy data for charged (unidentified) particles from NA49 energies up to the LHC [@Rybczynski:2012vj] shows rather small variation (of the order of 10%) of parameter $q(W)$ related to $n$ from Eq. (\[Tsallis\]) in the following way: $$n(W)=\frac{1}{q(W)-1}$$ which, however, translates into rather strong energy dependence of $n(W)$, especially for smaller energies where $q(W)$ is only slightly bigger than 1. Similar conclusion – as far as the energy dependence of the Tsallis parameters for identified particles is concerned – has been found in Ref. [@Cleymans:2013rfq] with temperature hardly depending on energy. One should note, however, that the multiplicity distribution used in Ref. [@Cleymans:2013rfq] slightly differs from the one of Eq. (\[Tsallis\]).
The solution with constant $n_{\alpha}$ has a number of corrections which in the present approach can be studied in a systematic way. Ignoring them for them the moment we arrive at the universal scaling function which takes the following form:$$F_{\alpha}(\tau)=\frac{\gamma_{\alpha}b_{\alpha}}{2\kappa_{\alpha}^{2}}\left[
1+\frac{\tau^{1/(2+\lambda)}}{n_{\alpha}\,\kappa_{\alpha}}\right]
^{-n_{\alpha}}.\label{Falpha}%$$
The solution for $T_{\alpha}$ given by Eq.(\[Tsol\]) can be interpreted in terms of the saturation scale, $Q_{\text{s}}$ (\[Qsdef\]) which for $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$–scaling takes the following form:$$Q_{\text{s}}(\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}})=Q_{0}\left( \frac{\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}%
}}{W}\right) ^{-\lambda/2}.$$ For quantities integrated over transverse momentum one introduces another saturation scale, $\bar{Q}_{\text{s}}$ which has a meaning of an average transverse momentum, or in this case average value of $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}%
$, and can be thought of as a solution of an equation [@Kharzeev:2004if]:$$\bar{Q}_{\text{s}}=Q_{\text{s}}(\bar{Q}_{\text{s}})$$ which gives$$\bar{Q}_{\text{s}}=Q_{0}\left( \frac{W}{Q_{0}}\right) ^{\lambda/(2+\lambda
)}. \label{aveQsat}$$ We see therefore that parameter $T_{\alpha}$, Tsallis temperature (\[Tsol\]), is proportional to the average saturation scale $\bar{Q}_{\text{s}}$ with proportionality constant $\kappa_{\alpha}$ which depends on particle species $\alpha$. Constants $\kappa_{\alpha}$ have been fitted to thermal distributions in Ref. [@McLerran:2013oju] and they are of the order of 0.1. Similar solution for the unidentified spectra has been discussed recently in Ref. [@Rybczynski:2012pn].
Constants $a_{\alpha},b_{\alpha}$ and $c_{\alpha}$ can be calculated analytically for $F_{\alpha}(\tau)$ given by Eq.(\[Falpha\]): $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\alpha} & =\frac{\gamma_{\alpha}b_{\alpha}}{2 \kappa_{\alpha}^{2}}%
(n_{\alpha}\,\kappa_{\alpha})B(1,n_{\alpha}-1),\nonumber\\
b_{\alpha} & =\frac{\gamma_{\alpha}b_{\alpha}}{ 2\kappa_{\alpha}^{2}}%
(n_{\alpha}\,\kappa_{\alpha})^{2}B(2,n_{\alpha}-2),\nonumber\\
c_{\alpha} & =\frac{\gamma_{\alpha}b_{\alpha}}{2 \kappa_{\alpha}^{2}}%
(n_{\alpha}\,\kappa_{\alpha})^{3}B(3,n_{\alpha}-3)\label{abc}%\end{aligned}$$ where $B(x,y)$ is Euler beta function. The second equation (\[abc\]) should be understood as a normalization condition for $\gamma_{\alpha}$:$$\gamma_{\alpha}=\frac{2}{n_{\alpha}^{2}\,B(2,n_{\alpha}-2)}%$$ which is independent of $\kappa_{\alpha}$, as expected. With this normalization we arrive at: $$a_{\alpha}=\frac{b_{\alpha}}{\kappa_{\alpha}} \frac{n_{\alpha}-2}{n_{\alpha}%
},\;\;\;\; c_{\alpha}={b_{\alpha}}{\kappa_{\alpha}} \frac{2 n_{\alpha}%
}{n_{\alpha}-3}%$$ with $b_{\alpha}$ being a free constant which can be fitted from the energy dependence of the mid rapidity density (\[dNdy\]). The coefficient governing the constant piece in a formula for $\left\langle
p_{\text{T}}\right\rangle $ (\[meanpt1\]) is given by:$$\begin{aligned}
2-\frac{a_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}}{b_{\alpha}^{2}} & =-\frac{2}{n_{\alpha}%
-3}.\label{coeffpt}%\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that this coefficient is negative for values of $n_{\alpha}$ extracted from the data [@Chatrchyan:2012qb] and that the constant piece in Eq. (\[meanpt1\]) is growing with particle mass. Note, however, that there might exist a nonperturbative contribution to this term which is beyond control in the present approach.
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
In this paper we have demonstrated using recent ALICE pp data for identified particles at three LHC energies [@ALICE] that transverse momentum spectra exhibit geometrical scaling in variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}=
(\tilde{m}_{\rm T}/Q_0)^{2} (\tilde{m}_{\rm T}/ W)^{\lambda}$. It is impossible at present to asses quantitatively the quality of this scaling, since the data for $W=0.9$ and $2.76$ TeV published so far, do not overlap (or have very small overlap) in $p_{\rm T}$. It can be, however, seen “by eye” that the $\tilde{m}_{\rm T}$-scaling works better for identified particles than the “standard” $p_{\rm T}$-scaling. Moreover, the optimal value of the exponent $\lambda$ is definitely closer to the DIS value of 0.32 than in the case of the $p_{\rm T}$-scaling for (unidentified) charged particles where it is equal to 0.27 [@McLerran:2010ex]. This statements can be quantified using the [*method of ratios*]{} [@Praszalowicz:2012zh] once data in the full $p_{\rm T}$ range is published.
One of the immediate consequences of geometrical scaling in variable $\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}}$ is power-like growth of multiplicity and average transverse momentum with scattering energy $W$. We have shown in Refs. [@McLerran:2010ex] that the values of the pertinent exponents for (unidentified) charge particles are in agreement with experimental fits. In the present work we have shown that the coefficients of this growth and possible constant terms are calculable in terms of the universal scaling function $F(\tau)$ (\[abalpha\],\[calpha\]). From Eqs. (\[dNdy\]) and (\[meanpt1\]) one can in principle determine constants $a_{\alpha}$, $b_{\alpha}$ and $c_{\alpha}$ once the pertinent data is available.
We have also made an attempt to predict constants $a_{\alpha}$, $b_{\alpha}$ and $c_{\alpha}$ assuming certain form of the scaling function $F(\tau)$. To this end we have used an experimental observation that identified particle spectra for small and intermediate values of $p_{\rm T}$ are well described by the Tsallis-like parametrization (\[Tsallis\]). This allowed us to relate Tsallis temperature to the energy dependent average saturation scale $\bar{Q}_{\rm s}$ (\[aveQsat\]). Within approximation used in this paper Tsallis exponent $n$ remains energy independent. Corrections to this solution are in principle calculable in the present approach.
Phenomenological findings of the present paper call for deeper theoretical understanding. The meaning of constant $\kappa_{\alpha}$ in Eq. (\[Tsol\]) and species dependence of exponent $n_{\alpha}$ are the most obvious examples. This may, however, require to construct a nonperturbative fragmentation model which is beyond the scope of the present paper.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Larry McLerran for discussion and remarks and the ALICE Collaboration for an access to the data on the $p_{\rm T}$ spectra. This research has been supported by the Polish NCN grant 2011/01/B/[\
]{}ST2/00492.
[99]{}
A. M. Stasto, K. J. Golec-Biernat, and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 596 (2001) \[hep-ph/0007192\].
K. J. Golec-Biernat, and M. W[ü]{}sthoff, Phys. Rev. D **59**, 014017 (1998) \[hep-ph/9807513\], and Phys. Rev. D **60**, 114023 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903358\].
M. Praszalowicz and T. Stebel, JHEP **1303**, 090 (2013) \[arXiv:1211.5305 \[hep-ph\]\], and JHEP **1304**, 0169 (2013) arXiv:1302.4227 \[hep-ph\].
L. McLerran, and M. Praszalowicz, Acta Phys. Pol. B **41**, 1917 (2010) \[arXiv:1006.4293 \[hep-ph\]\], and Acta Phys. Pol. B **42**, 99 (2011), \[arXiv:1011.3403 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 142002 (2011), \[arXiv:1101.0585 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Praszalowicz, Acta Phys. Pol. B **42**, 1557 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.1777 \[hep-ph\]\], and in *Proceedings of the 47th Rencontres de Moriond, La Thuile, 2012*, p. 265 \[arXiv:1205.4538 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept. **100**, 1 (1983);
A. H. Mueller, and J-W. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. **268**, 427 (1986); A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. **B558**, 285 (1999).
A. H. Mueller, *Parton Saturation: An Overview*, arXiv:hep-ph/0111244.
L. McLerran, [Acta Phys. Pol. B]{} **41**, 2799 (2010) \[arXiv:1011.3203 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. **B504**, 415 (1997), and Phys. Rev. **D59**, 014014 (1998);\
E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. **A692**, 583 (2001);\
E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. **A703**, 489 (2002).
I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. **B463**, 99 (1996);\
Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. **D60**, 034008 (1999), and Phys. Rev. **D61**, 074018 (2000).
S. Munier, and R. B. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 232001 (2003) \[hep-ph/0309177\], and Phys. Rev. D **69**, 034008 (2004) \[hep-ph/0310357\].
L. D. McLerran, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. **D49**, 2233 (1994), Phys. Rev. **D49**, 3352 (1994), and Phys. Rev. **D50**, 2225 (1994).
M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Rev. **D 87**, 071502(R) (2013) \[arXiv:1301.4647 \[hep-ph\]\], and arXiv:1304.1867 \[hep-ph\].
T. Stebel, arXiv:1305.2583 \[hep-ph\].
R Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl.**3**, 147 (1965).
C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. **52** 479 (1988); T. S. Bir[ó]{}, G. Purcsel, and K. [Ü]{}rm[ö]{}ssy, Eur. Phys. J. **A 40**, 325 (2009).
S. Chatrchyan *et al.* \[CMS Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. **C 72**, 2164 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.4724 \[hep-ex\]\].
K. Aamodt *et al.* \[ALICE Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C **71**, 1655 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.4110 \[hep-ex\]\]; A. Ortiz Velasquez \[ALICE Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A904-905 **2013**, 763c (2013) \[arXiv:1210.6995 \[hep-ex\]\] (ALICE preliminary).
M. Praszalowicz, unpublished;\
F. Sikler, private communication.
K. Aamodt *et al.* \[ALICE Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C **65**, 111 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.5430 \[hep-ex\]\], and Eur. Phys. J. C [**68**]{}, 89 (2010) arXiv:1004.3034 \[hep-ex\], and Eur. Phys. J. C [**68**]{}, 345 (2010) arXiv:1004.3514 \[hep-ex\]. M. Rybczynski, Z. Wlodarczyk and G. Wilk, J. Phys. G [**39**]{}, 095004 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.6787 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Cleymans, G. I. Lykasov, A. S. Parvan, A. S. Sorin, O. V. Teryaev and D. Worku, Phys. Lett. B [**723**]{}, 351 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.1970 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Kharzeev, E. Levin and M. Nardi, Nucl. Phys. A **747**, 609 (2005) \[hep-ph/0408050\].
L. McLerran, M. Praszalowicz and B. Schenke, arXiv:1306.2350 \[hep-ph\]. M. Rybczynski, Z. Wlodarczyk and G. Wilk, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. [**6**]{}, 507 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.1281\].
[^1]: This dependence is, however, rather weak for large energies.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using high temperature expansions for the equal time correlator $S(q)$ and static susceptibility $\chi(q)$ for the t-J model, we present evidence for quantum critical (QC), $z\!=\!1$, behavior at intermediate temperatures in a broad range of $t/J$ ratio, doping, and temperatures. We find that the dynamical susceptibility is very close to the universal scaling function computable for the asymptotic QC regime, and that the dominant energy scale is temperature. Our results are in excellent agreement with measurements of the spin-echo decay rate, $1/T_{\rm 2G}$, in La$_2$CuO$_4$, and provide qualitative understanding of both $1/T_1$ and $1/T_{\rm 2G}$ nuclear relaxation rates in doped cuprates.'
address:
- |
Department of Physics and Materials Research Laboratory,\
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801-3080\
and L.D. Landau Institute, Moscow, Russia
- 'Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616'
author:
- Alexander Sokol
- 'Rodney L. Glenister and Rajiv R.P. Singh'
title: Quantum Critical Scaling in a Moderately Doped Antiferromagnet
---
Recent interest in the doped antiferromagnets is related to the problem of high temperature superconductivity. While the magnetic behavior of the parent insulating compound, La$_2$CuO$_4$, can be described in terms of the S=1/2 Heisenberg model with the dominant interaction being the in-plane nearest neighbor exchange coupling $J\!\simeq\!1500$K, current understanding of the doped materials is far from complete. The consensus on the details of the microscopic model which would quantitatively describe the magnetic properties over the entire doping range from the insulator to the fully doped compounds has yet to be reached.
Recently, significant progress has been made in understanding the low energy spin dynamics of these systems from a scaling and renormalization group point of view. As shown by Chakravarty, Halperin, and Nelson [@CHN], the spin dynamics of an insulator, such as La$_2$CuO$_4$, is well described by the quantum nonlinear sigma (QNL$\sigma$) model. In case when the average sublattice magnetization is present at $T=0$, the low temperature renormalized classical (RC) phase is characterized by an exponentially increasing antiferromagnetic correlation length, $\xi/a\sim\exp(2\pi\rho_s/T)$, where $a$ is the lattice constant and $\rho_s$ spin stiffness (below we assume the units where $\hbar\!=\!k_B\!=\!a\!=1$). Beyond the critical point, i.e., when the ground state does not possess Neel order, the quantum disordered (QD) phase has a finite $\xi$ at T=0.
Another aspect of the phase diagram of Ref.[@CHN], which did not attract much attention until the recent work of Sachdev and Ye [@Sachdev:Ye], and Chubukov and Sachdev [@Chubukov:Sachdev], is the quantum critical (QC) region, where in the leading order $\xi\!\sim\!1/T$ [@CHN]. Only at the critical point, i.e. at the boundary between the zero temperature Neel and disordered phases, QC behavior holds down to $T\!=\!0$. In this case, $\rho_s$ vanishes, so that the model does not possess any energy scale, which thus is set by the temperature. For doped antiferromagnets, the possibility of $z$=1 criticality has been first pointed out in Ref.[@Sachdev:Ye].
Although for small temperatures a fine-tuning of the model parameters to the critical point is necessary to have the QC phase with $\xi\!\sim\!c/T$, the range of parameters where it exists rapidly widens as the temperature increases ($c$ is the spin wave velocity). While in the continuum QNL$\sigma$ model the quantum critical behavior persists for arbitrarily high temperature, on the lattice the range of its applicability is necessarily limited form above, i.e.quantum critical regime is intermediate between low and high temperatures. It has been argued in Ref.[@Chubukov:Sachdev] that the region of its applicability in the 2D S=1/2 Heisenberg model exists around $T\sim 0.5J$ and that small doping should lead to a decrease in $\rho_s$, thus extending the temperature range of QC behavior.
Recently, it has been shown by Pines and one of us (A.S.) [@Sokol:Pines] using purely scaling considerations, that the experimental data of [@ImaiT1; @ImaiT2; @TakigawaT1; @TakigawaT2] on the nuclear magnetic relaxation rates $1/T_1$ and $1/T_{\rm 2G}$ in the superconducting cuprates imply a QC behavior at high temperatures over an unexpectedly broad doping range. This indicates that the high energy spin waves may survive even substantial doping, which would have important implications for superconductivity.
In view of the above discussion, we present a study of the quantum-critical behavior in the doped 2D t-J model using the high temperature series expansion approach [@Singh:Glenister]. The nearest-neighbor version of the t-J model is described by the Hamiltonian: $$\hat H = - t \sum_{\langle ij\rangle}
P (c^\dagger _{i\sigma} c_{j\sigma}+ \mbox{h.c.}) P +
J \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} {\bf S}_i {\bf S}_j.$$ ($P$ is the projection operator prohibiting double occupancy). The 10-term series in $\beta\equiv 1/T$ for the equal time correlation function, $S({\bf q})$, and static susceptibility, $\chi({\bf q})$, has been generated for arbitrary $t/J$, number of electrons per unit cell $\rho=1\!-\!x$, as well as for arbitrary ${\bf q}$. The substitution of the expansion variable $w \!=\! \tanh (\beta/\beta_0) $, which eliminates the influence of any singularities outside the stripe $|\mbox{Im} \beta | < \pi\beta_0/2 $, has been applied in order to improve the convergence; several different values of $\beta_0$ have been used and the consistency of the approximations have been checked. Although our qualitative results hold for a broad range of $t/J$ ratio, we chose to present our data for one particular value of $t/J$=1 because the accuracy improves for smaller $t/J$.
Our first important result is that in a broad range of the doping $x$, temperature, and $t/J$ ratio, $S({\bf q})$ and $\chi({\bf q})$ near ${\bf Q}=(\pi,\pi)$ are well described by the following scaling expressions: $$S({\bf q}) = S_Q \cdot \hat S_m(\widetilde q \xi_m), \ \ \
\chi({\bf q}) = \chi_Q \cdot \hat \chi_m(\widetilde q \xi'_m),
\label{static:scaling}$$ where ${\bf \widetilde q}=(q_x\!-\!\pi,q_y\!-\!\pi)$, $ \hat S_m $ and $ \hat \chi_m $ are [*universal*]{} scaling functions, while $ S_Q, \ \chi_Q, \ \xi_m, \ \xi'_m $ depend on T, $x$, and $t/J$. We define $\hat S_m(\kappa)$ and $\hat \chi_m(\kappa)$ so that $ \hat S_m(0)=\hat \chi_m(0) = 1$ and $ d^2 \hat S_m/d\kappa^2|_{\kappa=0} =
d^2 \hat \chi_m /d\kappa^2|_{\kappa=0} = -2 $. In this case, $\xi_m$ and $\xi_m'$ correspond to the “second moment” definition of the correlation length for $S({\bf q})$ and $\chi({\bf q})$, respectively. Gradual character of deviation from the universal behavior described by Eq.(\[static:scaling\]) does not allow us to define an unambiguous boundary at which Eq.(\[static:scaling\]) fails. For $t/J$=1, the approximate range where the scaling behavior holds well is T=0.6J-J, $x\!=\!0\!-\!15\%$; more detailed discussion will be given in a subsequent publication [@Glenister:Singh:Sokol].
The scaling functions $\hat S_m$ and $\hat \chi_m$ are computable in the QNL$\sigma$ model. We observe that the 1/N calculation of Ref.[@Chubukov:Sachdev] indicates negligible 1/N corrections to $\hat \chi_m $ and $ \hat S_m $ in the QC regime (note that 1/N corrections to the prefactors and $\xi$ are not negligible). Therefore, we can safely use scaling functions calculated for $N=\infty$, which we plot in Fig.\[profiles\] along with our data. We find that calculated $\hat S_m$ and $\hat \chi_m$ are very close to those obtained from the collapsed data for the t-J model (Fig.\[profiles\]). Further, in the asymptotic QC regime, 1/N calculation predicts that $\hat \chi(\kappa)_m$ is nearly Lorentzian, while $\hat S(\kappa)_m$ larger than Lorentzian for any given $\kappa$. On the other hand, in the asymptotic RC regime, $\hat S(\kappa)_m$ and $\hat \chi(\kappa)_m$ coincide and both are smaller than Lorentzian. We therefore conclude that the scaling functions of Eq.(\[static:scaling\]) indicate quantum critical behavior in the t-J model at moderate temperatures.
We now turn to the dynamical properties. Since $$\begin{aligned}
S({\bf q}) &=& \frac{1}{\pi}
\int d\omega \ g(\omega/T) \ \frac{\chi''({\bf q},\omega)}{\omega},
\nonumber \\
\chi({\bf q}) &=& \frac{1}{\pi}
\int d\omega \ \frac{\chi''({\bf q},\omega)}{\omega},\end{aligned}$$ where $g(\zeta) = \frac{1}{2} \zeta /\tanh \left(\frac{1}{2}\zeta\right)$, the ratio $S({\bf q})/T\chi({\bf q})$ reflects the frequency distribution of the spectral weight at ${\bf q}$. We find that for zero doping this ratio at ${\bf q}\!=\!(\pi,\pi)$ varies less than 1% in the range T=0.6J-J and is in excellent agreement with the O(N) sigma model calculation of Ref.[@Chubukov:Sachdev]: $$\frac{S_Q}{T\chi_Q} \simeq
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1.09 \pm 0.01 \mbox{ (t-J)}, \\
1.09 \mbox{ (N=3) and } 1.08 \mbox{ (N=$\infty$)};
\end{array}
\right.$$ in the asymptotic RC regime, this ratio would be equal to unity. In the doped case, the ratio somewhat increases, up to $1.16$ for $15\%$ doping at $T=J$. This increase may be caused by a broad electron-hole continuum, which does not significantly modify $\chi''({\bf q},\omega)$ for small frequencies, but can yield significant contribution to the ratio because $g(\zeta)$ is large for $\zeta\gg 1$.
Another universal quantity which may be temperature independent only when $\bar{\omega}\sim T$, i.e. in case of QC behavior, is $1-\xi_m/\xi'_m$. For the insulator, this quantity indeed has less than 7% variation in the range T=0.6J-J. The comparison to $O(N)$ calculations of Ref.[@Chubukov:Sachdev] for the asymptotic QC regime of the QNL$\sigma$ model yields: $$1-\frac{\xi_m}{\xi'_m} \simeq
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0.043 \pm 0.003 \mbox{ (t-J)}, \\
0.043 \mbox{ (N=3) and } 0.035 \mbox{ (N=$\infty$)}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ In the doped case, $\xi_m/\xi'_m$ becomes 10% smaller at T=0.6J, a decrease that may also be caused by the electron-hole continuum; it remains nearly doping independent at T=J.
On the basis of the above arguments, we conclude that the dynamical susceptibility of the t-J model can be written as: $$\chi({\bf q},\omega) = \chi_Q \cdot \hat
\chi \left(\widetilde q \xi, \frac{\omega}{\bar \omega} \right)
\label{scaling}$$ where to the leading order $\bar \omega \sim T$. In addition, in the asymptotic QC regime of the QNL$\sigma$ model, not only Eq.(\[scaling\]) holds, but it is also expected that $ \chi_Q \sim \xi^{2-\eta} $, where the critical exponent $\eta$ is nearly zero and can be neglected, and $ 1/\xi\!\sim\!T $. We first calculate $ \chi_Q/\xi^2 $ by generating 9-term series directly for this quantity and find that for T=0.6J-J it varies not more than 16%, compared to far greater (nearly by the factor of five in the undoped case) change in $\chi_Q$ and $\xi^2$ separately.
We now turn to the temperature dependence of $\xi$ and evaluate it by generating 9-term series for $\xi T^{1/2}$ and 10-term series for $ S_Q $ and $ \chi_Q T $. $\xi^{-1}(T,x)$ for $t/J\!=\!1$ is plotted as a function of temperature in Fig.\[xi1\]. As one can see, in a broad range of doping and temperature $\xi^{-1}$ is nearly linear in $T$ with doping independent slope. As shown by Chakravarty [@Chakravarty], one would expect the temperature dependence to be of the form: $$\frac{1}{\xi} \sim \frac{bT}{c} - \rm C(x) \, T^{1-1/\nu}
\label{xi:universal}$$ with the critical exponent $\nu \sim 0.7$. The second term varies slowly as a function of temperature over the interval of comparisons, and provides a doping dependent intercept for nearly linear $\xi^{-1}(T)$. We note, however, that the slope of $\xi^{-1}(T)$ determined from the numerical data differs nearly by the factor of two from the value calculated using Eq.(\[xi:universal\]) with T=0 value of $c$ and $b\simeq 0.8-1$ determined in Refs. [@CHN; @Chubukov:Sachdev; @Manousakis:Salvador]. We conjecture that the difference is caused by the lattice corrections above T=0.6J. Indeed, $\xi$ for the Heisenberg model is quite close to the value given by Eq.(\[xi:universal\]) at T=0.6J [@Chubukov:Sachdev] and the deviation occurs only at higher temperatures. On the other hand, our data unambiguously shows that such corrections do not modify universal scaling functions of Eqs.(\[static:scaling\],\[scaling\]). Note that were the spin waves absorbed by the electron-hole background in this doping range, $1/\xi^2$ and not $1/\xi$ would be linear in temperature [@Millis:z=2; @SCR]. Further, in the t-J model $1/\xi^2$ and not $1/\xi$ is linear in temperature for $T\!\gg\!J$. The measurements of Ref.[@Keimer] also indicate linear $\xi^{-1}(T,x)$ with nearly doping independent slope.
Once it is established that the spin dynamics of doped antiferromagnets is described by Eq.(\[scaling\]), we can now address the experimental result of Imai, Slichter, and collaborators [@ImaiT1] that at high temperatures the spin-lattice relaxation rate, $1/T_1$, is nearly doping and temperature independent in the doping range 0-15%. From Eq.(\[scaling\]) one obtains: $ 1/T_1 \sim \smallint d{\bf q} \lim_{\omega\to 0}
\chi''({\bf q},\omega)/\omega \sim \chi_Q/\xi^2 $. Indeed, we find that $\chi_Q /\xi^2 $ and therefore $1/T_1$ is nearly doping and temperature independent in a broad doping range. Earlier, it has been shown [@Chubukov:Sachdev] that near the critical point, temperature and parameter independence of $1/T_1$ follows from the Josephson hyperscaling law; our results show that such arguments are applicable even for substantial doping.
Now we turn to the Gaussian component of the spin-echo decay rate, $1/T_{2G}$, which is given by (after Pennington and Slichter, [@Pennington:Slichter]): $$\frac{1}{T_{\rm 2G}^2}\!=\!\frac{0.69}{8} \sum_{r\neq 0} a^2_r,
\ \
a_r\!=\!-\int \frac{d^2{\bf q}}{(2\pi)^2}
e^{i{\bf qr}} F_q^2 \, \frac{\chi({\bf q})}{g^2\mu_B^2},$$ where $\chi({\bf q})$ is the static susceptibility and $F_q$ hyperfine formfactor. We evaluate this quantity by generating series directly for $T/T_{\rm 2G}$ and then using Pade approximants. We take $J=1500$K (in the region of experimental comparisons, calculated $1/T_{\rm 2G}$ is not sensitive to the choice of $J$) and the values of hyperfine couplings determined for YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$ in Ref.[@Monien:Pines:Takigawa]. The motivation for doing so is that a number of experiments [@Imai:Slichter:pc] indicate that the hyperfine couplings do not change substantially from $\rm La_2CuO_4$ to $\rm YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}$. Our results for $1/T_{\rm 2G}$ are plotted in Fig.\[T2G\] along with the experimental data of Imai, Slichter, and collaborators [@ImaiT2] for the insulator. The results are in excellent agreement with the experiments; note that no adjustable parameters are used. We also find good agreement at high temperatures ($T\!>\!J/2$) with the $4\!\times\!4$ cluster calculation for $x\!=\!0$ [@Sokol:Gagliano:Bacci].
Recently, linear in temperature $T_{\rm 2G}$ above 200K has been reported by Takigawa [@TakigawaT2], which is consistent with the QC prediction in the range of comparisons. The slope of the linear high temperature part of the data [@TakigawaT2] is larger in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$ than in La$_2$CuO$_4$; in our study, we indeed find that the slope increases with increasing doping and $t/J$ ratio (Fig.\[T2G\], inset).
To summarize, in our high temperature series expansion study we find that spin fluctuations in the t-J model exhibit quantum critical scaling behavior. Particularly, for a broad range of $t/J$ ratio, doping, and temperatures (1) the numerical data for both $S({\bf q})$ and $\chi({\bf q})$ collapse to the universal scaling function computable in the O(N) QNL$\sigma$ model, (2) the characteristic energy scale for spin fluctuations, $\bar{\omega}$, is proportional to temperature and (3) $1/\xi$ is nearly linear in temperature. The disagreement of the slope of $1/\xi$ with the prediction based on fully renormalized T=0 value of $c$ is likely to be caused by the lattice corrections above T=0.6J. One may speculate that the absence of such corrections to the scaling functions of Eqs.(\[static:scaling\],\[scaling\]) is related to the fact that in the QNL$\sigma$ model they are much less dependent on the cutoff and N (for a relevant discussion see Ref.[@Sachdev:unpublished]). Our results are consistent with the conclusion of Refs.[@Sachdev:Ye; @Chubukov:Sachdev] that in the Shraiman-Siggia model [@Shraiman:Siggia] the presence of fermions does not alter the universality class of the $z\!=\!1$ critical point separating phases with Neel and short range order. While the t-J model might not be quantitatively applicable for the doped cuprates, we believe that a broad region of the quantum critical behavior is a general feature of moderately doped antiferromagnets.
In the second part of our study, we calculated the spin-echo decay rate, $1/T_{\rm 2G}$, recently measured in a number of the high-T$_c$ compounds. Our results for $x\!=\!0$ (i.e. in the Heisenberg model), obtained with no adjustable parameters are in excellent agreement with the experiments in La$_2$CuO$_4$ [@ImaiT1; @ImaiT2] and show that the hyperfine couplings do not vary substantially from YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$ to La$_2$CuO$_4$. We also find qualitative agreement with the experimental data on $1/T_{\rm 2G}$ in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.63}$ [@TakigawaT2] and show that for moderate doping, $1/T_1$ is nearly doping and temperature independent, in agreement with both the experimental data in $\rm La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ [@ImaiT1] and earlier analysis based on the QNL$\sigma$ model [@Chubukov:Sachdev].
Our results provide additional support to the conjecture of Ref.[@Sokol:Pines] that the high temperature quantum critical behavior [@CHN; @Sachdev:Ye; @Chubukov:Sachdev] is a common feature shared by many of the cuprate superconductors. More detailed study of this and related subjects will be presented in a subsequent publication [@Glenister:Singh:Sokol].
We are grateful to T. Imai, C.P. Slichter, and M. Takigawa for communicating their experimental results to us prior to publication, and to R.J. Birgeneau, S. Chakravarty, A.V. Chubukov, E. Dagotto, M.P. Gelfand, L.P. Gor’kov, T. Imai, D. Pines, W.O. Putikka, S. Sachdev and C.P. Slichter for discussions. This work has been supported by the NSF Grants DMR89-20538 through the Materials Research Laboratory of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and DMR90-17361.
S. Chakravarty, B.I. Halperin, and D.R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 2344 (1989); see also S. Chakravarty and R. Orbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 224 (1990).
S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2411 (1992).
A.V. Chubukov and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 169 (1993); A.V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and J. Ye, to be published.
A. Sokol and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2813 (1993).
T. Imai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1002 (1993).
T. Imai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1254 (1993).
M. Takigawa [*at al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 247 (1991).
M. Takigawa, to be published.
R.R.P. Singh and R.L. Glenister, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 11871 (1992).
R.L. Glenister, R.R.P. Singh, and A. Sokol, to be published.
S. Chakravarty, private communication.
E. Manousakis and R. Salvador, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**62**]{}, 1310 (1989); Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 2205 (1989).
A.J. Millis, preprint (1993), and references therein.
T. Moriya, Y. Takahashi, and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 2905 (1990), and references therein.
B. Keimer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 14034 (1992).
C.H. Pennington and C.P. Slichter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 381 (1991); see also D. Thelen and D. Pines, preprint (1993).
H. Monien, D. Pines, and M. Takigawa, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 258 (1991).
T. Imai and C. Slichter, private communication.
A. Sokol, E. Gagliano, and S. Bacci, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 14646 (1993); and to be published.
S. Sachdev, unpublished.
B.I. Shraiman and E.D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 1564 (1989); Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 2485 (1990).
Universal scaling functions $\hat \chi(\kappa)$ ([$\bullet$]{} and solid line) and $\hat S(\kappa)$ ([$\circ$]{} and dashed line). Symbols are obtained by collapsing our numerical data for the t-J model. Lines show analytical predictions for the O(N) QNL$\sigma$ model; results of Ref.[@Chubukov:Sachdev] indicate that there is virtually no dependence on N for $N\ge3$. Note that the lines are universal scaling predictions rather than fits. \[profiles\]
$\xi^{-1}(T,x)$ for $t/J$=1 and ([$\circ$]{}) the experimental data of Ref.[@Keimer] for the undoped La$_2$CuO$_4$ (we set $a$=1); our calculation falls within not shown experimental errorbars. \[xi1\]
The spin-echo decay rate $1/T_{\rm 2G}(T)$ in the Heisenberg model (i.e. for x=0) calculated without adjustable parameters and ([$\bullet$]{}) the experimental data of Ref.[@ImaiT2] for La$_2$CuO$_4$. Inset: $T_{\rm 2G}(x,T)$ for $t/J$=1. \[T2G\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Fermi-LAT collaboration recently confirmed EGRET finding of a discrepancy between the observed longitudinal profile of $\gamma$-ray diffuse emission from the Galaxy and that computed with [GALPROP]{} assuming that cosmic rays are produced by Galactic supernova remnants. The accurate Fermi-LAT measurements make this anomaly hardly explainable in terms of conventional diffusion schemes. Here we use [DRAGON]{} numerical diffusion code to implement a physically motivated scenario in which the diffusion coefficient is spatially correlated to the source density. We show that under those conditions we are able to reproduce the observed flat emissivity profile in the outer Galaxy with no need to change the source term, the diffusion halo height, or the CO-${\rm H_2}$ conversion factor (${\rm X_{CO}}$) with respect to their preferred values/distributions. We also show that our models are compatible with gamma-ray longitudinal profiles measured by Fermi-LAT, and still provide a satisfactory fit of all observed secondary-to-primary ratios, such as B/C and antiprotons/protons.'
author:
- 'D. Gaggero'
- 'C. Evoli'
- 'D. Grasso'
- 'L. Maccione'
bibliography:
- 'Proceedings\_LaTeX.bib'
title: 'An alternative solution to the $\gamma$-ray Gradient problem'
---
Introduction
============
It has been known since the EGRET era that, if one computes the cosmic ray (CR) Galactocentric radial distribution adopting a source function deduced from pulsar or supernova remnant (SNR) catalogues, the result appears much steeper than the profile inferred from the $\gamma$-ray diffuse emission along the Galactic plane: the latter appears flatter, with a high contribution from large Galactic radii. This discrepancy is known as the [*$\gamma$-ray gradient problem*]{}. A sharp rise of the conversion factor between CO emissivity and ${\rm H_2}$ density (the so called ${\rm X_{CO}}$) with the Galactocentric radius was invoked at the time to fix the problem [@gradient_problem_2004]: a larger gas density at large radii compensates for the decreasing CR population and is able to explain the $\gamma$-ray flux detected at high Galactic longitudes.
Fermi-LAT confirmed the existence of such a problem [@ThirdQuadrant]. Moreover, the high spatial resolution of the LAT permitted to disentangle the emission coming from the interaction of CRs with the molecular gas (whose modelling is strongly affected by the uncertainty on the ${\rm X_{CO}}$) from the emission originated by the interaction of the Galactic CRs with the atomic gas (whose density is better known from its 21 cm radio emission). An analysis based on $\gamma$-ray maps of the third Galactic quadrant [@ThirdQuadrant] pointed out that the $\gamma$-ray emissivity from [*neutral*]{} gas (tracing the actual CR density) is indeed flatter than the predicted one confirming the gradient problem independently of the ${\rm X_{CO}}$. This result led the authors of [@ThirdQuadrant] to look for alternative explanations of the problem, e.g. invoking a thick CR diffusion halo or a source term that becomes flatter at large radii. Both solutions, however, do not appear completely satisfactory: a thick halo is disfavoured both from $^{10}$Be/$^9$Be and synchrotron data; a smooth source distribution is in contrast with SNR catalogues.
Here we consider a different interpretation based on relaxing the approximation of isotropic and spatially uniform diffusion.
Inhomogeneous and anisotropic diffusion
=======================================
Nearly all CR diffusion models presented in the literature adopt an isotropic and spatially uniform diffusion coefficient throughout all the Galaxy. This is the case, for example, of [GALPROP]{} numerical package on which the predictions of [@ThirdQuadrant] are based. It is reasonable, however, to expect that CR diffusion is not isotropic in the Galaxy. This could be the consequence either of Galactic winds [@Gebauer:2009hk] or just of the anisotropy of the regular component of the Galactic magnetic field which is oriented almost azimutally along the Galactic plane. The former possibility was suggested as a possible solution of the $\gamma$-ray gradient problem originated by EGRET observations [@Breitschwerdt]. Here we consider the latter option and extend also to the recent Fermi-LAT data the arguments we developed in \[Evoli et al. 2008\] to interpret earlier EGRET measurements. Our approach is based on the consideration that, for geometrical reasons, CRs should escape from the Galaxy almost perpendicularly to the Galactic plane: their density, therefore, should be determined by the perpendicular component of the diffusion coefficient $D_\perp$. We know – both from quasi linear diffusion theory and from more realistic numerical simulations [@BlasiDeMarco] – that $D_\perp$ should [*increase*]{} with increasing strength of the Galactic magnetic field turbulent component; from a physical point of view, such behaviour can be understood in terms of magnetic field line random walk becoming stronger when the turbulence strength increases. As a consequence, the regions where CR injection is more intense should also be those characterized by a stronger MHD turbulence and hence a faster CR escape along the $z$ axis: this should smooth the CR gradient, and hence the $\gamma$-ray profile, in a rather natural way.
In the next section we will show this effect by means of dedicated numerical computations.
Our method and results
======================
In this section we use [DRAGON]{} numerical diffusion package[^1] to solve the diffusion equation in the presence of a diffusion coefficient spatially correlated to the CR source term $Q(r,z)$. We perform our analysis using a Plain Diffusion (PD) setup with no convection and no reacceleration in order to better highlight the effects of inhomogeneous diffusion; similar results may be obtained with different choices of the diffusion parameters, and a more detailed study on the effects of another setup will be performed in a forthcoming paper. The CR propagation model adopted here is basically the same as the PD model described in [@electrons_final]; the astrophysical parameters (in particular the source term, gas distribution and ${\rm X_{CO}}$) are also the same used in that analysis. Only the normalization of the proton injection spectrum is slightly tuned to match the recently released proton spectrum measured by the PAMELA collaboration [@Pamela_p_2011]. The model is also compatible with most other CR data sets. Only a little excess in the antiproton spectrum must be pointed out which, however, is still compatible with data if astrophysical and particle physics uncertainties are taken into account. As we mentioned, the CR distribution is computed with [DRAGON]{}: this numerical package is suitable for our purpose since, differently from [GALPROP]{}, it implements the possibility to vary the diffusion coefficient through the Galaxy. The CR distributions is then used as an input to compute the $\gamma$-ray longitude profile along the Galactic plane; the $\gamma$-ray map is evaluated with a separate package called [GammaSky]{}. The result of a combined [DRAGON]{} and [GammaSky]{} computation in the case of a uniform diffusion coefficient and a PD setup is shown in Fig. \[fig:PD\_D\_exp\_exprad\] (panel a). It is clear from that plot that the predicted longitude profile is too steep compared to the observations: in the Galactic center region the model prediction overshoots the data and in the anti-center region the model is lower than the observations by several $\sigma$. Tuning the ${\rm X_{CO}}(R)$ could help in principle: assuming a lower value of this parameter in the bulge and a high value at large $R$ could smooth the $\gamma$-ray profile (as done in several previous works such as [@gradient_problem_2004]). Unfortunately, as pointed out in the introduction, the gradient problem is present especially in the [*emissivity profile*]{}, and this quantity is independent of the molecular gas: it only traces the actual CR distribution[^2].
So we apply our previous considerations and adopt a diffusion coefficient correlated to the radial dependence of the source term $Q(R)$ by the following expression: $$D(R) \, \propto \, Q(R)^{\tau}
\label{D_R}$$ This is the parametrization we already used in [@anstat_2008] to interpret EGRET data. The parameter $\tau$ is tuned against data. In Fig. \[fig:PD\_exprad\_00\_02\_05\_07\_08\_10\_Rmax30\] we show the emissivity profile for different values of $\tau$ in the range ${\rm [0 \div 1]}$. It is evident from that figure that an increasing value of $\tau$ yields a much smoother behaviour of the emissivity as function of $R$. Values in the range ${\rm [0.7 \div 1]}$ allow a good match of Fermi-LAT data ([@ThirdQuadrant], [@CasCep]). With this result at hand, we considered a modified version of the Plain Diffusion CR propagation setup with $D(R) = Q^{\tau}$ and $\tau = 0.8$. The smoothing in the CR distribution corresponding to such a value of $\tau$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:protons\_map\]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:PD\_D\_exp\_exprad\] (panel b), the $\gamma$ ray longitude profile along the Galactic plane is nicely reproduced [*with no tuning at all of the ${\rm X_{CO}}$*]{}. It is remarkable that a simple CR propagation setup, with only the addition of the radial dependence of $D$ and no [*ad hoc*]{} tuning, permits to reproduce the $\gamma$-ray profile with such accuracy. Noticeably, the modified model is [*still compatible*]{} with most relevant CR data set, most importantly the B/C. Furthermore, we checked that the $\gamma$-ray spectrum measured by Fermi-LAT along the Galactic plane is also correctly reproduced under those conditions (see Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]).
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we presented an alternative solution to the well known $\gamma$-ray [*gradient problem*]{}. Our approach is based on the physically motivated hypothesis that the CR diffusion coefficient is spatially correlated to the source density: regions in which star, hence SNR, formation is stronger are expected to present a stronger turbulence level and therefore a larger value of the perpendicular diffusion coefficient. This effect favours CR escape from most active regions helping to smooth their density through the Galaxy hence also the $\gamma$-ray gradient. We used [DRAGON]{} package to implement this scenario and to check that CR data are still reproduced under those conditions. In spite of being purely phenomenological (as a self-consistent theory/computation of non-linear CR - MHD turbulence interaction in the Galaxy is far from being developed) our approach provides a remarkably good description of the spectrum and longitude distribution of the diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission measured by the Fermi-LAT collaboration.
D. Gaggero would like to thank the LAPTH (Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Théorique) for hosting him during the last part of the work presented in this paper.
[^1]: The DRAGON code for cosmic-ray transport and diffuse emission production is available online at <http://www.desy.de/~maccione/DRAGON/>
[^2]: The emissivity is the number of $\gamma$ photons emitted by each gas atom per unit time and unit energy
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '15.pt We present a calculation of two photon radiation in $W$ and $Z$ boson production in hadronic collisions, based on the complete matrix elements for the processes $q\bar q''\to\ell^\pm\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$, including finite charged lepton masses. In order to achieve stable numerical results over the full phase space, multiconfiguration Monte Carlo techniques are used to map the peaks in the differential cross section. Numerical results are presented for the Fermilab Tevatron.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA\'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Illinois, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA\'
author:
- 'U. Baur[^1]'
- 'T. Stelzer[^2]'
title: 'Two Photon Radiation in $W$ and $Z$ Boson Production at the Tevatron Collider\'
---
Introduction
============
The Standard Model of electroweak interactions (SM) so far has met all experimental challenges and is now tested at the $0.1\%$ level [@holliksm]. However, there is little direct experimental information on the mechanism which generates the masses of the weak gauge bosons. In the SM, spontaneous symmetry breaking is responsible for mass generation. The existence of a Higgs boson is a direct consequence of this mechanism. At present the negative result of direct searches performed at LEP2 imposes a lower bound of $M_H>98.8$ GeV [@ewwg] on the Higgs boson mass. Indirect information on the mass of the Higgs boson can be extracted from the $M_H$ dependence of radiative corrections to the $W$ boson mass, $M_W$, and the effective weak mixing angle, $\sin^2\theta^{lept}_{eff}$. Assuming the SM to be valid, a global fit to all available electroweak precision data yields a (one-sided) 95% confidence level (CL) upper limit on $M_H$ of about 260 GeV [@holliksm; @ewwg; @caso].
Future more precise measurements of $M_W$ and the top quark mass, $m_{top}$, will lead to more accurate information on the Higgs boson mass [@degrassi; @Tev2000; @BD]. Currently, the $W$ boson mass is known to $\pm 42$ MeV [@lanc] from direct measurements. The uncertainties of the individual experiments contributing to this value are between about 80 MeV and 110 MeV [@lanc; @wnote]. The present uncertainty of the top quark mass from direct measurements is $\pm 5.1$ GeV [@ward]. With a precision of 30 MeV (10 MeV) for the $W$ mass, and 2 GeV for the top quark mass, $M_H$ can be predicted from a global analysis with an uncertainty of about $30\%$ ($15\%$) [@Tev2000; @BD]. Comparison of these indirect constraints on $M_H$ with the results from direct Higgs boson searches at LEP2, the Tevatron collider, and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be an important test of the SM. They will also provide restrictions on the parameters of the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) [@hollikmssm].
A significant improvement in the $W$ mass uncertainty is expected in the near future from measurements at LEP2 [@LEPWmass] and the Fermilab Tevatron $p\bar p$ collider [@Tev2000]. The ultimate precision expected for $M_W$ from the combined LEP2 experiments is 30 – 40 MeV [@LEPWmass]. At the Tevatron, integrated luminosities of order 2 fb$^{-1}$ are envisioned in the Main Injector Era (Run II), and one expects to measure the $W$ mass with a precision of approximately 40 MeV [@Tev2000] per experiment. The prospects for a precise measurement of $M_W$ would further improve if a significant upgrade in luminosity beyond the goal of the Main Injector could be realized. With recent advances in accelerator technology [@GPJ], Tevatron collider luminosities of order $10^{33}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ may become a reality, resulting in integrated luminosities of up to 10 fb$^{-1}$ per year. With a total integrated luminosity of 30 fb$^{-1}$, one can target a precision of the $W$ mass of 15 – 20 MeV [@Tev2000]. A similar or better accuracy may also be reached at the LHC [@KW].
In order to measure the $W$ boson mass with high precision in a hadron collider environment, it is necessary to fully understand and control higher order QCD and electroweak (EW) corrections to $W$ production. The determination of the $W$ mass in a hadron collider environment requires a simultaneous precision measurement of the $Z$ boson mass, $M_Z$, and width, $\Gamma_Z$. These quantities serve as reference points. When compared to the value measured at LEP, they help to accurately determine the energy scale and resolution of the electromagnetic calorimeter, and to constrain the muon momentum resolution [@Tev2000]. In order to extract $M_W$ from hadron collider data, it is therefore also necessary to understand the higher order QCD and EW corrections to $Z$ boson production in hadronic collisions.
Electroweak radiative corrections have a significant impact on the $W$ and $Z$ boson masses and widths extracted from experiment. Recent improved calculations of the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ EW corrections to $W$ production [@BKW], and of the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ QED corrections to $Z$ production in hadronic collisions [@BKS], have shown that the main effect is caused by final state photon radiation. When detector effects are included, ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ radiative corrections shift the $W$ mass by about $-50$ MeV in the electron case, and approximately $-160$ MeV in the muon case [@cdfwmass; @D0Wmass]. The effect on the $Z$ mass is about a factor two larger than that on $M_W$ for both electron and muon final states. ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ photon emission also shifts the width of the $W$ boson extracted from the tail of the transverse mass distribution by approximately $-70$ MeV [@wwidth]. The size of the shift in $M_W$, $M_Z$ and the $W$ width introduced by the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections raises the question of how strongly ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ corrections affect these quantities.
In order to reliably calculate the impact of the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ corrections to $p\,p\hskip-7pt\hbox{$^{^{(\!-\!)}}$} \to W^\pm\to\ell^\pm\nu$ and $p\,p\hskip-7pt\hbox{$^{^{(\!-\!)}}$} \to \gamma^*, Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$ ($\ell=e,\, \mu$) on the $W$ and $Z$ masses extracted from experiment, a full calculation including real and virtual corrections, which is valid over the entire allowed phase space, is needed. So far, only partial calculations for the ${\cal
O}(\alpha^2)$ real photon corrections, $p\,p\hskip-7pt\hbox{$^{^{(\!-\!)
}}$} \to W^\pm\to\ell^\pm\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $p\,
p\hskip-7pt\hbox{$^{^{(\!-\!)}}$} \to \gamma^*,
Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ exist [@photos; @BHKSZ]. In Ref. [@photos] the structure function approach for photon radiation is used to perform the calculation and, therefore, only final state photon radiation in the leading log approximation is included. The results obtained using this approach are reliable only for small opening angles between the photons and the charged leptons. The calculation of Ref. [@BHKSZ] is based on the full set of tree level Feynman diagrams contributing to $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ production. In addition, to preserve gauge invariance when finite $W$ width effects are included, the imaginary part of the $WW\gamma$ and $WW\gamma\gamma$ one-loop vertex corrections is taken into account. However, charged leptons are assumed to be massless, and thus a finite lepton – photon separation cut has to be imposed in order to avoid the collinear singularities associated with final state radiation.
The first step towards a calculation of the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ corrections to $W$ and $Z$ boson production in hadronic collisions thus is to perform a calculation of $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ production which
- is based on the full set of Feynman diagrams contributing at tree level,
- includes finite lepton mass effects,
- is gauge invariant when finite $W$ width effects are taken into account,
- and is valid for arbitrary lepton – photon opening angles.
In addition, in order to obtain reliable information on the shift in $M_W$ and $M_Z$ caused by two photon radiation, the numerical calculation should be stable for photon energies as small as the tower threshold of the electromagnetic calorimeter of the Tevatron experiments, which is of ${\cal O}(100$ MeV). In this paper we present such a calculation.
While the calculation of the $q\bar q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar
q'\to\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ matrix elements is straightforward, the phase space integration presents some challenges, due to the sharp peaks in the matrix elements which arise from the soft and collinear singularities. The collinear singularities associated with final state radiation are regulated by the finite mass of the leptons whereas soft and initial state collinear singularities are rendered finite by transverse momentum cuts imposed on the photons. Both soft and collinear singularities produce large contributions to the cross section in small regions of phase space. Standard adaptive Monte Carlo integration routines such as VEGAS [@vegas] do not yield a numerically stable result of the cross section for processes which exhibit a complicated peaking structure in the matrix elements. To obtain numerically stable and accurate results for such processes, a multi-channel Monte Carlo approach [@excal], augmented by the adaptive weight optimization procedure described in Ref. [@KP], is frequently used. The disadvantage of the multi-channel Monte Carlo approach is that the peaks in the matrix elements have to be mapped by hand, thus requiring a substantial amount of analytic work which has to be repeated for each new process one wishes to analyze.
Our calculation is based on a similar approach which adds the benefit of largely automizing the mapping of the peaks in the matrix elements. The process independent features of our approach, and the resulting multiconfiguration Monte Carlo (MCMC) integration program, are briefly described in Sec. II. Full details will be given elsewhere [@tim]. In Sec. III we discuss technical details associated with the calculation of the $q\bar q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar
q'\to\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ matrix elements and present numerical results for two photon radiation in $W$ and $Z$ events at the Tevatron collider ($p\bar p$ collisions at 1.8 TeV). Finally, summary remarks are given in Sec. IV.
Phase Space Integration
=======================
The matrix elements for $q\bar q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar
q'\to\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ have many sharply peaked regions throughout phase space. In addition to the Breit-Wigner resonances around the $W$ or $Z$ pole and a pole at small $\ell^+\ell^-$ invariant masses due to photon exchange, there are singularities when either photon becomes soft, or collinear with a charged particle. Although these soft and collinear singularities are regulated by energy or transverse momentum cuts and fermion masses, they result in large contributions to the cross section over relatively small regions of phase space and cause difficulties for standard integration techniques.
Integrating over the parton distributions and final state momenta in general requires performing a $(3N_{final}-4)+2$ dimensional integral over a phase space which may include many cuts. Here $N_{final}$ is the number of particles in the final state. If the number of dimensions is large, the integral is most easily carried out using Monte Carlo techniques. Monte Carlo integration approximates the integral by taking the average of a number of points, $N$, selected at random, and multiplying by the volume, $V$, over which one is integrating, $$\int f(x) dx \simeq {1 \over N} \sum_i f(x_i) \times V.$$ Provided the function $f(x)$ which is to be integrated is sufficiently flat, the number of points for convergence is independent of the number of dimensions. However, if $f(x)$ is sharply peaked convergence may be exponentially slow.
In order to use Monte Carlo techniques for integrating a sharply peaked function, it is necessary to remove the peaks. Peaks which are analytically integrable, and for which the integral is invertible, can be smoothed with the appropriate transformation of variables. A Breit-Wigner resonance is an excellent example for such a case. The transformation $y=\arctan(x)$ removes the peak and makes the integrand flat. Collinear and soft poles often require more involved transformations which may not have general analytical solutions.
Adaptive Monte Carlo programs such as VEGAS are able to flatten peaks by using numeric approximations of the integrand. The result is not as fast, or efficient as analytically removing the peaks, however it is more convenient. For most applications this is very desirable. The major restriction is that programs such as VEGAS can only remove peaks which are in the plane of one of the integration variables. For example, these programs will successfully flatten the peaks in the function $$f(x,y) = {1\over x}\, {1\over y}~,$$ but they will not be able to flatten those for $$f(x,y) = {1\over x+y}\, {1\over x-y}~,$$ unless a change of variables is performed. For processes with relatively few peaks, it is usually possible to map each peak to one of the integration variables. For complicated process such as $q\bar q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar
q'\to\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$, this is not the case.
In cases where it is not possible to simultaneously map every peak to an integration variable, there are two classes of solutions available. The first is to divide up phase space with cuts, such that the peaks in each region can be mapped to the integration variables. An adaptive Monte Carlo integration routine is used for each region separately. The results from each region are combined to obtain the total cross section. This method is effective for processes with relatively simple peaking structure, however as the number of peaks increases the technique quickly becomes cumbersome and prone to error.
The second technique [@excal; @KP] is to choose points in phase space not according to a single distribution, but according to the sum of multiple distributions. Each distribution is responsible for a specific set of peaks. The optimal number of points from each distribution is chosen using an algorithm which minimizes the Monte Carlo integration error [@KP]. With each channel, a different set of poles is analytically removed. The resulting code is very fast and efficient, however it requires significant analytic work, which must be repeated for each new process.
In our approach, we have combined the power of multichannel integration with the convenience offered by adaptive Monte Carlo integration routines such as VEGAS. The result is a general and flexible multiconfiguration Monte Carlo program called MCMC which can numerically integrate sharply peaked functions in many dimensions with minimal input from the user.
Feynman diagrams offer a convenient mechanism for determining in which dimensions peaks may appear. At tree level strong peaks in the cross section are always associated with a propagator going on-shell. We have implemented a general phase-space generator based on Feynman diagrams. Given a tree-level Feynman diagram, it maps a set of random numbers to a point in phase space such that each propagator represents one of the dimensions of integration. The operation is invertible so it can also return the set of random numbers associated with any point in phase space. The user specifies the momentum flow of the contributing Feynman diagrams in a simple include file, together with the masses and widths of the Breit-Wigner resonances which appear in each diagram. All other aspects of the phase space integration are handled automatically by the program. A more detailed description of the approach will be given elsewhere [@tim].
The convenience of MCMC is best illustrated in a simple example. Consider the process $\nu_\mu \bar\nu_\mu \rightarrow e^+ e^-
\gamma\gamma$ for a center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=100$ GeV, where each of the final state particles is required to have a transverse momentum $p_T > 10$ GeV. The electron mass is assumed to be variable. The six Feynman diagrams associated with this process can easily be generated with a program such as MadGraph [@madgraph]. The diagrams generated by MadGraph are shown in Fig. \[fig:one\]. Each diagram represents a phase space configuration in the MCMC code with the appropriate poles mapped to the integration variables.
These configurations are input to the integration package, which then searches for peaks, and determines the optimal number of points to choose from each configuration using an algorithm which minimizes the integration error. Table \[tab:mass\] compares the cross sections obtained using the traditional single configuration approach with those from MCMC as the electron mass is varied from 0.01 GeV to 10 GeV. Notice that for large masses, the matrix element is relatively flat and a single configuration accurately integrates the cross section. However, as the electron mass decreases, the contribution from the collinear regions becomes increasingly important, and the single configuration package is unable to accurately integrate the function. Not only is the error larger, but even with $5\times 10^6$ integration points, the single configuration integration is giving the wrong result as it samples all of the points from the peaks it has mapped to integration variables, completely neglecting the peaks which are only sampled by the other configurations. Due to the mass singular terms associated with final state radiation in the collinear limit, the cross section scales approximately with $(\log(m_e^2/s))^2$ for small electron masses, $m_e\leq 1$ GeV. This provides a simple check on the accuracy of the MCMC result.
The primary difference between our approach and other multichannel techniques is its generality. The mapping of uniformly distributed random numbers to points in phase space can be broken down into two steps. First the uniformly distributed random numbers are deformed into non-uniform numbers, with a corresponding Jacobian. Next these non-uniform numbers are mapped to four-momenta in phase space with another Jacobian. For each step, one can choose to perform an analytic transformation which will be very efficient for the particular process being studied, or one can choose a general transformation which is not optimized for the specific process, but will work for any process. The approach of Ref. [@KP] produces highly optimized code for both transformations. In Ref. [@Ohl], a general procedure for the transformation from uniform space to a deformed space is given, but optimized procedures for the transformation to phase space are chosen. The MCMC program provides general algorithms for both transformations, similar to the approach used by CompHEP [@comphep; @ilyin] to perform the phase space integration. The resulting code is in general slightly slower than that resulting from the other two approaches, however we believe its user friendliness makes up for this short coming. The advantage of user friendly programs at the expense of computer time has already been demonstrated by packages such as MadGraph, CompHEP [@comphep; @grace] and GRACE [@grace] which quickly produce non-optimized tree-level matrix elements. Indeed the synthesis of the integration package outlined here with automatically generated matrix elements will allow the user to concentrate on the physics issues rather than numerical integration techniques. While MCMC naturally interfaces with MadGraph and HELAS [@helas], matrix elements resulting from any other automated or non-automated calculation can be used.
$\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ Production at the Fermilab Tevatron
========================================================================================
We shall now discuss the calculation of $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ production in hadronic collisions, together with some phenomenological applications relevant for future $W$ mass measurements at hadron colliders. To calculate the matrix elements for $q\bar
q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar q'\to\ell^\pm\nu\gamma\gamma$ we use MadGraph which automatically generates the SM matrix elements in HELAS format. When photon exchange is taken into account, 40 Feynman diagrams contribute to $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ production, while there are 21 diagrams for $\ell^\pm\nu\gamma\gamma$ production. Taking into account symmetries in the phase space mapping, 20 (12) different configurations contribute to $q\bar
q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ ($q\bar q'\to\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$).
In order to maintain electromagnetic gauge invariance for $q\bar q'\to\ell^\pm\nu\gamma\gamma$ in presence of finite $W$ width effects, the $W$ propagator and the $WW\gamma$ and $WW\gamma\gamma$ vertex functions in the amplitudes generated by MadGraph have to be modified [@BHKSZ; @BZ]. Finite width effects are included by resumming the imaginary part of the $W$ vacuum polarization, $\Pi_W(q^2)$. The transverse part of $\Pi_W(q^2)$ receives an imaginary contribution $${\rm Im}\,\Pi^T_W(q^2)=q^2{\Gamma_W\over M_W}$$ while the imaginary part of the longitudinal piece vanishes. The $W$ propagator is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{EQ:PROP}\nonumber
\label{EQ:PROP}
D^{\mu\nu}_W(q)= \frac{-i}{q^2 - M^2_W + iq^2 \gamma_W}
\left[ g^{\mu\nu} - \frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{M^2_W}
( 1 + i \gamma_W ) \right],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\gamma_W={\Gamma_W\over M_W},$$ where $\Gamma_W$ denotes the $W$ width. A gauge invariant expression for the amplitude is then obtained by attaching the final state photons to all charged particle propagators, including those in the fermion loops which contribute to $\Pi_W(q^2)$. As a result, the lowest order $WW\gamma$ and $WW\gamma\gamma$ vertex functions, $\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\mu}_0$ and $\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\mu\rho}_0$, are modified [@BHKSZ; @BZ] to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:VERTEX}
\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\mu} &=& \Gamma^{\alpha\beta\mu}_0 ( 1 + i \gamma_W),
\\
\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\mu\rho} &=& \Gamma^{\alpha\beta\mu\rho}_0 ( 1 +
i \gamma_W ).\end{aligned}$$ The SM parameters used in our numerical calculations are $M_W=80.3$ GeV, $\Gamma_W=2.046$ GeV, $M_Z=91.19$ GeV, $\Gamma_Z=2.49$ GeV, and $\alpha(M_Z^2)=1/128$. These values are consistent with recent measurements at LEP, LEP2, the SLC and the Tevatron [@lanc]. We use the parton distribution functions set A of Martin-Roberts-Stirling [@mrsa] with the factorization scale set equal to the parton center of mass energy $\sqrt{\hat s}$. All numerical results are obtained for $p\bar p$ collisions with a center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV. In Run II, the Tevatron collider is foreseen to operate at $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV. For a center of mass energy of 2 TeV, results qualitatively similar to those reported here are obtained. Cross sections are about 5% higher than those found for $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV. Since the total cross sections for $\ell^+\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell^-\nu\gamma\gamma$ production are equal in $p\bar p$ collisions, we shall not consider the $\ell^-\nu\gamma\gamma$ channel in the following.
To simulate the fiducial and kinematic acceptances of detectors, we impose the following transverse momentum ($p_T$) and pseudo-rapidity ($\eta$) cuts on electrons and muons:
-------------------------------- ----------------------------------
electrons muons
$p_{T}^{}(e) > 20$ GeV $p_{T}^{}(\mu) > 25$ GeV
$|\eta(e)| < 2.5$ $|\eta(\mu)| < 1.0$
$p\llap/_T > 20$ GeV $p\llap/_T > 25$ GeV
-------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Here, $p\llap/_T$ denotes the missing transverse momentum which we identify with the transverse momentum of the neutrino in $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production. The $p\llap/_T$ cut is only applied in $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production. The cuts listed above approximately model the acceptance of the CDF detector for electrons and muons in Run I. Qualitatively similar numerical results are obtained if cuts are used which approximate the phase space region covered by the upgraded CDF detector for Run II [@cdfrun2], or if cuts are used which model the acceptance of the DØ detector [@D0upgr].
In addition to the lepton cuts listed above, a pseudo-rapidity cut $$|\eta(\gamma)|<3.6,$$ and a transverse momentum cut on the photons are imposed. In order to be able to accurately determine the shift in the $W$ and $Z$ boson masses induced by photon radiation correctly, it is necessary to consider photon transverse momenta as low as the calorimeter threshold of the detector, which is about 100 MeV. Subsequently, we therefore require $$p_T(\gamma)>0.1~{\rm GeV}$$ in all our calculations unless stated otherwise explicitly. The photon transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity cuts are necessary to avoid soft singularities and collinear divergences associated with initial state radiation.
Since we are mostly interested in photon radiation in $W$ and $Z$ decays, we impose additional cuts on the di-lepton invariant mass, $$75~{\rm GeV}<m(\ell\ell)<105~{\rm GeV,}
\label{eq:ll}$$ and the transverse mass of the $\ell\nu$ system, $$65~{\rm GeV}<m_T(\ell p\llap/_T)<100~{\rm GeV}.
\label{eq:ln}$$ CDF and DØ utilize similar cuts in their $W$ mass analyses [@cdfwmass; @D0Wmass]. Events satisfying Eqs. (\[eq:ll\]) and (\[eq:ln\]) are called $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$ and $W\to\ell\nu$ events, respectively, in the following.
To demonstrate that the multiconfiguration Monte Carlo approach we use yields accurate results both in the collinear region as well as for photons emitted at large angles, we show in Fig. \[fig:two\] the differential cross section versus the separation between the two photons in the azimuthal angle-pseudorapidity plane, $$\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}=\sqrt{\Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma}^2 +
\Delta\eta_{\gamma\gamma}^2}~.$$ The strong peak for small $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ arises when both photons are emitted by the same charged lepton, and the photons are collinear with the lepton. The peak at $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}\approx 3$ in $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ production originates from Feynman diagrams where the photons are radiated off different leptons. Since photons do not couple to neutrinos, this peak is absent in $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production. For electrons, the collinear peaks are significantly more pronounced than for muons. The difference in the differential cross sections for electrons and muons away from the collinear regions is entirely due to the different $p_T$ and rapidity cuts imposed on these particles. The statistical fluctuations are quite uniform over the full range of $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ values considered, indicating that the MCMC program distributes the generated events and their weights appropriately. Away from the collinear peaks, our calculation[^3] agrees with that of Ref. [@BHKSZ] to better than 1%. In this region, conventional adaptive Monte Carlo routines such as VEGAS are sufficient in order to obtain a numerically stable result. The distributions of the separation between the photons and the charged lepton (leptons) are qualitatively very similar to the $\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma}$ spectrum.
In Tables \[tab:two\] and \[tab:three\], we list the fraction of $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$ events at the Tevatron which contain two photons as a function of the minimum photon transverse momentum. For comparison, we also list the event fractions containing one photon. Fractions are obtained by normalization with respect to the lowest order cross section within cuts. The results for $\ell\nu\gamma$ and $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ production are obtained using the calculation of Ref. [@BZ]. No lepton-photon or photon-photon separation cuts are imposed.
Approximately 3% (1%) of all $W\to e\nu$ ($W\to\mu\nu$) events, and 14% (5%) of all $Z\to e^+e^-$ ($Z\to\mu^+\mu^-$) events, contain two photons with a minimum transverse momentum of $p_T^{min}(\gamma)=0.
1$ GeV. Because of the mass singular logarithms associated with final state photon bremsstrahlung in the collinear limit, the fraction of $W\to e\nu$ and $Z\to e^+e^-$ events with two photons is more than a factor 3 larger than the corresponding fraction of $W\to\mu\nu$ and $Z\to\mu^+\mu^-$ events. In contrast to $W$ events, both leptons can radiate photons in $Z$ decays. As a result, the probability of $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$ events to radiate two photons is more than four times that of $W\to\ell\nu$ events. For increasing $p_T^{min}(\gamma)$, the fraction of $W$ and $Z$ events containing photons drops quickly.
For small photon transverse momenta, the cross section is completely dominated by final state radiation. In this region, the fraction of events containing two photons, $P_2$, can be estimated using the simple formula [@multi] $$P_2={P_1^2\over 2}~,
\label{eq:naive}$$ where $P_1$ is the fraction of events containing one photon. The results obtained using Eq. (\[eq:naive\]) are also listed in Tables \[tab:two\] and \[tab:three\]. For large values of $p_T(\gamma)$, the available phase space for final state radiation is strongly reduced by the transverse momentum cuts imposed on the leptons, and initial state radiation plays an increasingly important role. For $p_T^{min}(\gamma)\geq 3$ GeV, Eq. (\[eq:naive\]) therefore becomes more and more inaccurate.
The large mass singular terms associated with final state bremsstrahlung result in a significant change in the shape of the $m_T(\ell
p\llap/_T)$ and the di-lepton invariant mass distributions. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:three\]. Here we do not impose the di-lepton invariant mass cut and the $\ell\nu$ transverse mass cut of Eqs. (\[eq:ll\]) and (\[eq:ln\]). In Fig. \[fig:three\]a we show the ratio of the $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and the lowest order $\ell^+\ell^-$ cross section as a function of $m(\ell\ell)$. The cross section ratio is seen to vary rapidly. The dip at $m(\ell\ell)=M_Z$ is a direct consequence of the Breit-Wigner resonance of the $Z$ boson. Below the $Z$ peak, the cross section ratio rises very sharply and in the region $70~{\rm GeV}<m(ee)<80~{\rm
GeV}$, the cross section ratio is of order one in the electron case. The dip located at $m(\ell\ell)=M_Z$ and the substantially enhanced rate of events with two photons below the resonance peaks are caused by final state bremsstrahlung in events where the $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ invariant mass is close to $M_Z$.
Fig. \[fig:three\]b displays the ratio of the $\ell^+\nu\gamma\gamma$ and the $\ell^+\nu$ cross section as a function of the $\ell\nu$ transverse mass. Here the dip at $m_T(\ell p\llap/_T)=M_W$ is due to the Jacobian peak in the $\ell\nu$ transverse mass distribution. Because of the long tail of the lowest order $m_T(\ell p\llap/_T)$ distribution below $M_W$ and the fact that photons are not radiated by neutrinos, the enhancement in the $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ to $\ell\nu$ cross section ratio is less pronounced than that encountered in the $\ell^+\ell^-$ case. In the region of large transverse masses, $m_T(\ell p\llap/_T)>100$ GeV, the shape of the transverse mass distribution is sensitive to the $W$ width. Fig. \[fig:three\]b shows that two photon radiation significantly modifies the shape of the $m_T(\ell p\llap/_T)$ distribution in this region. This will directly influence the $W$ width extracted by experiment.
The shape changes in the $\ell\nu$ transverse mass and the di-lepton invariant mass distributions suggest that two photon radiation may have a non-negligible effect on the measured $W$ and $Z$ masses, and also on the $W$ width extracted from the high transverse mass region. Since the shape change caused by two photon radiation in the distribution used to extract the mass is more pronounced in the $Z$ case, the shift in the $Z$ boson mass is expected to be considerably larger than the shift in $M_W$. For a realistic calculation of how ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ corrections affect the $W$ and $Z$ resonance parameters, soft and virtual corrections and detector resolution effects need to be included.
We have not taken into account detector resolution effects or realistic lepton and photon identification requirements in the calculations presented in this Section. In particular, we have assumed that photons and leptons with arbitrary small opening angles can be discriminated. In practice, the finite resolution of the electromagnetic calorimeter makes it difficult to separate electrons and photons for small opening angles between their momentum vectors. Electron and photon four-momentum vectors are therefore recombined if their separation in the azimuthal angle-pseudorapidity plane is smaller than a critical value [@cdfwmass; @D0Wmass]. This eliminates the mass singular terms associated with final state photon radiation and thus may reduce the fraction of $W$ and $Z$ events with two photons significantly. Since muons are identified by hits in the muon chambers, the four momentum vectors of muons and photons are not combined for small opening angles. Instead, one frequently requires the photon energy to be below a threshold $E_c$ in a cone around the muon. The mass singular logarithms thus survive in the muon case. The precise lepton identification requirements and their effects on the size of the EW corrections $W$ and $Z$ boson production are detector dependent.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
The mass of the $W$ boson is one of the fundamental parameters of the SM and a precise measurement of $M_W$ is an important objective for current experiments at LEP2 and future experiments at the Tevatron. A precise measurement of $M_W$ helps to constrain the Higgs boson mass from radiative corrections. It will also provide restrictions on the parameters of the MSSM. In order to perform such a measurement at a hadron collider, it is crucial to fully control higher order QCD and EW corrections to $W$ production. In a precision measurement of $M_W$ in hadronic collisions, a simultaneous determination of the mass of the $Z$ boson is required for calibration purposes. A detailed understanding of the QCD and electroweak corrections to $Z$ boson production is therefore also necessary.
Recent calculations [@BKW; @BKS] have shown that the ${\cal
O}(\alpha)$ electroweak corrections to $W$ and $Z$ production have a significant impact on the weak boson masses extracted from experiment. The dominant contribution originates from final state photon radiation. The magnitude of the shift in $M_W$ and $M_Z$ induced by the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections suggests that ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ corrections may have an effect which cannot be ignored in future $W$ mass measurements at the Tevatron. In this paper we have presented a calculation of the real ${\cal
O}(\alpha^2)$ photonic corrections to $W$ and $Z$ boson production in hadronic collisions. Our calculation is based on the full set of Feynman diagrams contributing to $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production and includes finite lepton mass effects. In order to maintain gauge invariance in $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production, the $W$ propagator and the $WW\gamma$ and $WW\gamma\gamma$ vertex functions are modified using the prescription given in Refs. [@BHKSZ] and [@BZ].
In order to accurately determine the shift in the $W$ and $Z$ masses caused by photon radiation, the numerical calculation should be stable for arbitrarily small or large lepton - photon opening angles as well as for photon energies as small as the tower threshold of the electromagnetic calorimeter of the Tevatron experiments, which is of ${\cal O}(100~{\rm MeV})$. Due to the collinear and soft singularities present, this poses a challenge. Standard adaptive Monte Carlo integration routines such as VEGAS do not yield a stable result for processes with a complicated peaking structure in the matrix elements, such as $q\bar q\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $q\bar
q'\to\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$. To obtain numerically stable and accurate results in these cases, multi-channel Monte Carlo integration techniques are frequently used. This approach requires that the peaks in the matrix elements are analytically mapped. To calculate the cross sections for $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production at hadron colliders, we developed a multiconfiguration Monte Carlo integration routine called MCMC which is based on a similar approach, adding the benefit of largely automizing the mapping of the peaks. MCMC thus can be used to calculate other processes with matrix elements exhibiting a complex set of peaks with almost no additional effort. The algorithm which is used in MCMC to map out the peaks is based on the Feynman diagrams which contribute to the process considered.
Imposing $W$ and $Z$ boson selection cuts on the final state leptons, we found that a significant fraction of weak boson events contains two photons. The probability for $Z$ events to radiate two photons is almost a factor five larger than that for $W$ events. For $W\to\mu\nu$ and $Z\to\mu^+\mu^-$ decays, the rate for two photon radiation is about a factor 3 smaller than the corresponding rate for decays with electrons in the final state. If the photon $p_T$ is less than about 3 GeV, the fraction of $W$ and $Z$ events containing two photons can be estimated with an accuracy of 20% or better using a simple equation (see Eq. (\[eq:naive\])).
Two photon radiation was also found to significantly alter the shapes of the $Z$ boson resonance curve and the $\ell\nu$ transverse mass distribution. The shift in the $W$ and $Z$ masses, and in the $W$ width measured from the tail of the transverse mass distribution, caused by the ${\cal
O}(\alpha^2)$ real photon corrections may thus be non-negligible for future hadron collider experiments. For a realistic estimate of how strongly the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ corrections affect the $W$ boson parameters extracted from experiment it is necessary to include the effects of soft and virtual corrections, as well as detector resolution effects. The calculation of $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ and $\ell\nu\gamma\gamma$ production presented in this paper thus only is the first step towards a more complete understanding of the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ electroweak corrections to $W$ and $Z$ production in hadronic collisions.
We would like to thank R. Brock, Y-K. Kim, M. Lancaster, D. Waters and D. Wood for stimulating discussions. One of us (U.B.) is grateful to the Fermilab Theory Group, where part of this work was carried out, for its generous hospitality. This work has been supported in part by DOE contract No. DE-FG02-91ER40677 and NSF grant PHY-9600770.
The LEP Collaborations, CERN-EP/99-15 (report, February 1999). M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{} (L3 Collaboration), CERN-EP/99-80 (report, June 1999), to appear in Phys. Lett. [**B**]{}; G. Abbiendi [*et al.*]{} (OPAL Collaboration), CERN-EP/99-96 (report, July 1999), submitted to Eur. Phys. J. [**C**]{}; P. Bock [*et al.*]{} (The LEP working group for Higgs boson searches), ALEPH 99-081, DELPHI 99-142, L3 Note 2442, OPAL TN-614, paper contributed to the [*“International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics”*]{}, July 15 – 21, 1999, Tampere, Finland; J. Nielson [*et al.*]{}, (ALEPH Collaboration), hep-ex/9908016, paper contributed to the [*“XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies”*]{}, Stanford, August 9 – 14, 1999. M.S. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 073005 (1999); G. D’Agostini and G. Degrassi, DFPD-99/TH/02 (preprint, February 1999); J. Mnich, talk given at the [*“International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics”*]{}, Tampere, Finland, July 15 – 21, 1999. K. Hagiwara, D. Haidt and S. Matsumoto, Eur. Phys. J. [**C2**]{}, 95 (1998); G. Degrassi, P. Gambino, M. Passera, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Lett. [**B418**]{}, 209 (1998); G. Degrassi, Acta Phys. Polon. [**B29**]{}, 2683 (1998). H. Aihara [*et al.*]{}, in [*“Future Electroweak Physics at the Fermilab Tevatron: Report of the $TEV\_2000$ Study Group”*]{}, eds. D. Amidei and R. Brock, FERMILAB-Pub-96/082, p. 63 (April 1996). U. Baur and M. Demarteau, Proceedings of the Workshop [*“New Directions in High Energy Physics”*]{}, Snowmass, CO, June 25 – July 12, 1996, eds. D.G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari and R.H. Siemann, Vol. 1, p. 499. M. Lancaster, FERMILAB-Conf-99/173-E (report, June 1999), to appear in the Proceedings of the [*“XXXIVth Recontres de Moriond, Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories”*]{}, Les Arcs, France, March 13 – 20, 1999; T. Dorigo, FERMILAB-Conf-99/155-E (report, April 1999), to appear in the Proceedings of the [*“XXXIVth Recontres de Moriond, QCD and Hadronic Interactions”*]{}, Les Arcs, France, March 20 – 27, 1999; T. Saeki, hep-ex/9906036 (report, June 1999), to appear in the Proceedings of the [*“XXXIVth Recontres de Moriond, QCD and Hadronic Interactions”*]{}, Les Arcs, France, March 20 – 27, 1999. The LEP Collaborations, LEPEWWG/WW/99-01 (report, April 1999). D. Partridge, Proceedings of the [*“XXIX International Conference on High Energy Physics”*]{}, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 23 – 29 July, 1998, Vol. 1, p. 107; L. Demortier [*et al.*]{} (The Top Averaging Group), FERMILAB-TM-2084 (report, May 1999). P. Chankowski [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B417**]{}, 101 (1994); D. Garcia and J. Solá, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A9**]{}, 211 (1994); W. Hollik, KA-TP-23-1997 (September 1997), Proceedings of the [*“International Workshop on Quantum Effects in the MSSM”*]{}, Barcelona, Spain, September 9 – 13, 1997, p. 15. D. Charlton, talk given at the [*“XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies”*]{}, Stanford, August 9 – 14, 1999; A. Ballestrero [*et al.*]{}, in [*“Physics at LEP2”*]{}, eds. G. Altarelli, T. Sjostrand and F. Zwirner, CERN Yellow Report, CERN-96-01, Vol. 1, p. 141. J.P. Marriner, Proceedings of the Workshop [*“New Directions in High Energy Physics”*]{}, Snowmass, CO, June 25 – July 12, 1996, eds. D.G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari and R.H. Siemann, Vol. 1, p. 78; P.P. Bagley [*et al.*]{}, Proceedings of the Workshop [*“New Directions in High Energy Physics”*]{}, Snowmass, CO, June 25 – July 12, 1996, eds. D.G. Cassel, L. Trindle Gennari and R.H. Siemann, Vol. 1, p. 134; D.A. Finley, J. Marriner and N.V. Mokhov, FERMILAB-Conf-96/408, presented at the [*“Conference on Charged Particle Accelerators”*]{}, Protvino, Russia, October 22 – 24, 1996; S. Holmes, FERMILAB-Conf-99/091, presented at [*“PAC99, Particle Accelerator Conference”*]{}, New York, March 29 – April 2, 1999. S. Keller and J. Womersley, Eur. Phys. J. [**C5**]{}, 249 (1998); A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{} (ATLAS Collaboration), [*“ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance Technical Design Report, Vol. 2”*]{}, CERN-LHCC-99-15, p. 547 (report, May 1999). U. Baur, S. Keller and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 013002 (1999). U. Baur, S. Keller and W.K. Sakumoto, Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{}, 199 (1998). F. Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 11 (1995) and Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{}, 4784 (1995). S. Abachi [*et al.*]{} (DØ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3309 (1996), B. Abbott [*et al.*]{} (DØ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 012002 (1998); [*ibid.*]{} [**D58**]{}, 092003 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3008 (1998); FERMILAB-Pub-99/237-E, hep-ex/9908057 (report, August 1999), submitted to Phys. Rev. [**D**]{}; FERMILAB-Pub-99/253-E, hep-ex/9909030 (report, September 1999), submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. F. Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 341 (1995). E. Barberio, B. van Eijk, and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**66**]{}, 115 (1991); E. Barberio, and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**79**]{}, 291 (1994). U. Baur [*et al.*]{}, Phys Rev. [**D56**]{}, 140 (1997). G.P. Lepage, J. Comput. Phys. [**27**]{}, 192 (1978). F.A. Berends, R. Pittau and R. Kleiss, Nucl. Phys. [**B424**]{}, 308 (1994); J. Hilgart, R. Kleiss and F. Le Diberder, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**75**]{}, 191 (1993); M. Skrzypek and Z. Was, CERN-TH/99-98 (preprint, April 1999); M. Skrzypek , S. Jadach, W. Placzek and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**94**]{}, 216 (1996). R. Kleiss and R. Pittau, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**83**]{}, 141 (1994). T. Stelzer, in preparation. T. Stelzer and W.F. Long, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**81**]{}, 357 (1994). T. Ohl, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**120**]{}, 13 (1999). A. Pukhov [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/9908288 (report, August 1999). V.A. Ilyin, D.N. Kovalenko and A.E. Pukhov Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**C7**]{}, 761 (1996). E.E. Boos [*et al.*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**C5**]{}, 615 (1994) and references therein. H. Murayama, I. Watanabe, and K. Hagiwara, KEK Report 91-11, 1992. U. Baur and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1002 (1995). A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts and W.J. Stirling, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{}, 6734 (1994). F. Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), FERMILAB-Pub-96/390-E, (preprint, October 1996). S. Abachi [*et al.*]{} (DØ Collaboration), FERMILAB-Pub-96/357-E (preprint, October 1996). F. Bloch and A. Nordsieck, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{}, 54 (1937); D.R. Yennie, S.C. Frautschi, and H. Suura, Ann. Phys. (New York) [**13**]{}, 379 (1961).
5.mm
--------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------- ----------
electron mass
(GeV) $\sigma$ (fb) $\chi^2$ $\sigma$ (fb) $\chi^2$
0.01 88.4 $\pm$ 0.8 0.2 48.9 $\pm$ 3 0.3
0.1 46.34 $\pm$ 0.08 0.7 36.5 $\pm$ 2 1.1
1.0 17.14 $\pm$ 0.03 1. 16.5 $\pm$ 0.2 0.7
10.0 1.999 $\pm$ 0.003 0.3 1.992 $\pm$ 0.003 0.2
--------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------- ----------
: Integrated cross section for the process $\nu_\mu \bar\nu_\mu
\rightarrow e^+ e^- \gamma \gamma$ at $\sqrt{s}=100$ GeV as a function of the electron mass for single and multi configuration adaptive Monte Carlo integration. A $p_T>10$ GeV cut is imposed on all final state particles. In all cases $8\times 100,000$ events are generated to set the grid, and $5\times 1$ million events for evaluating the integral.[]{data-label="tab:mass"}
5.mm
--------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
$p_T^{min}(\gamma)$ (GeV) $W\to e\nu\gamma$ $W\to e\nu\gamma\gamma$ $W\to e\nu\gamma\gamma$ \[Eq. (\[eq:naive\])\]
0.1 23.9 3.05 2.86
0.3 17.3 1.56 1.50
1 10.4 0.53 0.54
3 4.82 0.09 0.12
10 0.56 $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ $1.6\times 10^{-3}$
$p_T^{min}(\gamma)$ (GeV) $W\to\mu\nu\gamma$ $W\to\mu\nu\gamma\gamma$ $W\to\mu\nu\gamma\gamma$ \[Eq. (\[eq:naive\])\]
0.1 13.5 0.99 0.91
0.3 9.65 0.48 0.47
1 5.74 0.17 0.16
3 2.65 $2.7\times 10^{-2}$ $3.5\times 10^{-2}$
10 0.33 $6.3\times 10^{-4}$ $5.4\times 10^{-4}$
--------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
: Fraction of $W\to e\nu$ and $W\to\mu\nu$ events (in percent) containing one or two photons with a transverse momentum $p_T(\gamma)>p_T^{min}(\gamma)$ at the Tevatron ($p\bar p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV). Fractions are obtained with respect to the lowest order cross section. The cuts imposed are specified in the text. The relative statistical error on the event fractions from the Monte Carlo integration is approximately 1%.[]{data-label="tab:two"}
5.mm
--------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------
$p_T^{min}(\gamma)$ (GeV) $Z\to e^+e^-\gamma$ $Z\to e^+e^-\gamma\gamma$ $Z\to e^+e^-\gamma\gamma$ \[Eq. (\[eq:naive\])\]
0.1 52.3 14.6 13.7
0.3 39.1 7.80 7.64
1 25.0 3.05 3.13
3 12.9 0.61 0.83
10 2.17 $1.3\times 10^{-2}$ $2.4\times 10^{-2}$
$p_T^{min}(\gamma)$ (GeV) $Z\to\mu^+\mu^-\gamma$ $Z\to\mu^+\mu^-\gamma\gamma$ $Z\to\mu^+\mu^-\gamma\gamma$ \[Eq. (\[eq:naive\])\]
0.1 31.2 4.76 4.87
0.3 23.8 2.67 2.83
1 15.4 1.07 1.19
3 8.19 0.25 0.34
10 1.62 $8.4\times 10^{-3}$ $1.3\times 10^{-2}$
--------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------
: Fraction of $Z\to e^+e^-$ and $Z\to\mu^+\mu^-$ events (in percent) containing one or two photons with a transverse momentum $p_T(\gamma)>p_T^{min}(\gamma)$ at the Tevatron ($p\bar p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV). Fractions are obtained with respect to the lowest order cross section. The cuts imposed are specified in the text. The relative statistical error on the event fractions from the Monte Carlo integration is approximately 1%.[]{data-label="tab:three"}
14.cm
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Parton level FORTRAN programs for $p\,p\hskip-7pt\hbox{$^{^{(\!-\!)}}$} \to\ell^\pm\nu\gamma\gamma$ and $p\,p\hskip-7pt\hbox{$^{^{(\!-\!)}}$} \to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma\gamma$ which include the MCMC source code are available upon request from the authors.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The residual amplitude modulation ($\mathrm{RAM}$) is the undesired, non-zero amplitude modulation that usually occurs when a phase modulation based-on the electro-optic effect is imprinted on a laser beam.
In this work we show that electro-optic modulators (EOMs) that are used to generate the sidebands on the laser beam also generate a $\mathrm{RAM}$ in the optical setup. This result contradicts standard textbooks, which assume the amplitude remains unchanged in the process, and should be considered as a fundamental $
\mathrm{RAM}$ ($\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$) for these devices.
We present a classical model for the propagation of an infrared laser with frequency $\omega_{0}$ in a wedge-shaped crystal and an EOM with a RF modulating signal of frequency $\Omega$. Since ${\Omega}\ll \omega_{0}$, we solve the Maxwell’s equations in a time varying media via a WKB approximation and we write the electromagnetic fields in terms of quasi-plane waves. From the emerging fields of the setup, we compute the associated $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ and show that it depends on the phase-modulation depth $m$ and the quotient $\left(\frac{\Omega}{\omega_{0}}\right)$.
We show that the genesis of the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is found in phenomena that occurs at the level of the unit cell of the modulator crystal.
The $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ values obtained for the EOMs used in gravitational wave detectors are presented. Both the detectability and the cancellation of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ are then analyzed.
author:
- 'Alfredo E. Domínguez $^\dagger$, Walter E. Ortega Larcher $^\dagger$ , Carlos N. Kozameh $^{\dagger \dagger}$'
title: 'Fundamental residual amplitude modulation in electro-optic modulators'
---
Introduction
============
The electro-optic modulators (EOMs) are devices designed to modulate a laser beam. Depending on the configuration adopted by the EOM, they can be used to change the polarization state, to modulate the phase or the amplitude of the laser [@YarivQE]. It is also possible to simultaneously modulate the amplitude and phase of the beam [@Cusack2004].
The EOMs have multiple applications, for example, frequency modulation spectroscopy [@Bjorklund1980; @Bjorklund1983], modulation transfer spectroscopy [@Camy1982; @Shirley1982], two tone frequency modulation spectroscopy [@Janik1986; @Cooper1987], laser frequency stabilization and cavity length locking [@Drever1983; @Black2001]. Specifically, the EOMs are used in the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) as well as in VIRGO where they play an important role. These observatories, which have recently achieved the first direct observation of gravitational waves emitted by black hole coalescence, are capable of detecting perturbations of the space time on the order of $10^{-19}$ m [@LIGO2016; @LIGO2016_2; @LIGO2017].
To achieve these sensitivity levels it is necessary to accurately control the length of the two Fabry-Perot cavities, (each cavity 4 km in length) so that they are always in optical resonance. The length control system is done via a variation of the Pound-Drever-Hall technique to generate sidebands in the laser beams that go to the cavities. The sidebands are generated by EOM that produce a phase modulation in the laser beam [@Fritschel2001]. To achieve phase modulation, the index of refraction of the crystal used in the EOM is modulated by periodic, slowly varying external electric field. This external field is perpendicular to the direction of the laser wave and both are aligned with the principal axis of the crystal.
However, besides the required phase modulation, the experimental setup of the EOMs also produced an unwanted modulation in the amplitude of the transmitted wave. This residual amplitude modulation ($\mathrm{RAM}$) could have pronounced effects on the optomechanical response of the interferometer, there is evidence that $\mathrm{RAM}$ affects the calibration of the Fabry-Perot cavities [@Kokeyama2014]. Thus, it is important to minimize $\mathrm{RAM}$ of advanced LIGO (aLIGO) when searching for much weaker sources of gravitational radiation like coalescence of neutrons stars.
$\mathrm{RAM}$ in the aLIGO setup was attributed to deficiencies in the phase modulation process. According to several authors, there are many sources that could contribute to $\mathrm{RAM}$:
1. Etalon effect caused by the multiple reflections on the crystal faces [@Whittaker1985; @Wong1985].
2. Misalignment between the incident beam and the principal axis of the crystal [@Wong1985].
3. Piezoelectric response of the crystal to the modulating frequency [@Ishibashi2002].
4. Deformation of the crystal with the local temperature [@Ishibashi2002].
5. Non-uniformity of the modulating electric field [@Ishibashi2002].
6. Photorefractive effect on the crystal [@Sathian2012; @Sathian2013a; @Sathian2013b] .
In order to avoid 1. and 2. the crystal of the EOM is wedge-shaped so that the laser direction is no longer perpendicular to the opposite faces of the crystal. The aLIGO configuration uses a Rubidium Titanyl Phosphate (RTP) wedge-shaped crystal for each EOM [@LVC].
Experimental studies performed in [@Wu] analyzed the incidence of 3. and 4. for aLIGO laser power and showed that it is not relevant, given the current layout of aLIGO. In any case, since $\mathrm{RAM}$ is present even for low intensity lasers, where it is expected that 3. and 4. reduce their incidence, it is clear that these would be second order effects.
Although $\mathrm{RAM}$ has been reduced to low levels (ranging from $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-6}$) it has not been possible to eliminate it from the setup.
It is important to note that $\mathrm{RAM}$ is always present in all technological designs which include EOM. In fact, experimental studies of $\mathrm{RAM}$ have been reported in a number of technological applications ([@Wong1985], [@Jaatinen2008; @Li2012; @Li2014; @Zhang2014; @Shen2015]).
In this work we show that the same process that produces a phase modulation for the propagating electromagnetic wave in a time-dependent index of refraction medium will also give a modulating amplitude for the transmitted wave.
The theoretical model proposed in this work comes directly from Maxwell’s equations in a medium with time-dependent index of refraction. Thus, it is not any of the proposed sources of $\mathrm{RAM}$ listed above. Directly from the field equations, one shows that $\mathrm{RAM}$ is an inherent feature of the physics of the problem and it is thus unavoidable. The mathematical expression of the transmitted electric field obeys all the parametric dependence mentioned in [@Kokeyama2014] and should be regarded as a $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$. It is worth mentioning that the present values of $\mathrm{RAM}$ for aLIGO are still two orders of magnitude above this predicted limit. Thus, there is still plenty of room for improvement until they reach the lower limit.
In Section (\[sec:laserpropagation\]) we provide a simple model to describe light propagation inside a crystal with an optical modulator. In Section (\[sec:Model\_EOM\]) we obtain the transmitted wave for our model EOM and we present the principal result of this work, the expression for $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ for our model of EOM. We compute the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ associated with the aLIGO setup. In section (\[sec:micro\_macro\]) we analyze $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ from the conservation of energy point of view and we present the microscopic model for the genesis of the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ effect. In section (\[sec:cancellation\_RAM\]) we analyze the detectability and suppression of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ to different applications of EOMs. Finally, in section (\[sec:conclusions\]) we summarize our results and analyze the physical validity of the approximations used to obtain this $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ for the aLIGO laser and other different applications of EOM lasers.
Laser propagation in a media with time-dependent index of refraction {#sec:laserpropagation}
====================================================================
The propagation of electromagnetic waves inside a crystal with a lossless and time-dependent media can be modeled by Maxwell’s equations,
$$\mathbf{\nabla \times E} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{B} }{\partial t} = 0 ,
\label{eq:Faraday}$$
$$\mathbf{\nabla \times H} - \frac{\partial \mathbf{D} }{\partial t} = 0 ,
\label{eq:Ampere-Maxwell}$$
$$\mathbf{\nabla \cdot B }= 0 ,$$
$$\mathbf{\nabla \cdot D} = 0,$$
together with the constitutive relations: $$\mathbf{B} =\mu_{0} \ \mathbf{H},
\label{eq:BH}$$ $$\mathbf{D} = \varepsilon(t) \ \mathbf{E}.
\label{eq:ED}$$
The above relations show that the medium is non-magnetic, and that the permittivity is time-dependent. Moreover, we assume that the electro-optical effect is linear.
We recall that the electro-optical effect is the change in the magnitude and direction of the refractive indices in the crystal due to the presence of an external electric field. If the field has a periodical time dependence (usually with a single frequency) we will denote it as a modulating electric field.
We thus write the dielectric permittivity as, $$\varepsilon (t)= \varepsilon_0 \ n^{2}(t),$$ [where $\varepsilon_{0}$ is vacuum permittivity and $n(t)$ is time-dependent index of refraction.]{}
Remark: to observe an electro-optical effect the modulated electric field must vary slowly with time, i.e., its frequency must be much smaller than that of the laser beam propagating inside this media. Denoting by $\Omega$ the frequency of the modulating field, by $\omega_{0}$ the frequency of the electromagnetic wave, we assume that, $$\frac{\Omega}{\omega_{0}} \ll 1 .$$
Introducing the vector potential $\mathbf{A}$ in the Coulomb gauge $$\mathbf{\nabla \cdot A}=0,$$ we write the electric and magnetic fields of the laser wave as
$$\mathbf{E} = - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t},$$
$$\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{\nabla \times A},$$
where we have set the scalar potential $\Phi = 0$ since we are solving the source free Maxwell equations. Outside the crystal the scalar potential vanishes and since it satisfies an elliptic equation, by uniqueness, it vanishes everywhere.
Thus, the Ampere-Maxwell equation is the only non-trivial equation to be solved. Assuming that the incident wave is polarized in the $"\mathrm{Z}"$ direction and propagates in the $"\mathrm{Y}"$ direction we write,
$$\mathbf{E} = \mathrm{E_{z}}(y,t) \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},$$
$$\mathrm{D_{z}}\left( y ,t \right) = \varepsilon(t) \ \mathrm{E_{z}} \left( y ,t \right).$$
It follows from the above conditions that the potential vector satisfies,
$$\frac{\partial^2 \mathrm{A_{z}}}{\partial y^2} - \mu_{0} \ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left( \varepsilon \
\frac{\partial \mathrm{A_{z}}}{\partial t} \right)= 0.
\label{main}$$
To solve (\[main\]), we write the solution as the real part of, $$\mathrm{A_{z}} = A_{\mathrm{0Z}}(y,t) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi(y,t)}.$$
This particular waveform will be useful when considering the case of interest to us, the so called quasi static solution where the phase $\phi(y,t)$ is a small deviation from the static case, and the amplitude $A_{\mathrm{0Z}}(y,t)$ a slowly varying function of space and time. Replacing in (\[main\]), we obtain two differential equations, one for the real part:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^{2}A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial y^{2}}- \left(\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} \right)^2 A_{\mathrm{0Z}} = &
\ \mu_{0} \varepsilon \Bigg[ \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial t}
\frac{\partial A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial^{2}A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial t^{2}} \Bigg. \\ & \qquad \quad \left. - \left(\frac{\partial \phi}
{\partial t}\right)^{2} A_{\mathrm{0Z}} \right],
\end{aligned}$$
and the other for the imaginary part: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^{2} \phi}{\partial y^{2}} A_{\mathrm{0Z}} + 2 \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} \frac{\partial
A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial y} = & \ \mu_{0} \varepsilon \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{\partial
\varepsilon}{\partial t} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} A_{\mathrm{0Z}} \right. \\ & \qquad \quad \left. + \frac{\partial^{2} \phi}{\partial
t^{2}} A_{\mathrm{0Z}} +2 \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \frac{\partial A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial t} \right).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:amplitud}$$
The WKB approximation
---------------------
In order to solve for these variables, we first analyze the real part of the equation. If we assume that $A_{\mathrm{0Z}}(y,t)$ varies slowly with position and time compared with $\phi(y,t)$ we can set $$\left | \left( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}\right)^2 A_{\mathrm{0Z}} \right | \gg \left | \frac{\partial^2 A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial y^2} \right |,
%\label{eq:approxWKB1}$$
$$\left | \left( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}\right)^2 A_{\mathrm{0Z}} \right | \gg \left | \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{\partial
\varepsilon}{\partial t} \frac{\partial A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial^2 A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial t^2} \right |.
%\label{eq:approxWKB2}$$
In this way we obtain the eikonal equation for $\phi(y,t)$, $$\left( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}\right)^2 - \frac{1}{v(t)^2} \left( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial
t}\right)^2 = 0 ,
\label{eq:eikonal}$$ where the following relation was used, $$\mu_{0} \ \varepsilon(t) = \frac{1}{v(t)^2}.$$
The general solution and phase propagation
------------------------------------------
Eq. (\[eq:eikonal\]) can be solved by the characteristic method. We thus, rewrite this equation as
$$\left ( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} \right ) \pm v(t) \left ( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} \right ) =0.$$
The general solution can be written as $$\phi(y,t) = \phi\left( W \right),$$ with $\phi$ an arbitrary function of the argument $$W = W(y,t) = \pm \ y - \int_{0}^{t} v(s) \ \mathrm{d}s.
\label{eq:Z}$$
Replacing this solution in the amplitude eq. (\[eq:amplitud\]) yields,
$$\frac{\partial A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial t} \pm v(t) \frac{\partial A_{\mathrm{0Z}}}{\partial y} = \frac{1}{2} A_{\mathrm{0Z}} \frac{\partial }{\partial t} \left[ \ln v(t) \right].
%\label{eq:amplitudK}$$
The solution can be obtained via the characteristic method giving
$$A_{\mathrm{0Z}}(y,t) = \sqrt{\frac{v(t)}{v_0}} \ A(W),$$
where $v_0$ is a constant with dimension of velocity and $A(W)$ is an arbitrary function. For ease of notation we have not distinguished between waves that propagate to increasing or decreasing values of $y$. This must be taken into account when solving for the propagation of the laser beam as light travels through different media.
Note also that both $\phi$ and $A$ depend on $W$. Thus one can write the solution as the real part of $$\mathrm{A_{z}} = \sqrt{\frac{v(t)}{v_0}} A(W) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi(W)},$$ with $A(W)$ and $\phi(W)$ real functions and where the phase represents a traveling wave with a time-dependent velocity. It is also useful to rewrite the solution as $$\mathrm{A_{z}} = \sqrt{\frac{v(t)}{v_0}} F(W) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{ i k} W},$$ with $F$ a real function and $\mathrm{k}$ a constant with dimension of inverse of length (and can be taken as the wave-number). This last form of the solution is used to obtain the electric and magnetic fields in the different media.
Model of EOM, the transmitted fields and $\mathbf{RAM_{F}}$ {#sec:Model_EOM}
===========================================================
The solution presented above can be used to obtain the propagation of light through media with different refractive indices. In particular, we are interested in describing an incoming laser in a media with constant index of refraction $n_0$ which then enters a region with a finite length and with a time-dependent index $n(t)$. After going through that region the laser then goes back to a region with constant index $n_0$. This step function model for the index of refraction describes the action of the EOM in a region of the crystal when border effects of the EOM are not taken into account. To obtain the electromagnetic field in the three regions one imposes matching conditions at the incoming boundary $y =L_{1}$, at the outgoing boundary $y =L_{2}$, and then solve for the amplitudes of the fields.
We first write the electric field and the magnetic field in the three different regions as, $$\mathbf{E}_{j}(y,t) = -
\frac{\partial \mathrm{A}_{j}}{\partial{t}} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}} ,
\label{eq:Ez}$$
$$\mathbf{B}_{j}(y,t)= \frac{\partial \mathrm{A}_{j}}{\partial{y}} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{x}} ,
\label{eq:Bx}$$
where the index $j$ take the following values $j=1,2,3$ depending on the region of interest. In our case the index $1$ identifies the incoming wave, $2$ the region with a time-dependent index of refraction and $3$ the outgoing region. Consequently we write the corresponding vector potential as,
$$\mathrm{A}_{1}(y,t)= F_{1}(W_{+}) \ \rm{e^{i \mathrm{k} W_{+}}} + F_{1}(W_{-}) \ \rm{e^{i \mathrm{k} W_{-}}},$$
$$\mathrm{A}_{2}(y,t)= \sqrt{\frac{v(t)}{v_{0}}} \left[ F_{2}(W_{+}) \ \rm{e^{i \mathrm{k} W_{+}}} + F_{2}(W_{-}) \ \rm{e^{i \mathrm{k} W_{-}}} \right],$$
$$\mathrm{A}_{3}(y,t)= F_{3}(W_{+}) \ \rm{e^{i \mathrm{k} W_{+}}}.$$
and impose matching condition for the electric and magnetic field at $y =L_{1}$ and $y =L_{2}$ to obtain the solution.
At this point we restrict ourselves to the discussion of laser light propagating through a crystal with an EOM whose dimensions are smaller than those of the crystal (see figure \[fig:figure1\]). For this case, the index of refraction of the crystal in the EOM region is given by:
$$n(t)= n_{0} \left[1 - \frac{\gamma}{2} \cos(\Omega t)\right] ,
\label{eq.n}$$
where $n_{0}$ is the index of refraction of the crystal without the EOM and $\gamma$ is a very small dimensionless parameter defined as, $$\gamma = n_{0}^2 \ r_{33} \frac{V_{0}}{d} ,$$ where $r_{33}$ is the electro-optic coefficient of the crystal, $V_{0}$ is the amplitude of modulating voltage which generates electric field in the $\mathrm{"Z"}$ direction and $d$ is the distance between the electrodes.
Thus, our EOM model to be solved is an incoming wave in a media with index $n_{0}$ entering a region with index $n(t)$ given by eq.(\[eq.n\]) and then transmitted to a region with index $n_{0}$ again.
Using the results presented in the appendix (\[Appendix A\]) we obtain the transmitted vector potential. For clarity, we rewrite this expression in the following form
$$\mathrm{A}_{3}(y,t) = {A}_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{\left[ \mathrm{i} \ \Phi \left( y,t \right) \right]},
\label{eq:A3++}$$
where $$\label{eq:phi3}
\Phi\left(y,t \right) = \mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t - m \cos \left \{ \Omega \left[ \frac{y}{v_{0}} - \left( t-t_{0} \right) \right] \right \} ,$$ and $m$ is the depth of the phase-modulation (modulation depth), defined as
$$\label{eq:m_generalizado}
m = \frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \ \sin\left( \frac{\Omega L}{2 v_{0}} \right).$$
In (\[eq:phi3\]) $t_{0}$ is a real constant given by
$$t_{0} = \frac{L- 2 L_{2}}{2 v_{0}}.$$
Here $L=L_{2}-L_{1}$ represents the length of the electrode and $v_{0} = \tfrac{c}{n_{0}}$, where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.
This formulation shows that the vector potential emerging from the EOM is simply a phase-modulated wave with modulation depth $m$.
Since $(\frac{\Omega L}{2 v_{0}}) \ll 1$, we can approximate the modulation depth (\[eq:m\_generalizado\]) as
$$m =\frac{\gamma \omega_{0} L}{2 v_{0}} = \frac{\pi L}{\lambda_{0}} r_{33} \ n_{0}^{3} \frac{V_{0}}{d}.
\label{eq:def_modulation_depth}$$
This last expression agrees with the usual definition of modulation depth that appears in the standard textbooks [@Haus].
We rename the electric and magnetic fields emerging from the modulator region as $\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{out}}(t) = \mathbf{E_{3}}(L_{2},t)$ and $\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{out}} = \mathbf{B_{3}}(L_{2},t)$, respectively.
Replacing the vector potential (\[eq:A3++\]) in (\[eq:Ez\]) we obtain
$$\label{eq:Eout}
\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{out}}(t) = \ \mathrm{i} {E}_{0} \left[ 1 - \frac{m \Omega}{\omega_{0}}
\sin\left( \Omega t \right) \right] \mathrm{exp}{ \left[ \mathrm{i} \
\Phi\left( L_{2}, t \right) \right] } \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},$$
with ${E}_{0}= {A}_{0}\ \omega_{0}$ and $m$ is given by (\[eq:def\_modulation\_depth\]).
Similarly, using (\[eq:Bx\]) the transmitted magnetic field results
$$\label{eq:Bout}
\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{out}}(t) = \ \frac{\mathrm{i} {E}_{0}}{v_{0}} \left[ 1 - \frac{m \Omega}{\omega_{0}}\sin \left( \Omega t \right)\right] \mathrm{exp}{\left[ \mathrm{i} \ \Phi \left( L_{2}, t \right) \right] } \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{x}}.$$
As one can see, the electric and magnetic fields emerging from the EOM have a $\mathrm{RAM}$ at frequency $\Omega$. This is rather surprising since it is usually assumed that only the phase is affected by the EOM phase modulation. Indeed, expression (\[eq:Eout\]) contradicts equations on EOM phase modulation from standard textbooks. (Please see pag. 333, eq. (12.19) of ref. [@Haus] or also pag. 244 , eq. (7.3-14) of ref. [@YarivOWC]). The textbook equation for the electric field emerging from an electro-optic modulator takes a form free from $\mathrm{RAM}$. A direct consequence of this result is a modulation of the outgoing intensity of a laser beam after it goes through a region with an EOM.
The transmitted Poynting vector is $$\mathrm{S_{out}}(t) = \frac{1}{\mu_{0}} \ \left \| \mathrm{Re} \left[ \mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{out}} \right] \times \mathrm{Re} \left[ \mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{out}} \right] \right \|,$$ where $\mathrm{Re}$ indicates real part.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{S_{out}}(t) = & \frac{E_{0}^{2}}{\mu_{0} v_{0}} \left[ 1 - \frac{m \Omega}{\omega_{0}} \sin \left( \Omega t \right) \right]^{2} \\ \qquad & \times \sin^{2} \left[ \mathrm{k} L_{2} -\omega_{0} t - m \cos(\Omega t) \right] .
\end{aligned}$$
Now we obtain the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ that arises from the EOM. From appendix (\[Appendix C\]), the intensity of the outgoing signal is
$$\mathrm{I_{out}} = \frac {E_{0}^{2}}{2 \mu_{0}v_{0}} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 m \Omega}{\omega_{0}}
\sin \left( \Omega t \right) \right],
%\label{eq:Intensity}$$
where is clear that there exists $\mathrm{RAM}$ in the intensity emerging of EOM and it is used to define $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$.
The $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is a periodic modulation of the transmitted wave intensity with frequency $\Omega$ for an ideal EOM with another sources of $\mathrm{RAM}$ being omitted. In the Appendix (\[Appendix C\]) we compute $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$:
$$\mathrm{RAM_{F}} = \frac{2 m \Omega}{\omega_{0}}.
\label{eq:FLN}$$
Table \[tab:tabla1\] gives the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ levels for the EOM of aLIGO. Note that $\omega_{0} = \frac{ 2 \pi c}{\lambda_{0}} $, $ \lambda_{0}=1064\,$nm and $\Omega= 2 \pi f_{m}$, where $f_{m}$ is the modulation frequency of the EOM.
-------- ------------ ------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------------
${m}$ $L$ \[mm\] ${f_{m}}$ \[MHz\] $\mathrm{RAM}$ $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ $\eta = \frac{2 \Omega}{\omega_{0}}$
$0.15$ 15 $45.3$ $6.2\times 10^{-6}$ $4.8\times 10^{-8}$ $3.2 \times 10^{-7}$
$0.09$ 7 $24.0$ $1.0\times 10^{-6}$ $1.5\times 10^{-8}$ $1.7 \times 10^{-7}$
-------- ------------ ------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------------
: $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ levels calculated from (\[eq:FLN\]) for the EOM of aLIGO.[]{data-label="tab:tabla1"}
In table \[tab:tabla1\], the fourth column shows the experimental values of $\mathrm{RAM}$ for aLIGO at Livingston LIGO Observatory (LLO) [^1] and the sixth column shows $\eta= \frac{\mathrm{RAM_{F}}}{m}$, the ratio between the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ and the modulation depth $m$. Using (\[eq:FLN\]) gives $\eta = \frac{2 \Omega}{\omega_{0}} $.
A microscopic model of $\mathbf{RAM_{F}}$ and Conservation of Energy {#sec:micro_macro}
=====================================================================
In this section we present several results that are relevant to understand the nature of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$.
We first present (in \[subsec:microcopic\_model\]) a model of the radiation emitted by the crystal cell when the distribution of charges inside the cell is simultaneously affected by a high frequency plane wave and by the external modulating field. It is shown that there exists a $\mathrm{RAM}$ effect at the level of each cell, which we call microscopic $\mathrm{RAM}$ ($\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$) and relation between $\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$ and $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is obtained. This provides a classical interpretation on the genesis of the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ effect.
In subsection (\[subsec:Teorema\_Poynting\]) we show that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ can also be obtained from conservation of energy if one introduces a more general version of the Poynting theorem when the electrical permittivity of the media is time-dependent. We also show that the same physical principles that yield the propagation of light inside a crystal can be used to describe $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$.
Finally, a direct relation between $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ and the changes that the modulating field produces on the charge distribution inside the crystal cell is obtained.
A microscopic model for $\mathbf{RAM_{F}}$ {#subsec:microcopic_model}
------------------------------------------
We derive here the $\mathrm{RAM}$ produced by the interaction of electromagnetic waves and an EOM with the crystal structure.
We first discuss the propagation of a plane wave inside a dielectric media. The electric field of the wave generates displacements of the electric charges from its equilibrium position. The wavelength of the incoming wave ($\lambda_{0}=1064 \ \mathrm{nm}$) is much larger than the typical crystal cell (for an RTP crystal the lattice parameters are: $a= 12.96 \ \textup{\r{A}} $, $b= 10.56 \ \textup{\r{A}} $ y $c= 6.49 \ \textup{\r{A}} $ [^2]). Thus, one can use the dipole approximation to describe the motion of the charges in each cell interacting with the total electric field (usually referred to effective field), i.e., the superposition of the plane wave field with the mean field generated by the other cells.
If one neglects dissipative effect in the crystal, the dynamic of the centers of charge in the dipole approximation are obtained using the *H. A. Lorentz* dispersion model. Since the plane wave and modulating field are aligned with the $"\mathrm{Z}"$ axis, the equation for this model is given by, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}z}{\mathrm{d}t^2} + {\omega^{2}_{r}} \ z = \frac{e \mathrm{E}^{\prime}}{m_{0}} ,
\label{eq:H_A_Lorentz}$$ where $\omega_{r}$ is the natural angular frequency of the dipole, $e$ and $m$ are the charge and mass of the electron respectively, and $E^{\prime}$ is the effective field in each cell. Here $z(t)$ is the deviation of the center of charge inside the cell.
The dipole motion in each cell is used to derive the following expression for the atomic polarizability $\alpha$ ([@BornWolf]), $$\alpha_{0} = \frac{e^{2}}{m_{0} \left( \omega_{r}^{2} - \omega_{0}^{2} \right)},
\label{eq:polarizabilidad}$$ with $\omega_{0}= \frac{2 \pi c}{\lambda_{0}}$ the angular frequency of the plane wave.
The *Lorent-Lorentz* relation[@BornWolf] yields a relationship between the atomic polarizability and the macroscopic index of refraction of the media:
$$\alpha_{0} = {\frac{3 \varepsilon_{0}}{N} \ \frac{n^{2}_{0}-1}{n^{2}_{0}+ 2}},
\label{eq:Lorent-Lorentz}$$
with $N$ the number of charges per unit volume ($N=8.87 \times 10^{27} \ \mathrm{m}^{-3}$ for RTP crystal) and $n_{0}$ the index of refraction of the media at the frequency $\omega_{0}$ ($n_{0}=1.82$) [^3].
Eqs.(\[eq:polarizabilidad\]) and (\[eq:Lorent-Lorentz\]) yield a relation between $n_{0}$ and $\omega_{r}$. For RTP crystal we obtain $\omega_{r} = 4.97 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{Hz}$. Given that $\omega_{0} = 1.77 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{Hz}$ the system is not near the resonance zone. Thus, we can neglect absorption effects in the crystal, as we assume at the beginning.
Macroscopically, the electro-optical effect is described by a time-dependent index of refraction in the crystal. At a microscopic level the effect can be attributed to a time-dependent resonant frequency $\omega_{p}(t)$. More specifically, the modulating electric field affects the charge distribution inside each cell so that its natural oscillation frequency can be written as, $$\omega_{p}(t) = \omega_{r} \left[ 1 + \frac{\delta}{2} f\left( t \right) \right],
\label{eq:omegap}$$ where $\delta \ll 1$ is an dimensionless parameter representing the strength of the perturbation of $\omega_{r}$ and $f(t)$ represents the action of the modulating field on the relative position of the atomic nuclei in the crystal cell. The modulating field introduces vibrations in the crystal array, inducing a relative displacement on the nuclei in each cell. This modifies the electric potential for the center of charge motion, which in turn modifies the polarizability. Then in this model, the change in the polarizability is due to the change in the resonant frequency of the system. (In Appendix \[Appendix D\] we derive the specific values of $\delta$ and $f(t)$ when an EOM is present.)
The equation of motion for $z(t)$, the departure of the center of charge from its equilibrium position, is given by the generalization of (\[eq:H\_A\_Lorentz\]) with a time-dependent $\omega_{p}$ given by (\[eq:omegap\]),
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}z}{\mathrm{d}t^2} + {\omega^{2}_{p}} \ z = \frac{e \mathrm{E}^{\prime}}{m_{0}} ,$$
where $\mathrm{E}^{\prime}$ is the effective field on the cell, given by:
$$\mathrm{E}^{\prime} = \frac{\left(n_{0}^{2} + 2 \right) E_{0}}{6} \left[ 1 - \frac{n_{0}^{2} \gamma}{n_{0}^{2} + 2} \cos(\Omega t) \right] \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{-i} \omega_{0} t} + \mathrm{c.c.}.$$
The dipole moment of each cell is then given by $\mathbf{p} = e z \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}}$, and the total intensity of the dipole radiation is given by (see Appendix \[Appendix D\]),
$$\mathrm{I_{{\mu}}} = \frac{\mu_{0} \ \alpha_{0}^{2} \left( n_{0}^{2}+ 2 \right)^{2} E_{0}^{2} \ \omega_{0}^{4}}{108 \ \pi c} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 \delta \ \omega_{r}^{2} \left(n_{0}^{2} + 2\right)}{3 \left(\omega_{r}^{2} -
\omega_{0}^{2}\right)} \cos\left(\Omega t \right) \right].
\label{eq:expresion_intensidad_micro_paper}$$
Analogously to the macroscopic $\mathrm{RAM}$, we can define a microscopic $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ ($\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$) for the radiated intensity of each cell. Using [(\[eq:RAM\])-(\[eq:Sout\])]{}, where $\mathrm{I_{out}}$ is replacing by $\mathrm{I_{\mu}}$, we obtain
$$\label{eq:RAMmicro}
\mathrm{{RAM}_{\mu}} = \frac{ 2 \delta \omega_{r}^{2} \left(n_{0}^{2} + 2\right) }{3 \left(\omega_{r}^{2} - \omega_{0}^{2} \right)}.$$
Moreover, we can establish a relationship between (\[eq:FLN\]) and (\[eq:RAMmicro\]). Using (\[eq:def\_modulation\_depth\]), (\[eq:solucion\_delta\]), (\[eq:polarizabilidad\]) and (\[eq:Lorent-Lorentz\]), yields the following result
$$\mathrm{RAM_{F}} = \frac{\pi L}{\lambda_{m}} \frac{(n_{0}^{2}-1)}{n_{0}} \ \mathrm{RAM_{\mu}},
\label{eq:RAMmicro_macro}$$
where $\lambda_{m} = \frac{2 \pi c}{\Omega}$ is the wavelength of the modulating field, and $L$ is the length of the crystal.
Note that it follows from eq. (\[eq:RAMmicro\_macro\]) that the macroscopic $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is proportional to $\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$ with a factor that depends on the macroscopic characteristics of the crystal.
We conclude that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ has a microscopic nature. The same process in the crystal yields both $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ and a phase modulation of the field.
In table (\[tab:tabla2\]) we show the relationship between $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ and $\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$ for aLIGO optical layout.
-------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
${m}$ $\gamma$ $\delta$ $\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$ $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$
$0.15$ $1.86 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.31 \times 10^{-6}$ $5.33 \times 10^{-6}$ $4.82 \times 10^{-8}$
$0.09$ $2.39 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.69\times 10^{-6}$ $6.85 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.53 \times 10^{-8}$
-------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
: $\mathrm{RAM_{\mu}}$ and $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ for aLIGO setup.[]{data-label="tab:tabla2"}
$\mathbf{RAM_{F}}$ and generalized Poynting theorem
---------------------------------------------------
[\[subsec:Teorema\_Poynting\]]{} It follows from the Faraday and Ampere-Maxwell laws (\[eq:Faraday\]) and (\[eq:Ampere-Maxwell\]) that we can write down the electromagnetic energy flux associated with a volume $V$ and its boundary $\partial V$ as:
$${\label{eq:Poynting_generalizado}}
\oint_{\partial V} \mathbf{S \cdot \hat{n}} \ \mathrm{d}a =-\int_{V} \left( \mathbf{E \ \cdot} \ \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}}{\partial t} + \mathbf{H \ \cdot} \ \frac{\partial \mathbf{B} }{\partial t} \right) \mathrm{d}V,
%\label{eq:Pointing1}$$
where $\mathbf{S} = \frac{1}{\mu_0} \left( \mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{B}\right)$ is the Poynting vector, and with $V$ the EOM volume. Using the relations (\[eq:BH\]) and (\[eq:ED\]) and taking the time average of (\[eq:Poynting\_generalizado\]) in the adiabatic approximation on a given period of the incoming electromagnetic wave, $T= \frac{2\pi}{\omega_{0}}$, a straightforward calculation leads to
$$\oint_{\partial V} \left \langle \mathbf{S \cdot \hat{n}} \right \rangle \ \mathrm{d}a =- \int_{V} \left( \left \langle \frac{\partial \mathrm{u_{em}}}{\partial t} \right \rangle + \left \langle \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial t} \ \mathrm{E}^{2} \right \rangle \right) \mathrm{d}V ,
\label{eq:poyntingeneral}$$
where $$\mathrm{u}_{\mathrm{em}} \equiv \frac{\varepsilon(t)}{2} \ \mathrm{E}^{2} + \frac{1}{2 \mu_{0}} \ \mathrm{B}^{2},
%\label{eq:defdensidad}$$ is the (generalized) energy density of the electromagnetic field and the symbol $ \left \langle \bullet \right \rangle $ labels the time average.
The first term on the r.h.s. of (\[eq:poyntingeneral\]) represents the average power of the electromagnetic field, and the second term on the r.h.s. of (\[eq:poyntingeneral\]) depends on the variation rate of the electrical permittivity.
At this point we can address several issues:
- Note that when $\varepsilon$ does not depend on time we recover the usual expression for the conservation of energy.
- It would appear that this first term on the r.h.s. gives a bigger contribution to the Poynting flux than the second term. However, each term gives an identical contribution to the equation. This follows from the fact that the magnetic contribution and the static part of the electric contribution to the energy density yield a vanishing flux. Thus, only the time-dependent part of the energy density matters and gives a similar contribution to the second term of the equation.
- If we compute the flux of the Poynting vector for our model we obtain
$$\oint_{\partial V} \left \langle \mathbf{S \cdot \hat{n}} \right \rangle \ \mathrm{d}a = - \frac{E_{0}^{2}}{2 \mu_{0} v_{0}} l_{x} l_{z} \ \mathrm{RAM_{F}} \ \sin\left( \Omega t \right),
\label{eq:Flujo_neto}$$
where $l_{x}$ and $l_{z}$ are the crystal dimensions perpendicular to the electromagnetic wave.
Therefore, from the macroscopic point of view, $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is related to an external flux of energy ingoing to the crystal. Since modulating field constant ($\Omega=0$) implies null $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$, then $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is a dynamic effect which is a consequence of the work by the variable modulating field on the media.
It is interesting to analyze the electromagnetic energy in the crystal from a microscopic point of view.
The interaction energy between the plane wave representing the laser beam and each dipole generated in the crystal cell is $- \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{p}$, where $\mathbf{E} = E_{0} \cos \left( \mathrm{k_{0}} y -
\omega_{0} t \right) \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}}$ with $\mathrm{k_{0}}= \frac{\omega_{0}}{c}$ and $\mathbf{p} \left(
t - \frac{y}{c} \right)$ is the dipole moment of each cell given by (\[eq:dipole\_moment\_solucion\]). Therefore, the interaction energy density per unit volume ($\mathrm{u_{int}}$) will be
$$\mathrm{u_{int}} = - N \left( \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{p} \right).$$
Note that the field of the plane wave propagates in vacuum and their interaction with the dipoles represents the macroscopic continuous medium. The average total power of interaction in the dielectric is obtained as follows
$$\label{eq:Poynting_micro}
\int_{V} \left \langle \frac{\partial \mathrm{u_{int}}}{\partial t} \right \rangle \ \mathrm{d}V = - N \int_{V} \left( \left \langle \frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathbf{p} \right \rangle + \left \langle \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{p}}{\partial t} \right \rangle \right) \mathrm{d}V.$$
The first term in r.h.s. vanish due to the temporal average, then
$$\label{eq:RAMFromMicro}
\int_{V} \left \langle \frac{\partial \mathrm{u_{int}}}{\partial t} \right \rangle \ \mathrm{d}V = - N
\int_{V} \left \langle \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{p}}{\partial t} \right \rangle \mathrm{d}V
,$$
Replacing (\[eq:dipole\_moment\_solucion\]) in this last expression and using (\[eq:solucion\_delta\]) and $\varepsilon_{0} n_{0}^{2} = (\mu_{0} v_{0}^2)^{-1}$ we obtain
$$\label{eq:Poynting_micro_2}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{V} \left \langle \frac{\partial \mathrm{u_{int}}}{\partial t} \right \rangle \ \mathrm{d}V = & - \frac{E_{0}^{2}}{2 \mu_{0} v_{0}^{2}} \ l_{x} l_{z} \ \gamma c \\ & \times \left \{ \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{L}{c} \right) \right] - \cos(\Omega t) \right \}.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $\left(\frac{\Omega L}{c} \right) \ll 1$ and using (\[eq:def\_modulation\_depth\]) and (\[eq:FLN\]) then (\[eq:Poynting\_micro\_2\]) yields
$$%\label{}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{V} \left \langle \frac{\partial \mathrm{u_{int}}}{\partial t} \right \rangle \ \mathrm{d}V = & - \frac{E_{0}^{2}}{2 \mu_{0} v_{0}} \ l_{x} l_{z} \ \mathrm{RAM_{F}} \ \sin(\Omega t).
\end{aligned}$$
Remarkably, the result of the last calculation agrees with (\[eq:Flujo\_neto\]). Thus, the average power that goes through the crystal boundary is equivalent to the average power of interaction between the modulating field and the variable dipoles inside the medium.
The last expression shows that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is a direct consequence of the interaction between the plane wave field and all the non-constant dipole moments of the medium. Specifically, the expression (\[eq:RAMFromMicro\]) shows that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ arises from the rate change of the dipole moments in the presence of the field of the plane wave. Let us emphasize that the oscillating dipole moment is generated by the plane wave and the magnitude of this dipole changes due to the modulating external field. This can be seen from (\[eq:dipole\_moment\_solucion\]), since the plane wave produces an oscillating dipole moment at frequency $\omega_{0}$ and constant magnitude, while the modulating field generates a change in the magnitude of the dipole moment at frequency $\Omega$.
A possible intuitive physical interpretation is the following. The plane wave disturbs the electronic cloud of the cell generating a dipole moment while the modulating field produces lattice deformations (Please see Pag. 264 Section 7.6 of ref. [@YarivOWC]). Consequently, the displacements of nuclei affect the dynamics of the electrons which in turn ultimately perturbs the dipole moment of the cell. In terms of our classical model, the electronic perturbations arising from the nuclear movements are represented by the change in the natural frequency of the electronic dynamic in the *H. A. Lorentz* equation. A deep understanding of this relation involves the quantum mechanics of how the laser wave and the modulating field affect the charge dynamic inside the cells. Summarizing, the genesis of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is found in the lattice deformation induced by the external modulating field.
Analysis of Cancellation and Detectability of $\mathbf{RAM_{F}}$ {#sec:cancellation_RAM}
================================================================
Since the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ effect is fully predictable, it is natural to think about its total cancellation as an affordable goal.
It is worth noting that the intensity of emerging field of the EOM can be affected by two types of $\mathrm{RAM}$: $\mathrm{RAM_{S}}$ (systematic $\mathrm{RAM}$) and $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ (noise $\mathrm{RAM}$).
$\mathrm{RAM_{S}}$ represents all those $\mathrm{RAM}$ sources that are predictable. This type of sources includes $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ and, for example, the constant misalignment angles of the EOM optical configuration.
$\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is an absolutely foreseeable component of $\mathrm{RAM}$ which we have named it as fundamental because it is an unavoidable consequence of the phase modulation process itself. In other words, this component of $\mathrm{RAM}$ is called fundamental because even in the ideal case where all the other possible sources of $\mathrm{RAM}$ are eliminated, $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ would always be present.
$\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$, instead is an unpredictable parasitic component of $\mathrm{RAM}$ arising from several random sources such as temperature fluctuations, mechanical vibrations, etalon effects due to defects of the crystal, photorefractive effect, etc. In the usual experimental situations, $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ is much greater than $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$.
Since until now the existence of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ was unknown, efforts have been addressed to remove only $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$. Thus, depending on the specific field of experimental application, different active feedback control schemes were proposed to remove or reduce $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ ([@Wong1985], [@Zhang2014], [@Li2014]). In [@Wong1985], for spectroscopy applications, the authors claim to reduce $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ up to shot noise level.
In optical-cavity-based frequency ultra-stabilization, different closed-loop control schemes were proposed ([@Zhang2014] , [@Li2014]). In [@Zhang2014], the active control implemented in wave-guide EOM managed to reduce the $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ to limit it to maximum values of $5 \times 10^{-6}$ and the Allan deviation associated with $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ fluctuation was limited to $10^{-6}$ for average time between $\mathrm{1-1000 \ s}$ . In [@Li2014], the authors claim to have reached a minimum value of the Allan deviation of $\mathrm{RAM}$ of $2 \times 10^{-7}$ for average time of $2$s. It should be noted that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ does not affect the value of Allan deviation of $\mathrm{RAM}$ since it represents the constant term of the sideband amplitudes.
It is important to keep in mind that the different attempts to eliminate $\mathrm{RAM}$ are based on a model where the intensity of the emerging EOM laser is only affected by random parasitic misalignment between the polarization of the laser and the main axes of the crystal. This misalignment causes two beams with orthogonal polarization, ordinary $(o)$ and extraordinary $(e)$. Due to the birefringence of the crystal, both beams travel with different speeds, and the superposition of both beams in the polarizer placed at the output of the EOM then generates $\mathrm{RAM}$. This model does not include $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$, since its existence was unknown. Therefore, we can conjecture that $\mathrm{RAM}$, i.e. $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ and $\mathrm{RAM_{S}}$, should be able to be removed, provided that the feedback control system is based on an electromagnetic propagation model that includes both $\mathrm{RAM}$ sources. Thus, having the theoretical formula from de emerging beam of intensity that includes $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ and $\mathrm{RAM_{S}}$ will be helpul to understand the minimum experimental values of $\mathrm{RAM_{N}}$ obtained in [@Zhang2014] and [@Li2014], and to determine the optimal sensing and control schemes that will allow cancellation of the $\mathrm{RAM}$.
On the other hand, the situation is different for the wedge-shaped crystal EOM analyzed in the present work. In fact, the wedge shape of the crystal separates the directions of the rays $o$ and $e$ when they emerge from the crystal, see fig. (\[fig:split\_polarization\]).
![Separation of the polarizations in a wedge crystal.[]{data-label="fig:split_polarization"}](split_polarization.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
This avoids contributions to $\mathrm{RAM}$ arising from both the main etalon effect and the misalignment. For this reason, expression (\[eq:FLN\]) of this work is valid for the wedge-shaped crystal EOM, which does not correspond to the experimental situations analyzed in [@Wong1985], [@Zhang2014] and [@Li2014].
Finally, we want to make a comment about the detectability of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$. For this purpose, the technical features of the photodiode and the electronic processing of the photodiode signal are relevant. We analyze $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ detection for aLIGO photodiodes, namely PD1811. From datasheet of the PD1811 [@NewFocus1811], we obtain the Noise Equivalent Power ($\mathrm{NEP}$), Integrated Noise (IN), Conversion Gain (CG) and Continuous Wave - Saturation Power (CW-SP):
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Range
$\lambda$ $\mathrm{900 \ nm-1700 \ nm}$
$\mathrm{NEP_{1} =2.5 \ pW / \sqrt{Hz}}$ $\mathrm{DC \leqslant f \leqslant 10 \ MHz}$
$\mathrm{ NEP_{2}= 22.5 \ pW/\sqrt{Hz}}$ $\mathrm{10 \ MHz \leqslant f \leqslant 130 \ MHz}$
$\mathrm{IN = 246 \ {nW}_{RMS}}$ $\mathrm{DC \leqslant f \leqslant 130 \ MHz}$
CW-SP $\mathrm{= 120 \ \mu W}$ at $\lambda = \mathrm{950 \ nm}$
$\mathrm{CG = 2.4 \times 10^{4} \ V / W}$
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
: Specifications of PD1811[]{data-label="tab:tabla3"}
Here $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the radiation on the photodiode and $f$ is the frequency of the photodiode signal.
In general, the detectability of the radiation incident on a photodiode depends on the comparison between the incident radiation power with the total noise power of the photodiode. As an example, taking into account the value of CW-SP, we choose an incident power of $\mathrm{100 \ \mu W}$. So, from table (\[tab:tabla1\]), the minimum $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ power incident on the photodiode will be $\mathrm{P_{RAM_{F}}= 1.53 \ pW}$ ( for $\mathrm{{f}_{m}=24.0 \ MHz}$), with its RMS-value of $\mathrm{P_{RAM_{F}}= 1.08 \ {pW}_{RMS}}$. This value of power is far below the noise power of photodiode, which can be estimated as $\mathrm{P_{noise} = IN = 246 \ {nW}_{RMS}}$. The SNR of output signal of photodiode is then $\mathrm{SNR = {P_{RAM_{F}}}/{P_{noise}} = 4.4 \times 10^{-6}}$. Even in scenarios of such low SNR, lock-in amplifiers achieve the detection of the signal. The dynamic reserve (DR) of the lock-in amplifier necessary in this case can be calculated as, $$\mathrm{DR(dB)= 20 \ {\log}_{10} \left( \frac{P_{noise}}{P_{RAM_{F}}} \right)= 107.1 \ dB}.$$
Actually, modern lock-in amplifiers reach dynamic reserve values up to $\mathrm{120 \ dB}$.
Alternatively, the noise power of the photodiode can be drastically reduced if the signal of the photodiode first goes through a bandpass filter before the lock-in amplifier. As an example, we choose a value of $\mathrm{10 \ KHz}$ for $\mathrm{3 \ dB}$ bandwidth of the bandpass-filter, which means a quality factor $\mathrm{ Q = {f_{m}}/{BW}= {24.0 \ MHz}/{10 \ KHz} = 2400}$. Now, the new value of the noise power for this reduced bandwidth is [@ThorLabs] $$\mathrm{P_{noise} = NEP_{2} \ \frac{R_{max}}{R(\lambda_{0})} \ \sqrt{BW}},$$ where $\mathrm{R_{max}}$ is the maximum responsivity of the photodetector, $\mathrm{R(\lambda_{0})}$ is the responsivity of the photodetector at laser carrier wavelength ($\mathrm{\lambda_{0}= 1064 \ nm}$) and $\mathrm{BW}$ is the bandwidth of bandpass filter.
From datasheet of PD1811, $\mathrm{R_{max}= 1.04 \ {A}/{W}}$ , $\mathrm{R(\lambda_{0})= 0.77 \ {A}/{W}}$. Using $\mathrm{BW = 10 \ KHz}$ we obtain $\mathrm{P_{noise} = 3038 \ pW}$. Then the dynamic reserve of the lock-in amplifier must to be $\mathrm{DR(dB)= 68.9 \ dB}$ in order to reliably detect $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ signal.
In addition, a back of the envelope calculation can estimate the number of photons associated with $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$, for a given power of the incident beam on the photodiode. In fact, in the case of the previous example, for an incident power of $\mathrm{100 \ \mu W}$, the number of photons of frequency $f_{0}$ per sec will be $\mathrm{N_{carrier} = 5.35 \times 10^{14} \ s^{-1}}$. Then, for a $\mathrm{P_{RAM_{F}} = 1.53 \ pW}$ (for $f_{m} = 24.0 \ \mathrm{MHz}$) the number of photons per sec. of frequencies $f_{0} + f_{m}$ and $f_{0}-f_{m}$ (in equal quantity) corresponding to $\mathrm{N_{RAM_{F}} = 8.21 \times 10^{6} \ s^{-1}}$. This calculation suggests that, despite the smallness of $\mathrm{P_{RAM_{F}}}$, the photodiode can detect $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$, given the high number of photons associated with the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ effect.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this work we have established a lower limit for the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ effect when using electro-optic modulators. We showed that when some region inside a crystal has a time-dependent index of refraction produced by EOM, the phase and amplitudes of the outgoing electromagnetic fields are modulated with the frequency of the EOM. [This limit was obtained using an approximation to the Maxwell’s equations and a particular model for the propagation media. We assume that the crystal permittivity is time-dependent inside the modulation zone (between the pair of electrodes) and is constant outside of it, so it is spatially piecewise homogeneous $\varepsilon(t)$]{}. Furthermore, we assume that $\varepsilon(t)$ is a slowly varying function of time with its angular frequency $\Omega$ much smaller than the corresponding frequency $\omega_{0}$ of the laser wave propagating in the crystal ($\frac{\Omega}{\omega_{0}} \approx 1 \times 10^{-7}$). In this situation we can apply the so called WKB approximation and derive effective equations of motion for the propagating wave. The plane wave front assumption simplifies the analysis but does not change the general result since the WKB equations are linear in the electric and magnetic fields and we are simply taking a Fourier decomposition.
We have not considered border effects on the EOM either, i.e., the electric field is assumed to be homogeneous even at both ends of the modulation electrodes and null outside of them. So the interfaces in which the laser enters and leaves the modulation zone become discontinuity planes of the refractive index. Furthermore, we have restricted ourselves to consider wedge-shaped crystal EOM whose oblique faces lie outside of the modulation zone (see fig. \[fig:figure2\]). This does not represent a restrictive condition since it is usual in experimental layouts of EOM. For those reasons, the oblique interfaces separate two constant refractive index media (air/crystal without modulation field or vice versa). Consequently, when the laser goes through these interfaces no contribution to $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ can be produced neither on the reflected nor on the transmitted components of the laser beam. This means that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ is strictly generated by modulation zone.
We could have taken border effect into account by substituting the step function model for $n$ with a smooth function that takes into account the border effects of the EOM. We claim the effect is also present when a more general configuration is adopted since, as we elaborated in the previous section, it is a physical, global effect arising from the interaction of the dipole moments of the crystal with modulating field of EOM.
On the other hand, it would appear that we have neglected the etalon effect without justification. However, this is not so. As it is well known, this effect is generated by the contribution of the successive internal reflections to the emerging laser. Two types of interfaces generate internal reflections: the oblique ones (air/crystal without modulating field or vice versa) and the vertical ones (crystal without modulating field/crystal with the modulating field, or vice versa). The reflections at the oblique faces do not contribute to the outgoing beams because they are deliberately deflected away from the path of the main beam. The reflections at the two vertical interfaces are crucial for the calculation of the emerging fields of the crystal. However, it is important to note the jump of the refractive index through both surfaces is of the first order in $\gamma$, with $\gamma \ll 1$ (see(\[eq.n\])). So from the second reflection onwards, the amplitudes of the reflective fields are $\gamma^{l}$-order with $l \geqslant 2$, and they are out of our approximation order.
Based on the above considerations, we claim the results presented in this work set a $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ to the laser beam. In other words, it is impossible to obtain a pure phase modulation without an associated $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ effect. The order of magnitude of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ obtained ranges from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-8}$, depending on the modulation frequency $\Omega$, carrier laser frequency $\omega_{0}$ and the phase modulation depth $m$, as it is shown in table \[tab:tabla1\]. Since one of the main goals of this work is to understand the $\mathrm{RAM}$ effect on the laser beam of aLIGO, it is instructive to compare our results to the experimental values of $\mathrm{RAM}$ in aLIGO, which range from $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-6}$. Although this work shows that it is impossible to eliminate the $\mathrm{RAM}$ effect in the beam intensity, a meticulous search of other sources may help to reduce the present level of $\mathrm{RAM}$. It is worth mentioning that the $\mathrm{RAM}$ level predicted in this work is also present in more general configurations. As we said before, a wedge-shaped crystal avoids the etalon effect so the transmitted laser beam in the crystal is not subject to multiple reflections on the wedged boundary. As a consequence of this shape of the crystal, it is clear to see that in all experimental EOM layouts, each single EOM can be modeled as we did in section \[sec:Model\_EOM\]. For these reasons $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ obtained in this work will be presented in all experimental configurations of EOM. As an example, aLIGO EOM layout is a wedge-shaped RTP crystal over which three consecutively coupled of electrode are placed. Each pair of electrodes is fed with AC voltage needed to generate three modulating fields of different frequencies. Therefore, the emerging laser beam of this series of modulators undergoes three phase modulation processes, in three different frequencies. The value of each frequency is chosen to control the length of three different cavities. Our result for this case implies that, regardless of the particular position inside the series, each modulator generates a $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ in laser, at different frequency, which can be calculated using (\[eq:FLN\]). It is also important to note that our result implies $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ will be present in all experimental applications that use EOMs, for example, frequency-modulation spectroscopy and optical-cavity-based frequency ultra-stabilization. Moreover, we conjecture that $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ will exist in any phase modulation process where an external agent (the modulating electric field for the crystal-based EOM) produces changes in the refractive index of the medium where the laser travels. As an example, we can mention the acoustic optical modulators and the waveguide- based EOM. Indeed, $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ will be a consequence of the work done by the external agent on the medium of laser propagation, in the presence of the electromagnetic fields of the laser beam.
We want to emphasize that, although $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ will always be present in phase modulation processes with EOMs, in general the value of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ depends on the specific optical layout of the EOM.
Finally, we have analyzed the detection and suppression of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$. In spite of the small magnitude of $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$, the appropriate choice of the bandpass filter and the lock-in amplifier allow detecting $
\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$ in the photodiode signal. In addition, we conjecture that all types of $\mathrm{RAM}$, including $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$, should be able to be removed, provided that the feedback control system is based on an electromagnetic propagation model that includes both $\mathrm{RAM}$ sources.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} This research has been supported by Faculty of Engineering of Instituto Universitario Aeronáutico and by CONICET. The authors wish to thank the LIGO Scientific Collaboration for sharing relevant information concerning $\mathrm{RAM}$ in LIGO. The authors wish to thank two anonymous referees for their thorough reviews. This led to a much deeper understanding of the the problem discussed in this work.
The solutions to the WKB equations in a crystal of the EOM {#Appendix A}
==========================================================
Following the steps outlined in Section III we write down the solutions to the WKB equations in the three regions of interest. There are in principle four unknown functions of W that should be fixed by the matching conditions, i.e., they provide 4 equations for 4 unknowns functions of time. Since the idea is to solve them for a quasi static configuration, it is worth noting that it should be similar to the static situation, $v = const.$ We thus obtain first the solution for this familiar case and then generalize to the quasi static model.
The static situation
--------------------
The three media have refractive indices given by $n_{1}=n_{0}$, $n_{2}=n_{0}(1- \frac{\gamma}{2})$ , $n_{3}=n_{0}$, with interfaces at $y=L_{1}$ and $y=L_{2}$. In this case we have the known result: $$\label{eq:CE_A1}
\mathbf{A_{1}}(y,t)= \left[ A_{1+} \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} ( \mathrm{k}_{1} y - \omega_{0}t )} + A_{1-} \ \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} (\mathrm{k}_{1} y + \omega_{0}t )} \right] \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}} ,$$ $$\label{eq:CE_A2}
\mathbf{A_{2}}(y,t)= \left[ A_{2+} \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} ( \mathrm{k}_{2} y - \omega_{0}t )} + A_{2-} \ \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} ( \mathrm{k}_{2} y + \omega_{0}t )} \right] \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}} ,$$ $$\label{eq:CE_A3}
\mathbf{A_{3}}(y,t)= A_{3+} \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} ( \mathrm{k}_{3} y - \omega_{0}t )} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}} ,$$ where $A_{j\pm}$ are constants that are fixed from the matching conditions. The wavenumber is given by $\mathrm{k}_{j} =\frac{ n_{j} \omega_{0}}{c}$, and $j=1,2,3$ labels the three refractive indices.
After solving the matching conditions one obtains, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{1}}(y,t) = & \ A_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{\left[ \mathrm{i} \left( \mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t \right) \right]} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}} \ \\ & + \frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \
\mathrm{exp}{\left[ - \mathrm{i}\left( \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{1} \right) \right]} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}}
\\ & - \frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{ \left \{ - \mathrm{i} \left[ \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{2} + \mathrm{k} \gamma L \right] \right \} } \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\label{eq:E1}
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{2}}(y,t) = & \ A_{0} \left(1+\frac{\gamma}{4}\right) \ \mathrm{exp}
{\left \{ \mathrm{i}\left[ \mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t - \frac{\mathrm{k} \gamma}{2} \left(y - L_{1} \right) \right] \right \} } \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}} \\ & -\frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{\left \{ -\mathrm{i}\left[ \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - \frac{ \mathrm{k} \gamma}{2} \left( y + L_{1} \right) \right. \right.} \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad + {\left. \left. \mathrm{k} L_{2}(\gamma
- 2)\right] \right \} } \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\end{aligned}$$
$$\mathbf{A_{3}}(y,t) = A_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{\left \{ \mathrm{i} \left[ \mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t - \frac{ \mathrm{k} \gamma L}{2} \right] \right \} } \
\mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\label{eq:E3}$$
where $\mathrm{k} = \frac{\omega_{0}}{v_{0}}$ and $L = L_{2} - L_{1}$.
The non-static case {#subsec:matching}
-------------------
Solving the matching condition for the non-static case yields the following results:
$$F_{1}(W_{+}) \ \mathrm{e}^{ \mathrm{i k} W_{+}}=A_{0}\ \mathrm{exp}{\left[ \mathrm{i} \left( \mathrm{k} y -\omega_{0}t\right) \right]},
\label{eq:A1+}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}(W_{-}) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i k} W_{-}} = & \ \frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \ \cos\left[\Omega
\left( t - \frac{L_{1} - y}{v_{0}} \right)\right] \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}{\left[- \mathrm{i} \left( \mathrm{k} y +\omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{1} \right) \right]} \\ & - \frac{\gamma}{4} \
A_{0} \ \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{ L_{2} - y}{v_{0}} \right)\right] \\ & \times
\mathrm{exp}{ \Bigg( -\mathrm{i} \left \{ \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{2} \right. \Big.} \\ & \qquad \qquad { + \frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin\left(\frac{\Omega L}{v_{0}} \right)} \\ & \qquad \qquad { \Bigg. \left. \times \cos \left[\Omega \left( t - \frac{ L_{2} - y}{v_0} \right)\right] \right \} \Bigg)},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:A1-}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\frac{v(t)}{v_{0}}} \ F_{2}(W_{+}) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i k} W_{+}} = & \ A_{0} \left[ 1+ \frac{\gamma}{4} \cos(\Omega t)\right] \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}{\Bigg( \mathrm{i} \left \{ \mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t \right. \Bigg.} \\ & \qquad \quad
- {\frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin\left[\frac{\Omega \left( y - L_{1} \right)}{2 v_{0}} \right] } \\ & {\quad \qquad \times \Bigg. \left. \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{y - L_{1}}{2 v_{0}} \right)\right] \right \} \Bigg)},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:A2+}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\frac{v(t)}{v_{0}}} \ F_{2}(W_{-}) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i
k} W_{-}} = & - \frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \ \cos\left[ \Omega
\left( t + \frac{y - L_{2}}{v_{0}} \right)\right] \\ &
\times \mathrm{exp}{\Bigg( -\mathrm{i} \left \{ \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{2} \right. \Bigg.} \\ & \quad \qquad + {\frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega}
\sin \left[ \frac{ \Omega \left( 2 L_{2} - L_{1} - y \right)}{2 v_{0}} \right]} \\ & { \times \Bigg. \left. \cos\left[\Omega
\left( t - \frac{\Omega \left(2 L_{2} - L_{1} - y \right)}{2 v_0} \right)\right] \right \} \Bigg) },
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:A2-}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{3}(W_{+}) \ \mathrm{e}^{ \mathrm{i k} W_{+}}= & \ A_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{\Bigg( \mathrm{i} \left \{ {\mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t - \frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin \left( \frac{\Omega L}{2 v_{0}} \right)} \right. \Bigg.} \\ & \qquad \qquad {\Bigg. \left. \times \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{L - 2 L_{2} + 2 y }{2 v_{0}} \right)\right] \right \} \Bigg) }.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:A3+}$$
As one can check, the solutions $\mathrm{A}_{j}(y,t)$, satisfy the matching conditions and converge to the static case when the limit $\Omega \to 0$ is taken.
An alternative method: following the wave {#Appendix B}
=========================================
In this section we reobtain the solution presented in Appendix \[Appendix A\] corresponding to the three media with indices of refraction: $n_{1}=n_{0}$, $n_{2}(t)= n_{0} \left[1- \frac{\gamma}{2} \cos(\Omega t) \right]$ and $n_{3}=n_{0}$ using a different ansatz. This method is based on ray tracing and considers the successive transmissions and reflections of the original incoming wave as it goes through the two interfaces between the three media.
As we have seen in the previous section, the WKB approximation can be used to obtain an explicit form of the vector potential $\mathrm{A_{z}}(y,t)=A_{\mathrm{0Z}}(W) \ \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi(W)}$, with $W$ given in eq.(\[eq:Z\]). Assuming the phase $\phi(W)$ to be an increasing function of $W$, we define
$$\mathrm{k}(y,t)\equiv \left(\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} \right)_{t},
\label{eq:k}$$
$$\omega(y,t)\equiv - \left(\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}\right)_{y},
\label{eq:omega}$$
as the generalized wavenumber and frequency respectively. Inserting the definitions (\[eq:k\]) and (\[eq:omega\]) in (\[eq:eikonal\]) yields
$$\mathrm{k}(y,t) = \pm \frac{\omega(y,t)}{v(t)}.
%\label{eq:dispersion}$$
In the above equation $\pm$ means a wave propagating to increasing or decreasing values of $y$.
In principle, imposing the matching conditions for $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ at $y=L_{1}$ and $y=L_{2}$ yields an infinite set of waves going back and forth which contribute to the final form of the fields in the three regions. However, as one follows the original incoming ray and assumes $\gamma \ll 1$, it is clear that the second and third reflection inside the media $n_{2}(t)$ will be proportional to the second and third power of $\gamma$ respectively. We thus assume that only the rays that contribute to linear order in $\gamma$ are relevant for the calculation (see figure (\[fig:figure2\])).
![Ray tracing in the EOM with wedge-shape crystal.[]{data-label="fig:figure1"}](EOM_wedge.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Model for EOM.[]{data-label="fig:figure2"}](EOM_model.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
These propagating fields are: $\mathbf{A_{i}}$ the incident vector potential in media $n_{1}$, $\mathbf{A_{r}}$ the reflected potential at $L_1$ propagating in media $n_{1}$, $\mathbf{A_{t}}$ the transmitted vector potential to the media $n_{2}$, $\mathbf{A_{tr}}$ the reflected potential at $L_2$ propagating in media $n_{2}$, $\mathbf{A_{trt}}$ the transmitted wave to the media $n_{1}$ after it was reflected at $L_2$. Finally, $\mathbf{A_{tt}}$ is the transmitted potential propagating in $n_{3}$. Note that the reflected wave in $n_{1}$ is formed by the addition of two rays that are linear in $\gamma$: $\mathbf{A_{r}}$ and $\mathbf{A_{trt}}$.
In the static case we assume the angular frequency is the same for all the waves propagating in the three media. However, in the quasi static case, the angular frequencies differ from $\omega_{0}$. After the calculation is done we must check that in the static limit, ($\Omega \to 0$), all the angular frequencies converge to $\omega_{0}$.
As an example we consider the different fields that are traveling back in media $n_{1}$. $\mathbf{A_{r}}$ has a constant angular frequency since it does not enter the time-dependent region, whereas $\mathbf{A_{trt}}$ has an angular frequency $\omega_{trt}(y,t) $, since it contains information of the transit time in the modulated media.
Motivated by the above example we introduce the following ansatz: *“the transmitted and reflected waves at a given interface, that are generated by the same incident wave, possess the same angular frequency as the latter”*. The condition imposed on the angular frequencies at a given interface yields a matching condition for the phase of the incoming and outgoing fields. It follows from (\[eq:omega\]), that these conditions fix the phase $\phi$ up to a constant.
When $\mathbf{E_{i}}$ reaches $y=L_{1}$ a transmitted $\mathbf{E_{t}}$ and reflected $\mathbf{E_{r}}$ fields are produced. The matching conditions for the angular frequencies are: $$\omega_{i}(L_{1}, t)= \omega_{t}(L_{1}, t) =\omega_{r}(L_{1}, t) =\omega_{0},
%\label{eq:omega1}$$ together with the conditions for the amplitude of the fields: $$\mathbf{E_{i}} \left( L_{1},t \right) + \mathbf{E_{r}} \left( L_{1},t \right) -
\mathbf{E_{t}}\left( L_{1},t \right) =0,$$ $$\mathbf{B_{i}} \left( L_{1},t \right) + \mathbf{B_{r}} \left( L_{1},t \right) -
\mathbf{B_{t}}\left( L_{1},t \right) =0.$$
The above equations are sufficient to determine $\mathbf{A_{r}}$ and $\mathbf{A_{t}}$ from $\mathbf{A_{i}}$.
A similar set of equations are obtained for $\mathbf{E_{t}}$, the transmitted $\mathbf{E_{tt}}$ and reflected $\mathbf{E_{tr}}$ fields at $y=L_{2}$. The matching conditions for the angular frequencies at this interface are: $$\omega_{t}(L_{2}, t)= \omega_{tt}(L_{2}, t) =\omega_{tr}(L_{2}, t),
%\label{eq:omega2}$$ with the corresponding conditions for the fields: $$\mathbf{E_{t}} \left( L_{2},t \right) + \mathbf{E_{tr}} \left( L_{2},t \right) -
\mathbf{E_{tt}}\left( L_{2},t \right) =0,$$ $$\mathbf{B_{t}} \left( L_{2},t \right) + \mathbf{B_{tr}} \left( L_{2},t \right) -
\mathbf{B_{tt}} \left( L_{2},t \right) =0.$$
Taking $\mathbf{A_{t}}$ as the incident data, the above equations yield $\mathbf{A_{tt}}$ and $\mathbf{A_{tr}}$.
Finally, when the wave $\mathbf{E_{tr}}$ reaches $y=L_{1}$ a transmitted field $\mathbf{E_{trt}}$ that goes back to the initial media $n_1$ is produced. The reflected wave is order $\gamma^{2}$ and thus, it is discarded.
The resulting matching condition for the angular frequency is given by: $$\omega_{tr}(L_{1}, t)= \omega_{trt}(L_{1}, t),
%\label{eq:omega3}$$
whereas the matching condition for the field is: $$\mathbf{E_{tr}} \left( L_{1},t \right) -\mathbf{E_{trt}} \left( L_{1},t \right) =0,$$ and the last vector potential $\mathbf{A_{trt}}$ is obtained.
The final set of vector potentials that satisfy the angular frequency and amplitude matching conditions is given by $$\mathbf{A_{{i}}}(y,t)=A_{{0}}\ \mathrm {exp}{\left[\mathrm{i} \left({ \mathrm{k} y -\omega_{0} t } \right) \right]} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\label{eq:SD1}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{t}}(y,t)= & \ A_{0} \left[ 1 + \frac{\gamma}{4} \cos(\Omega t) \right] \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}{\left( \mathrm{i} \left \{ \mathrm{k} y - \omega_{0} t - \frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin\left[\frac{\Omega \left( y - L_{1} \right)}{2 v_{0}} \right] \right. \right.} \\ & \qquad \qquad {\Bigg. \left. \times \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{y - L_{1}}{2 v_{0}} \right)\right] \right \} \Bigg)} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{tt}}(y,t) = & \ A_{0} \ \mathrm{exp}{\Bigg( \mathrm{i} \left \{ {\mathrm{k} y -\omega_{0}t} - \frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin \left(\frac{\Omega L}{2 v_{0}} \right) \right. \Bigg.} \\ & \qquad \qquad {\Bigg. \left. \times \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{ L - 2 L_{2} + 2 y}{2 v_{0}} \right)\right] \right \} \Bigg)} \
\mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{tr}}(y,t) = & - \frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \ \cos\left[ \Omega
\left( t + \frac{ y - L_{2}}{v_{0}} \right)\right] \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}{\Bigg( -\mathrm{i} \left \{ \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{2} \right. \Bigg.} \\ &
\qquad \quad + { \frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin\left[\frac{\Omega
\left( 2 L_{2} - L_{1} - y \right)}{2 v_{0}}\right] } \\ &
\qquad \quad + { \Bigg. \left. { \cos\left[\Omega \left( t - \frac{ 2 L_{2} - L_{1} - y }{2 v_{0}} \right) \right] } \right \} \Bigg) } \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{r}}(y,t) = & \ \frac{\gamma}{4} \ A_{0} \ \cos\left[\Omega
\left( t - \frac{L_{1} - y}{v_{0}} \right)\right] \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}{\left[ - \mathrm{i} \left(
\mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2\mathrm{k} L_{1} \right) \right] } \
\mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:SD5}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A_{trt}}(y,t) = & - \frac{\gamma}{4} \
A_{0} \ \cos\left[ \Omega \left( t - \frac{L_{2} - y}{v_{0}} \right)\right] \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}{\Bigg( -\mathrm{i}
\left \{ \mathrm{k} y + \omega_{0} t - 2 \mathrm{k} L_{2}
\right. \Bigg.} \\ & \quad \qquad +{\frac{\omega_{0} \gamma}{\Omega} \sin
\left( \frac{\Omega L}{v_{0}} \right)} \\ & \qquad \quad
{\Bigg. \left. \times \cos \left[\Omega\left( t - \frac{ L_{2} - y}{v_0} \right) \right] \right \} \Bigg)}
\ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:SD6}$$
Note that (\[eq:SD1\])-(\[eq:SD6\]) converge to the static solutions (\[eq:E1\])-(\[eq:E3\]) when the limit $\Omega \to 0$ is taken. Likewise, $\mathbf{A_{i}}+\mathbf{A_{r}}+\mathbf{A_{trt}}$ coincides exactly with $\mathbf{A_{1}}$ in (\[eq:A1+\]) and (\[eq:A1-\]), as expected. Similarly, $\mathbf{A_{t}}+\mathbf{A_{tr}}$ coincides with $\mathbf{A_{2}}$ in (\[eq:A2+\]) and (\[eq:A2-\]). Finally, $\mathbf{A_{tt}}$ is equal to $\mathbf{A_{3}}$ given in (\[eq:A3+\]).
It is important to note that (\[eq:SD1\])-(\[eq:SD6\]) can not be obtained using the usual Fresnel’s equations. Indeed, Fresnel’s equations provide a relations between the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields at both interfaces ($y=L_{1}$ and $y=L_{2}$ in our cases).
In the static case, these let resolve the problem because the amplitudes of the fields are constants and their phases are determined for wavenumber of the medium and the angular frequency of the incident wave, $\omega_{0}$ (see (\[eq:CE\_A1\])-(\[eq:CE\_A3\]) and (\[eq:Ez\]),(\[eq:Bx\])).
However, in the dynamic case the amplitudes and phases of the fields satisfies an coupled partial differential equations system and the matching conditions give relations between the boundaries values of the amplitudes in both interfaces. Indeed, in this case both the wavenumbers and the angular frequencies of the fields depend on the spatial coordinate and the time.
Computing the $\mathbf{RAM_{F}}$ {#Appendix C}
================================
In this appendix we compute the $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$.
In general, given a signal emerging of the EOM, we can define $\mathrm{RAM}$ as $$\mathrm{RAM} = \mathrm{\frac{AC}{DC}},
\label{eq:RAM}$$ where $\mathrm{AC}$ is the alternating component and $\mathrm{DC}$ the continuous component of the intensity of the signal emerging from the EOM.
$\mathrm{DC}$ is the first coefficient in the Fourier expansion, $$\mathrm{DC} = \frac{\Omega}{2 \pi}\,\int _{-\frac {\pi }{\Omega}}^{{\frac {\pi }{\Omega}}} \ \mathrm{I_{out}} \ {\mathrm{d}t},
\label{eq:DC}$$ where $\mathrm{I_{out}} $ represents the intensity emerging from the crystal. The alternating component $\mathrm{AC}$ is the magnitude of the demodulation components $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ of $\mathrm{I_{out}}$, given by $$\mathrm{AC} = \sqrt{\mathcal{I}^{2}+\mathcal{Q}^{2}},
\label{eq:AC}$$ where $$\mathcal{I} = \frac{\Omega}{\pi} \int _{-{\frac {\pi }{\Omega}}}^{{\frac {\pi }{\Omega}}} \mathrm{I_{out}} \ \cos
\left( \Omega\,t \right) {\mathrm{d}t},
\label{eq:inphase}$$
$$\mathcal{Q} = \frac{\Omega}{\pi} \int _{-{\frac {\pi }{\Omega}}}^{{\frac{\pi }{\Omega}}} \mathrm{I_{out}} \ \sin\left( \Omega\,t \right) {\mathrm{d}t}.
\label{eq:quadrature}$$
The outgoing intensity is given by
$$\mathrm{I_{out}} = \frac{\omega_{0}}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\frac {2\pi }{\omega_{0}}} \mathrm{S_{out}}
\left( t \right) {\mathrm{d}t},
\label{eq:Iout}$$
where $S_{\mathrm{out}}$ is the magnitude of the transmitted Poynting vector, given by
$$\mathrm{S_{out}}(t) = \frac{1}{\mu_{0}} \ \left \| \mathrm{Re} \left[ \mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{out}} \right] \times \mathrm{Re} \left[ \mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{out}} \right] \right \|,
\label{eq:Sout}$$
where $\mathrm{Re}$ indicates real part.
The integration on (\[eq:Iout\]) is done over a period of the electromagnetic wave. Thus, the variations associated with the modulating frequency are negligible.
Now we compute the $\mathrm{RAM}$ for an ideal EOM that is to say $\mathrm{RAM_{F}}$. Inserting the fields $\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{out}}$ and $\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{out}}$ from eq.(\[eq:Eout\]) and (\[eq:Bout\]) in eq. (\[eq:Sout\]) and then using (\[eq:Iout\]) yields
$$\mathrm{I_{out}} = \frac {E_{0}^{2}}{2 \mu_{0}v_{0}} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 m \Omega}{\omega_{0}}
\sin \left( \Omega t \right) \right].
%\label{eq:Intensity}$$
Replacing the above formula in (\[eq:DC\])-(\[eq:quadrature\]) we obtain the DC and AC components. Finally, from (\[eq:RAM\]) we obtain:
$$\mathrm{RAM_{F}} = \frac{2 m \Omega}{\omega_{0}}.$$
Computing the total intensity radiated by the crystalline cell when an EOM is present {#Appendix D}
=====================================================================================
In this appendix we derive the total intensity radiated away by a crystal cell arising from a redistribution of the internal charges when an EOM is present.
We assume the nuclear charges in each cell of the crystal remain fixed whereas the electronic cloud can move around the equilibrium position. We also assume the total dipole moment vanishes at the equilibrium position. If an electromagnetic plane wave with angular frequency $\omega_{0}$ travels inside the crystal, each cell reacts to an effective electric field given by the superposition of the wave field and the total field of the remaining cells in the crystal. This effective field is given by: $$\mathbf{E}^{\prime} = \mathbf{E} + \frac{\mathbf{P}}{3 \varepsilon_{0}},
\label{eq:effectivefield}$$ where $\mathbf{E}^{\prime}$ is the effective field, $\mathbf{E}$ is the electromagnetic wave and $\mathbf{P}$ is the polarization produced by the remaining cells. Note that the effective and the wave field have the same frequency since each cell in the crystal is forced to oscillate at the frequency of the incident wave field.
The polarization vector $\mathbf{P}$ in (\[eq:effectivefield\]) is given by:
$$\mathbf{P} = \varepsilon_{0} \ \chi(t) \ \mathbf{E},
\label{eq:polarizacion}$$
where $\chi(t)$ is the crystal susceptibility when the electro-optic effect is present, i.e.,
$$\chi(t) = (n_{0}^{2} - 1) - n_{0}^{2} \gamma \cos(\Omega t).
\label{eq:susceptibilidad}$$
Using (\[eq:effectivefield\]), (\[eq:polarizacion\]) and (\[eq:susceptibilidad\]) we compute $\mathbf{E^{\prime}} = \mathrm{E}^{\prime} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}}$, giving,
$$\mathrm{E}^{\prime} = \frac{E_{0} \left( n_{0}^{2}+2 \right)}{6} \left[ 1 - \frac{n_{0}^{2} \gamma}{n_{0}^{2} + 2} \cos(\Omega t) \right] \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \omega_{0} t} + \mathrm{c.c.}.
\label{eq:campo_efectivo}$$
This effective field will move the center of charge in each cell away from its equilibrium position. The motion of each center of charge will then produce a dipole radiation that we wish to compute.
To do that we first analyze the motion of the center of charge position $z(t)$ in each cell. The simplest model to describe a dispersive media is the *Abraham-Lorentz* [@Meystre] model. In this model $z(t)$ satisfies,
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} z}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}} + \sigma \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}t} + {\omega^{2}_{p}} \ z = \frac{e \mathrm{E}^{\prime}}{m_{0}},
\label{eq:Abraham_Lorentz}$$
where $\omega_{p}= \omega_{r} \left[ 1 + \frac{\delta}{2} \cos(\Omega t) \right]$. The time dependence of $\omega_{p}$ follows from the action of the modulating field on the cell, as was shown in section(\[subsec:microcopic\_model\]). In the above equation $\sigma$ represents a dissipative term, and it is only relevant when the propagating wave frequency ($\omega_{0}$) is close to the resonant frequency ($
\omega_{r}$). Since in our case $\omega_{0}
=1.77 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{Hz}$ y $\omega_{r}= 4.97 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{Hz}$, we can neglect dissipative terms. Thus, $z(t)$ satisfies the *H. A. Lorentz* equation,
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}z}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}} + {\omega^{2}_{p}} \ z = \frac{e \mathrm{E}^{\prime}}{m_{0}}.
\label{eq:HALorentz}$$
We propose the following solution for the forced oscillation, $$z(t) = \frac{1}{2} \ \mathcal{Z}(t) \ \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \omega_{0} t} + \mathrm{c.c.}
\label{eq:solucion_propuesta}$$ where $\mathcal{Z}(t)$ is a real amplitude which is assumed to vary much slower than the wave frequency. $\mathcal{Z}(t)$ can be written up to linear order as $\mathcal{Z}= \mathcal{Z}_{0} + \delta \mathcal{Z}_{1}(t)$, where $\mathcal{Z}_{0}$ is the constant solution in absence of a modulating field and $\mathcal{Z}_{1}(t)$ is a slowly varying function of time. Thus, in this approximation we neglect first and second derivatives of $\mathcal{Z}$ since $\dot{\mathcal{Z}} \ll \mathcal{Z}\omega_{0}$, $\ddot{\mathcal{Z}} \ll \mathcal{Z}\omega_{0}^{2}$. Then, the first order deviation from the static case is remarkably simple, i.e.,
$$(\omega^{2}_{p}- \omega^{2}_{0}) \ z = \frac{e \mathrm{E}^{\prime}}{m_{0}},$$
form which we obtain an algebraic relationship between $z(t)$ and $\mathrm{E}^{\prime}$, namely, $$\ z = \frac{e}{m_{0}}\frac{\mathrm{E}^{\prime}}{(\omega^{2}_{p} - \omega^{2}_{0})}.
\label{eq:HALorentz}$$
This expression is consistent with the definition of the polarizability in terms of the microscopic parameters [@BornWolf],
$$\mathbf{p} = \alpha \mathbf{E}^{\prime},
\label{eq:def_dipolo1}$$
where $$\mathbf{p}= e z \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}},
\label{eq:def_dipolo2}$$ represents the cell dipole moment. Combining the above expressions we immediately obtain
$$\alpha = \frac{e^{2}}{m_{0} \left(\omega_{p}^{2} -\omega_{0}^{2}\right)}.$$
Expanding the above expression up to linear terms in $\delta$ yields $$\alpha(t) = \frac{e^{2}}{m_{0} \left(\omega_{r}^{2} -\omega_{0}^{2}\right)} - \delta \ \frac{e^{2} \omega_{r}^{2}}{m_{0} \left(\omega_{r}^{2} -\omega_{0}^{2}\right)^{2}} \ f(t).
\label{eq:alpha_micro}$$ On the other hand, for the static case, the polarizability can also be expressed in terms of macroscopic parameters (\[eq:Lorent-Lorentz\]), $$\alpha_{0} = \frac{3 \varepsilon_{0}}{N} \frac{n_{0}^{2} - 1}{n_{0}^{2} + 2},$$ where $n_{0}$ is the constant index of refraction for the RTP crystal at the angular frequency $\omega_{0}$. If in the above formula we replace $n_{0} \rightarrow n(t) = n_{0} \left[ 1 - \frac{\gamma}{2} \cos(\Omega t) \right]$ and $\alpha_{0} \rightarrow \alpha(t)$, we obtain a generalized *Lorent-Lorentz* (\[eq:Lorent-Lorentz\]) relation when an electro-optic effect is present. Up to linear terms in $\gamma$ we have,
$$\alpha(t) = \frac{3 \varepsilon_{0} (n_{0}^{2}-1)}{N (n_{0}^{2} + 2)} - \gamma \ \frac{9 \varepsilon_{0} n_{0}^{2} }{N (n_{0}^{2} + 2)^{2}} \cos(\Omega t).
\label{eq:alpha_macro}$$
Combining equations (\[eq:alpha\_micro\]) and (\[eq:alpha\_macro\]) yields
$$f(t) = \cos(\Omega t)
\label{eq:solucionf}$$
$$\delta = { \frac{9 \varepsilon_{0}}{N {e}^{2}} \frac{m_{0} \left(\omega_{r}^{2} - \omega_{0}^{2}\right)^{2}}{\omega_{r}^{2}} \frac{n_{0}^{2} \gamma}{\left(n_{0}^{2} + 2 \right)^{2}}}.
\label{eq:solucion_delta}$$
Using $\omega_{r} = 4.97 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{Hz}$, $\omega_{0} = 1.77 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{Hz}$, $N = 8.87 \times 10^{27} \ \mathrm{m}^{-3} $ and $n_{0} = 1.82$, we obtain $\delta = 0.71 \ \gamma$. This shows that $\delta$ and $\gamma$ have the same order of magnitude.
Computing $\mathbf{p}$ from (\[eq:def\_dipolo1\]) or (\[eq:def\_dipolo2\]) yields,
$$\mathbf{p} = \frac{e^{2} E_{0} \left(n_{0}^{2} + 2\right)}{ 3 m_{0} \left(\omega_{r}^{2}- \omega_{0}^{2} \right)} \left[ 1 - \frac{\delta \omega_{r}^{2} \left( n_{0}^{2}+2 \right) }{3 \left( \omega_{r}^{2} - \omega_{0}^{2} \right)} \cos(\Omega t) \right] \cos(\omega_{0} t) \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{z}}.
\label{eq:dipole_moment_solucion}$$
The electric and magnetic fields generated by this dipole in the radiation zone $\left(\frac{\omega_{0} r}{c} \gg 1\right)$ are given by [@BornWolf],
$$\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{\mu}} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{4 \pi} \frac{[\ddot{\mathrm{p}}] \ \sin(\theta)}{r} \
\mathbf{\hat{e}_{\theta}},$$
$$\mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{\mu}} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{4 \pi c} \frac{[\ddot{\mathrm{p}}] \ \sin(\theta)}{r} \
\mathbf{\hat{e}_{\phi}},$$
where $\mathrm{p} = \sqrt{ \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{p}}$, and the subindex $\mathrm{\mu}$ labels the microscopic origin of the fields. $\mathbf{\hat{e}_{\theta}}$ are $\mathbf{\hat{e}_{\phi}}$ are respectively the polar and azimuthal unit vectors in a spherical coordinate system, with the dipole $\mathbf{p}$ aligned with the $"Z"$ axis.
The corresponding Poynting vector is given by, $$\mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{\mu}} = \frac{\mathbf{E}_{\mathrm{\mu}} \times \mathbf{B}_{\mathrm{\mu}}}{\mu_{0}} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{16 \pi^{2} c} \frac{\left[ \ddot{\mathrm{p}} \right]^{2} \ \sin(\theta)^{2}}{r^{2}} \ \mathbf{\hat{e}_{r}},$$ where $\mathbf{\hat{e}_{r}}$ is the radial unit vector of the coordinate system.
The rate of energy radiated by the dipole is obtained by integration of the Poynting vector on a large sphere centered at the dipole. The result is given by
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}t} = \oint \mathbf{S}_{\mathrm{\mu}} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}}\ da = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6 \pi c} [\ddot{\mathrm{p}}]^{2},
\label{eq:variacion_energia}$$
where $U$ is the total energy radiated by the dipole.
The intensity emitted by the dipole is $$\mathrm{I_{{\mu}}} = \left \langle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}t} \right \rangle = \frac{\omega_{0}}{2 \pi} \ \int_{0}^{\frac{2 \pi}{\omega_{0}}} \
\frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}t} \ \mathrm{d}t,
\label{eq:def_intensidad}$$ where the symbol $\left \langle \bullet \right \rangle$ indicates a time average over a cycle on the incident wave.
Replacing (\[eq:dipole\_moment\_solucion\]) (\[eq:variacion\_energia\]) on (\[eq:def\_intensidad\]) yields,
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{I_{{\mu}}} = & \frac{\mu_{0}}{6 \pi c} \left[ \frac{ e^{2} E_{0} \left(n_{0}^{2} + 2\right)
\omega_{0}^{2}}{3 m_{0} \left(\omega_{r}^{2} - \omega_{0}^{2} \right)} \right]^{2} \\ & \times \left \{ \frac{1}{2}
- \frac{\delta \omega_{r}^{2} \left(n_{0}^{2} + 2\right)}{3 \left(\omega_{r}^{2} -
\omega_{0}^{2}\right)} \cos\left[\Omega \left(t -\frac{R}{c}\right) \right] \right \},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:expresion_intensidad_micro_full}$$
where $R$ is the distance between observation point and dipole. The contribution of a single dipole inside the crystal to the intensity of signal emerging from the EOM is evaluated taking $R \leq L$ in (\[eq:expresion\_intensidad\_micro\_full\]). Since $\left(\frac{\Omega L}{c} \right) \ll 1$, we neglect the correction by the retarded time in (\[eq:expresion\_intensidad\_micro\_full\]):
$$\mathrm{I_{{\mu}}} = \frac{\mu_{0} \ \alpha_{0}^{2} \left( n_{0}^{2}+ 2 \right)^{2} E_{0}^{2} \ \omega_{0}^{4}}{108 \ \pi c} \left[ 1 - \frac{2 \delta \omega_{r}^{2} \left(n_{0}^{2} + 2\right)}{3 \left(\omega_{r}^{2} -
\omega_{0}^{2}\right)} \cos\left(\Omega t \right) \right].$$
\
[10]{}
A. Yariv. *Quantum Electronic*. (Wiley, New York, 1989), 3rd ed. Chap. 14.
and [S. E. Whitcomb]{}. , 2004.
. , 1980.
and [C. Ortiz]{}. , 1983.
and [M. Ducloy]{}. , 1982.
. , 1982.
and [T. F. Gallagher,]{}. , 1986.
and [R. E. Warren]{}. , 1987.
and [H. Ward]{}. , 1983.
LIGO Scientific Collaboration. , [**116**]{}, 061102, 2016.
LIGO Scientific Collaboration. , [**116**]{}, 241103, 2016.
LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration. , [**118**]{}, 221101, 2017.
. , 2001.
and [M. Zucker]{}. , 2001.
and [R. X. Adhikari]{}. , 2014.
and [G. C. Bjorklund,]{} , 1985.
and [J. L. Hall]{}. , 1985.
and [J. L. Hall]{}, in *Proceedings of the Conference Quantum Electronics and Laser Science, Long Beach, CA, USA, 2002*, IEEE p. 91.
and [E. Jaatinen]{}. , 2012.
and E. [Jaatinen]{} , 2013.
and [E. Jaatinen]{}. , 2013.
et al. , 2015.
[W. Wu. , 2007.](http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0021385/wu_w.pdf)
and [D. J. Hopper]{}. , 2008.
L. Li, F. Liu, C. Wang, and L. Chen. , 2012.
W. Zhang, M. J. Martin, C. Benko, J. L. Hall, J. Ye, C. Hagemann, T. Legero, U. Sterr, F. Riehle, G. D. Cole, and M. Aspelmeyer. , 2014.
L. Li, H. Shen, J. Bi, C. Wang, S. Lv, and L. Chen. , 2014.
H. Shen, L. Li, J. Bi, J. Wang, and L. Chen. , 2015.
M. Born and E. Wolf. (Cambridge university press, 1999), 7th ed. Chap 2.
P. Meystre and M. Sargent. *Elements of Quantum Optics* (Springer, 2007), 3rd ed. Chap. 1.
A. Yariv. and P. Yeh. *Optical waves in crystal: Propagation and control of laser radiation.* (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983), Chap. 7.
H. A. Haus. *Waves and fields in optoelectronic* (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey , 1984)
<https://www.newport.com/p/1811-FC>
<https://www.thorlabs.com/images/TabImages/Noise_Equivalent_Power_White_Paper.pdf>
<https://www.ameteksi.com/-/media/ameteksi/download_links/documentations/7210/tn1001_specifying_lock-in_amplifiers.pdf>
[^1]: <https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0108/E1300758/001/E1300758-v1.pdf>
[^2]: <http://www.redoptronics.com/RTP-crystal.html>
[^3]: <https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0023/E060003/000/E060003-00.pdf>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Himchan Jeong[^1]'
- 'Hyunwoong Chang[^2]'
- 'Emiliano A. Valdez[^3]'
bibliography:
- './BayesianLASSO.bib'
title: A regularization approach for stable estimation of loss development factors
---
In this article, we show that a new penalty function, which we call log-adjusted absolute deviation (LAAD), emerges if we theoretically extend the Bayesian LASSO using conjugate hyperprior distributional assumptions. We further show that the estimator with LAAD penalty has closed-form in the case with a single covariate and it can be extended to general cases when combined with coordinate descent algorithm with assurance of convergence under mild conditions. This has the advantages of avoiding unnecessary model bias as well as allowing variable selection, which is linked to the choice of tail factor in loss development for claims reserving. We calibrate our proposed model using a multi-line insurance dataset from a property and casualty company where we observe reported aggregate loss along the accident years and development periods.
**Keywords:** Insurance reserving, log-adjusted absolute deviation (LAAD) penalty, loss development, penalized likelihood, tail factor, variable selection
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Chain ladder method, as an industry benchmark with theoretical discussions such as @mack1993chainladder and @mack1999chainladderse, has been widely used to determine the development pattern of reported or paid claim. However, despite the prevalence of the method, we need to consider some issues in estimation of development factors for mature years with chain ladder method. In general, we expect that cumulative reported loss amount gradually increases whereas the magnitude of development decreases. However, it is possible that loss development patterns with some run-off triangles may not follow that usual pattern. As mentioned in @renshaw1989chain, it is because we only have a few data points in the north-east corner and estimation of parameters which depends on those data points becomes unstable, due to triangular or trapezoidal shape of aggregated claims data. Therefore, we need to consider a way to estimate the development factors for mature years with more stability.
Further, loss development may continue beyond ten years, which is usually the maximum number of years tracked in run-off triangles so that one can consider the ‘tail factor’ of loss development to predict ultimate claims. However, naive use of chain ladder method does not provide a way to estimate tail factor so that tail factor is chosen subjectively or according to industry benchmark in practice. In this regard, there have been some research works on the selection of tail factor based on a loss development triangle, including but not limited to @boor2006tailfactor, @verrall2012tailfactor, and @merz2013tailfactor.
In order to deal with the aforementioned issues, stable estimation of development factors for mature years and tail factor selection, one can apply regularization method or penalized regression in loss development models. Today, there is a rich literature of using penalization in regression framework. The first penalization method introduced is ridge regression, developed by @hoerl1970ridge. By adding an $L_2$ penalty term on the least squares, they showed that it is possible to have smaller mean squared error when there is severe multicollinearity in a given dataset. However, ridge regression has merely the shrinkage property and not the property of variable selection. To tackle the latter, @tibshirani1996lasso suggested LASSO, which uses an $L_1$ penalty term on the least squares, and showed that this method enables us to do variable selection, which leads to dimension reduction as well. Despite the simplicity of the proposed method, there has been a great deal of work done to extend the LASSO framework. For example, @park2008bayesian extended LASSO by providing a Bayesian interpretation on LASSO. Although LASSO has the variable selection property, the estimates derived by LASSO regression are inherently biased. However, there have been some meaningful approaches so that we obtain both the variable selection property and less biased estimates. For example, @fan2001scad proposed smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) penalty, which is derived by assuming continuously differentiable penalty function to achieve three properties such as (i) getting nearly unbiased estimate when absolute value of the true unknown parameter is large, (ii) variable selection, and (iii) the continuity of the calculated estimates. Although SCAD penalty has the above-mentioned good properties, it is naturally a non-convex optimization so that it loses the desirable properties of convex optimization problems. Thus, @zhang2010mcp proposed minimax concave penalty (MCP), which minimizes the maximum concavity subject to unbiasedness feature.
The use of penalized regression in the actuarial literature is not quite new, but there have only been a few relevant works in the field. For instance, @williams2015elastic applied elastic net penalty, which is a combination of $L_1$ and $L_2$ penalties, on a dataset with over 350 initial covariates to enhance insurance claims prediction. In addition, @nawar2016 used LASSO for detecting possible interaction between covariates which are used in claims modeling.
In this paper, we extend the Bayesian LASSO framework of @park2008bayesian using conjugate hyperprior distributional assumptions. This extension leads to a new penalty function, which we call log-adjusted absolute deviation (LAAD), which enables us to obtain variable selection property while maintaining less bias of the estimator. This motivated us to apply LAAD penalty in cross-classfied model used in loss development for reserving to choose the tail factor. To calibrate the model, we use reported loss triangles from multiple lines of business from a property and casualty (P&C) insurer. We compare the estimated loss development factors including the tail factor of our proposed model with usual cross-classified model and cross-classified model with LASSO penalty. All these models are comparably explained in the section on estimation and prediction; we also discussed the validation measures. It turns out that our proposed model provides us reasonable estimates of loss development factors which agree with our prior knowledge or expectation on loss development pattern as well as shows better performance in the prediction of reserve.
This paper has been organized as follows. In Section \[sec:blassolaad\], we develop the construction of the new penalty via Bayesian interpretation of LASSO and its properties by comparing it with other penalty functions. In Section \[sec:simul\], we postulate the novelty of our proposed method via simulation study. In Section \[sec:insurance\], we explore possible use of our method in insurance reserving application using a multi-line reported loss triangles dataset and provide results of the estimation and prediction for the various models. We make a conclusion in Section \[sec:conclude\].
Proposed method: LAAD {#sec:blassolaad}
=====================
Derivation of loss function with LAAD penalty {#sub:bayeslasso}
---------------------------------------------
According to @park2008bayesian, we may interpret LASSO in a Bayesian framework as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&Y|\beta \sim \mathcal{N}(X\beta,\sigma^2 I_n), \quad \beta_i | \lambda \sim \text{Laplace}(0,1/\lambda),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is a vector of size $p$ with each component having a density function $p(\beta_i|\lambda)=\frac{\lambda}{2}e^{-\lambda{|\beta_i|}}$, for $\beta_i \in \mathbb{R}$. According to their specification, we may express the likelihood and the log-likelihood for $\beta$, respectively, as
$$\label{eq:1}
\begin{aligned}[b]
&L(\beta|y,X,\lambda) \ \propto \ \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left[\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i-X_i\beta)^2 \right]-\lambda||\beta||_1 \right) \ \text{and} \\
&\ell(\beta|y,X,\lambda) = -\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\left[\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i-X_i\beta)^2\right]-\lambda||\beta||_1+\text{Constant} .
\end{aligned}$$
In their work, @park2008bayesian suggested two ways to choose the optimal $\lambda$ in Equation (\[eq:1\]). One is the use of point estimate by cross-validation, and the other is the use of a ‘hyperprior’ distribution for $\lambda$. However, they did not provide a detailed derivation of the likelihood when a hyperprior is used.
Now, consider the following distributional assumptions $$\begin{aligned}
&Y|\beta \sim \mathcal{N}(X\beta,\sigma^2 I_n), \quad \beta_j | \lambda_j \sim \text{Laplace}(0,1 / \lambda_j), \quad \text{and} \quad \lambda_j|r \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} \text{Gamma}(r/\sigma^2-1,1).
\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the hyperprior of $\lambda_j$ follows a gamma distribution with density $p(\lambda_j|r)=\lambda_j^{\frac{r}{\sigma^2}-2}e^{-\lambda_j}/\Gamma(\frac{r}{\sigma^2}-1)$. This implies that we have:
$$\label{eq:2}
\begin{aligned}[b]
&L(\beta,\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_p|y,X,r) \ \propto \ \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}[\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i-X_i\beta)^2] \right)\times \prod_{j=1}^{p}\exp \left( -\lambda_j\left[|\beta_j|+1\right] \right)\lambda_j^{\frac{r}{\sigma^2}-1}, \\
&L(\beta|y,X,r)=\int L(\beta,\lambda|y,X,r)d\lambda \ \propto \ \exp \left(-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}[\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i-X_i\beta)^2] \right)\times \prod_{j=1}^{p} \left( 1+|\beta_j| \right)^{-\frac{r}{\sigma^2}}, \\
&\ell(\beta|y,X,r)= -\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n (y_i-X_i\beta)^2 +2r \sum_{j=1}^{p}\log(1+|\beta_j|)\right) + \text{Constant}.
\end{aligned}$$
As a result, the log-likehood in Equation (\[eq:2\]) allows us to have the following formulation of our penalized least squares problem. This gives rise to what we call the log-adjusted absolute deviation (LAAD) penalty function: $$||\beta||_L=\sum_{j=1}^p \log (1+|\beta_j|),$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\beta} &=\ \mathop\mathrm{argmin}_{\beta} \frac{1}{2}||y-X\beta ||^2+r\sum_{j=1}^{p} \log(1+|\beta_j|).
\end{aligned}$$ A similar penalty function is described as hierarchical adaptive lasso in @lee2010hal but the authors did not provide details of the derivation.
Estimation with LAAD penalty {#sub:laadpenalty}
----------------------------
To better understand the characteristic of a model with LAAD penalty, let us consider a simple example when $p=1$ and $||X||=1$. In this case, optimization of $\ell$ in Equation (\[eq:2\]) is reduced to a univariate case so that it is sufficient to solve the following: $$\label{eq:3}
\hat{\theta}_j=\mathop\mathrm{argmin}_{\theta_j} \frac{1}{2}(z_j-\theta_j)^2+r\log(1+|\theta_j|),$$ where $z = X'y$.
\[thm:1\] Let us set $l(\theta|r,z)=\frac{1}{2}(z-\theta)^2+r\log(1+|\theta|)$. Then the corresponding minimizer will be given as $\hat{\theta}=\theta^* \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{ \{|z|\geq z^*(r) \vee r \}}$, where $$\theta^* = \frac{1}{2} \left[z+ \text{sgn}(z)\left(\sqrt{(|z|-1)^2+4|z|-4r}-1\right) \right],$$ and $z^*(r)$ is the unique solution of $$\Delta(z|r) = \frac{1}{2}(\theta^{*})^2-\theta^{*}z+r\log(1+|\theta^{*}|)=0.$$
See Appendix A.
Note that $\theta^{*}= \frac{z}{2} + \text{sgn}(z)\left[\frac{\sqrt{(|z|+1)^2-4r}-1}{2}\right] \simeq \frac{z}{2} + \text{sgn}(z)\left[\frac{(|z|+1)-1}{2}\right]=z$ when $|z|$ is large enough, which means $\theta^{*}$ converges to $z$ when $|z| \rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, by using LAAD penalty, we obtain an optimizer which has the variable selection property, and bias reduction property as true parameter value departs from zero. Figure \[fig:1\] provides graphs which describe the behavior of the obtained optimizer derived with different penalization. The first graph is the behavior of the optimizer derived with $L_2$ penalty, which is also called ridge regression. In that case, as previously mentioned, it has no variable selection property but it only shrinks the magnitude of the estimates. The second graph is the behavior of the optimizer derived with $L_1$ penalty, which is the basic LASSO. For this case, we see that although it has variable selection property (if value of $\beta$ is small enough, then $\hat{\beta}$ becomes 0), the discrepancy between the true $\beta$ and $\hat{\beta}$ remains constant even when the true $|\beta|$ is very big. Finally, the third graph shows the behavior of the optimizer derived with the proposed LAAD penalty. One can see that not only the given optimizer has the variable selection property, but also $\hat{\beta}$ converges to $\beta$ as $|\beta|$ increases.
![\[fig:1\]Estimate behavior for different penalty functions](losscomp-1.pdf)
Figure \[fig:2\] illustrates the constraint regions implied by each penalty. It is well known that the constraint regions defined by $L_2$ penalization is a $p$-dimensional circle, whereas the constraint regions defined by $L_1$ penalization is a $p$-dimensional diamond. We can observe that in both cases of $L_2$ and $L_1$ penalization, the constraint regions are convex, which implies we entertain good properties of convex optimization. However, in the case of the constraint region implied by LAAD penalty, the region is non-convex, which is inevitable to obtain both the consistency of the estimates and the variable selection property.
![\[fig:2\]Constraint regions for different penalties](conregion-1.pdf)
It is also possible to compare the behavior of LAAD penalty with SCAD penalty and MCP. According to @fan2001scad and @zhang2010mcp, one can write down the penalty functions (and their derivatives) in the univariate case, assuming $\theta \geq 0$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& p'_{SCAD}(\theta;\lambda,a) = \lambda \{ I(\theta \leq \lambda) + \frac{(a\lambda-\theta)_+}{(a-1)\lambda}I(\theta > \lambda) \}, \\
& p_{MCP}(\theta;\lambda,\gamma) = \int_0^\theta \lambda (1-x/\gamma \lambda )_+dx, \quad p'_{MCP}(\theta;\lambda,\gamma) = \lambda (1-\theta/\gamma \lambda )_+, \\
& p_{LAAD}(\theta;\lambda,a) = \lambda \log (1+\theta), \quad p'_{LAAD}(\theta;\lambda,a) = \lambda \left( \frac{1}{1+\theta} \right), \ \text{and} \\
& p_{LASSO}(\theta;\lambda) = \lambda \theta, \quad p'_{LASSO}(\theta;\lambda) = \lambda. \\
\end{aligned}$$ From above, it is straightforward to see that $$\lim_{\theta \rightarrow \infty} p'_{SCAD}(\theta;\lambda,a)=\lim_{\theta \rightarrow \infty}p'_{MCP}(\theta;\lambda,a)=\lim_{\theta \rightarrow \infty}p'_{LAAD}(\theta;\lambda,a)=0.$$ This implies that the marginal effect of penalty converges to 0 as the value of $\theta$ increases and hence, the magnitude of distortion on the estimate becomes negligible as the true coefficient gets larger when we use either SCAD penalty, MCP, or LAAD penalty. However, we see that $\lim_{\theta \rightarrow \infty} p'_{LASSO}(\theta;\lambda) = \lambda$, which means that the magnitude of distortion on the estimate is the same even in the case when the true coefficient is very large.
On the other hand, if we let $\theta$ to 0, one can see that $$\lim_{\theta \rightarrow 0+} p'_{SCAD}(\theta;\lambda,a)=\lim_{\theta \rightarrow 0+}p'_{MCP}(\theta;\lambda,a)=\lim_{\theta \rightarrow 0+}p'_{LAAD}(\theta;\lambda,a)=\lim_{\theta \rightarrow 0+}p'_{LASSO}(\theta;\lambda,a)=\lambda,$$ which implies that for SCAD penalty, MCP, and LAAD penalty, the magnitude of penalization is the same with LASSO when the true value of $\theta$ is very small. Therefore, we verify that SCAD, MCP, and LAAD penalty have the same property of variable selection as LASSO, when the true $\theta$ is small enough.
Implementation in general case and convergence analysis {#sub:optim}
-------------------------------------------------------
Estimating parameters from given penalized least squares is an optimization problem. Since an analytic solution is obtained in the case of univariate penalized least squares, one can implement an algorithm for optimization. For example, for obtaining $\hat\beta$ in the multivariate case, we may apply coordinate descent algorithm proposed by @luo1992coordinate, which starts with an initial set of estimates and then successively optimize along each coordinate or blocks of coordinates. The algorithm is explained in details as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
& \text{Initialize } \beta^{(0)} \\
& \qquad \text{R} \leftarrow y-\sum_{j=1}^p X_j\beta_j^{(0)} \text{, R: residual vector}\\
& \text{Do Loop } (t=0,1,2,\ldots) \\
& \qquad \text{for } (j \text{ in } 1:p) \ \{ \\
& \qquad\qquad \text{R} \leftarrow \text{R} + X_{j}\beta_{j}^{(t)} \\
& \qquad\qquad z_{(t,j)}=X_{j}' \text{R} \\
& \qquad\qquad \beta_{(j)}^{(t+1)}=\hat{\theta}(z_{(j)},r) \\
& \qquad\qquad \text{R} \leftarrow \text{R} - X_{j}\beta_{j}^{(t+1)} \\
& \qquad \} \\
& \text{Until} \ ||\beta^{(t+1)}-\beta^{(t)}|| < \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ Although our optimization problem is non-convex, we can obtain a sufficient condition so that coordinate descent algorithm converges with our optimization problem. To show the convergence, we need to introduce the concepts of quasi-convex and hemivariate. A function is hemivariate if a function is not constant on any interval which belongs to its domain. A function $f$ is quasi-convex if $$f(x+\lambda d) \leq \max \{ f(x), \, f(x+d) \}, \ \text{for all } x, d \text{ and } \lambda\in [0,1].$$ An example of a function which is quasi-convex and hemivariate is $f(x)=\log(1+|x|)$.
The following lemma is useful for obtaining a sufficient condition that our optimization problem converges with coordinate descent algorithm.
\[lem:1\] Suppose a function $l: \mathbb{R}^p \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
l(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_p) = \frac{1}{2}||y-X\beta ||^2+r\sum_{j=1}^{p} \log(1+|\beta_j|) \\
\end{aligned}$$ and $||X_j||=1$ for all $j=1,\ldots, p$. If $r \leq 1$, then $l_j: \beta_j \mapsto l(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_p)$ is both quasi-convex and hemivariate for all $j=1,\ldots, p$.
See Appendix B.
\[thm:2\] If $||X_j||=1$ for all $j=1,\ldots, p$ and $r \leq 1$, then the solution from coordinate descent algorithm with function $l: \mathbb{R}^p \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ converges to $\hat{\beta}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\beta} &=\ \mathop\mathrm{argmin}_{\beta} \frac{1}{2}||y-X\beta ||^2+r\sum_{j=1}^{p} \log(1+|\beta_j|).
\end{aligned}$$
According to Theorem 5.1 of [@tseng2001cdescent], it suffices to show that (i) $||y-X\beta ||^2$ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}^p$, (ii) $\log(1+|\beta_j|)$ is lower semicontinuous, and (iii) $l_k: \beta_k \mapsto l(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_p)$ is quasi-convex and hemivariate. (i) and (ii) are obvious and (iii) could be shown from Lemma \[lem:1\].
Simulation study {#sec:simul}
================
In this section, we conduct a simulation study in order to demonstrate the novelty of our proposed method. Suppose we have the following nine available covariates $(X_1, \ldots, X_9)$ and response variable $y$ which are generated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& X_1 \sim \mathcal{N}(5,1), \ X_2 \sim \mathcal{N}(-2,1), \ X_3 \sim \mathcal{N}(1,4), \ X_4 \sim \mathcal{N}(3,4), \ X_5 \sim \mathcal{N}(0,4), \\
& X_6 \sim \mathcal{N}(0,9), \ X_7 \sim \mathcal{N}(-3,4), \ X_8 \sim \mathcal{N}(2,1), \ X_9 \sim \mathcal{N}(3,1), \ \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1), \\
& y = -X_1+X_2+X_3-X_4+X_5-X_6+X_7+X_8-X_9+X_2X_3 + \epsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ One can check that if a regression model is calibrated using $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_9)$, then the estimated regression coefficients are all significant. However, even if all covariates are significant by themselves, omission of effective interaction term, $X_2X_3$, can lead to biases in the estimated coefficients and subsequently the lack of fit as illustrated in Figure \[fig:3\]. In Figure \[fig:3\], reduced model means a linear model fitted only with $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_9)$, while true model is a linear model fitted with $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_9, X_2X_3)$.
![\[fig:3\]QQplots for reduced model and true model](qqplots-1.pdf)
On the other hand, including every interaction terms may also end up with an inferior model since it may accumulate noises in the estimation which lead to higher variances in the estimates. As elaborated in @james2013isl, the mean squared error (MSE) of a predicted value under a linear model is determined by both the variance of the predicted value and the squared bias of the estimated regression coefficients as follows: $$\label{eq:4}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb E}\left[y_0-\hat{f}(x_0)\right]^2 &= Var( \hat{f}(x_0)) + [\text{Bias}( \hat{f}(x_0))]^2 +Var(\epsilon) \\
&= (x_0)' \left[Var( \hat{\beta}) + \text{Bias}( \hat{\beta})^2 \right](x_0) + \sigma^2
\end{aligned}$$
From Equation (\[eq:4\]), we note that by including fewer variables in our model with variable selection, we can get lower $Var( \hat{\beta})$. However, it could increase $[\text{Bias}( \hat{\beta})]^2$ due to omitted variable bias (i.e., if a variable has been selected out) or inherent bias of the estimated value because of the penalization. Therefore, it implies that if most of the original variables are significant so that the magnitude of the bias is too high, then the benefit of a reduced $Var( \hat{\beta})$ is offset by a higher $[\text{Bias}( \hat{\beta})]^2$. In this regard, variable selection should be performed carefully to achieve a balance between the bias and variance and get better prediction with lower mean squared error.
To show the novelty of our proposed penalty function, we first obtain 100 replications of simulated samples $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_9, y)$ with sample size 1000 and estimate the regression coefficients based on the following four models:
- **Full model**: a linear model fitted with $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_9)$ and every possible interaction among them,
- **Reduced model**: a linear model fitted only with $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_9)$,
- **LASSO model**: Full model regularized with $L_1$ penalty,
- **LAAD model**: Full model regularized with LAAD penalty.
To evaluate the estimation result under each model, we introduce the following metrics which measure the discrepancy between the true coefficients and estimated coefficients under each model: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Bias for } \beta_{j} &= \frac{1}{100}\sum_{r=1}^{100} (\beta_j - \hat{\beta}_{j(r)}), \ \ \text{Root Mean Squared Error for } \beta_{j} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{100}\sum_{r=1}^{100} (\beta_j - \hat{\beta}_{j(r)})^2}, \\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_j$ means the true value of $j^{th}$ coefficient and $\hat{\beta}_{j(r)}$ refers to the estimated value of $j^{th}$ coefficient with $r^{th}$ simulated sample. According to Table \[tab:1\], **Full model** is most favored in terms of the biases of estimated coefficients, which is reasonable since ordinary least square (OLS) estimator is unbiased. However, one can see MSEs of estimated coefficients under **Full model** is greater than those of **LAAD model** so that **LAAD model** is expected to provide better estimation in general. It is also observed that estimation results with **Reduced model** and **LASSO model** are quite poor, which means use of naive LASSO penalty may not work well.
[lrrrrrrrr]{} & &\
(l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[2-5]{} (l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[6-9]{} & Full & Reduced & LASSO & LAAD & Full & Reduced & LASSO & LAAD\
x1 & -0.006 & 0.216 & -0.010 & 0.006 & 0.082 & 0.222 & 0.039 & 0.025\
x2 & -0.020 & 0.938 & -0.055 & 0.002 & 0.165 & 0.944 & 0.098 & 0.035\
x3 & -0.011 & -1.980 & -0.141 & -0.059 & 0.099 & 1.981 & 0.155 & 0.073\
x4 & 0.003 & 0.029 & 0.047 & 0.002 & 0.116 & 0.046 & 0.069 & 0.018\
x5 & 0.012 & -0.001 & -0.077 & -0.009 & 0.123 & 0.038 & 0.109 & 0.018\
x6 & -0.004 & 0.002 & 0.057 & 0.003 & 0.088 & 0.023 & 0.077 & 0.012\
x7 & 0.004 & -0.031 & -0.040 & -0.005 & 0.114 & 0.046 & 0.064 & 0.016\
x8 & -0.003 & 0.089 & -0.116 & -0.051 & 0.180 & 0.109 & 0.142 & 0.058\
x9 & 0.012 & 0.123 & 0.042 & 0.020 & 0.148 & 0.137 & 0.074 & 0.038\
‘x1 : x6’ & 0.001 & 0.000 & -0.004 & 0.000 & 0.012 & 0.000 & 0.008 & 0.000\
‘x2 : x3’ & -0.001 & -1.000 & -0.024 & -0.024 & 0.016 & 1.000 & 0.029 & 0.029\
‘x3 : x4’ & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.002 & 0.000 & 0.008 & 0.000 & 0.006 & 0.000\
‘x4 : x6’ & 0.000 & 0.000 & -0.001 & 0.000 & 0.005 & 0.000 & 0.004 & 0.000\
Besides the values of estimated coefficients, it is also of interest to have the ability to capture correct degree of sparsity in a model with the following measures: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Mean } L_1 \text{ norm difference} &= \frac{1}{100}\sum_{r=1}^{100}\sum_{j=1}^p |\beta_j - \hat{\beta}_{j(r)}|, \ \ \text{Mean } L_0 \text{ norm difference} = \frac{1}{100}\sum_{r=1}^{100}\sum_{j=1}^p |\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \beta_j =0 \}}-\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \hat{\beta}_{j(r)}=0 \}}|.
\end{aligned}$$ Table \[tab:2\] shows how **LAAD model** captures the sparsity of the true model correctly. One can see that **LAAD model** shows the least mean $L_1$ and $L_0$ norm differences while **Full model** fails to capture the sparsity of the true model. Therefore, this simulation supports the assertion that our proposed LAAD penalty can be utilized in practice with better performance.
[lrrrr]{} & Full & Reduced & LASSO & LAAD\
Mean $L_1$ norm difference & 1.351 & 4.478 & 0.88 & 0.272\
Mean $L_0$ norm difference & 35.000 & 1.000 & 19.07 & 0.440\
Empirical analysis: application in loss development methods {#sec:insurance}
===========================================================
Data characteristics {#sub:data}
--------------------
A dataset from ACE Limited 2011 Global Loss Triangles is used for our empirical analysis which is shown in Tables 3 and 4. This dataset is summarization of two lines of insurance business including **General Liability** and **Other Casualty** in the form of reported claim triangles.
Given dataset can also be expressed in the following way: $$\label{eq:trn}
\mathcal{D}_{1:I} = \{Y_{ij}^{(n)}:1 \leq i \leq I \,\text{ and } \,1 \leq j \leq \min(I, I+1-i),\, n=1,2 \},$$ where $Y_{ij}^{(n)}$ means the reported clam for $n^{th}$ line of insurance business in $i^{th}$ accident year with $j^{th}$ development lag. Note that $I=10$ in our case.
Based on the reported claim data (upper triangle), an insurance company needs to predict ultimate claim (lower triangle) described as follows: $$\label{eq:tst}
\mathcal{D}_{I+k} = \{Y_{ij}^{(n)}:1+k \leq i \leq I \,\text{ and } \, j = I+1+k-i,\, n=1,2 \}.$$
[lrrrrrrrrrr]{} & DL 1 & DL 2 & DL 3 & DL 4 & DL 5 & DL 6 & DL 7 & DL 8 & DL 9 & DL 10\
AY 1 & 87,133 & 146,413 & 330,129 & 417,377 & 456,124 & 556,588 & 563,699 & 570,371 & 598,839 & 607,665\
AY 2 & 78,132 & 296,891 & 470,464 & 485,708 & 510,283 & 568,528 & 591,838 & 662,023 & 644,021 &\
AY 3 & 175,592 & 233,149 & 325,726 & 449,556 & 532,233 & 617,848 & 660,776 & 678,142 & &\
AY 4 & 143,874 & 342,952 & 448,157 & 599,545 & 786,951 & 913,238 & 971,329 & & &\
AY 5 & 140,233 & 284,151 & 424,930 & 599,393 & 680,687 & 770,348 & & & &\
AY 6 & 137,492 & 323,953 & 535,326 & 824,561 & 1,056,066 & & & & &\
AY 7 & 143,536 & 350,646 & 558,391 & 708,947 & & & & & &\
AY 8 & 142,149 & 317,203 & 451,810 & & & & & & &\
AY 9 & 128,809 & 298,374 & & & & & & & &\
AY 10 & 136,082 & & & & & & & & &\
[lrrrrrrrrrr]{} & DL 1 & DL 2 & DL 3 & DL 4 & DL 5 & DL 6 & DL 7 & DL 8 & DL 9 & DL 10\
AY 1 & 201,702 & 262,233 & 279,314 & 313,632 & 296,073 & 312,315 & 308,072 & 309,532 & 310,710 & 297,929\
AY 2 & 202,361 & 240,051 & 265,869 & 302,303 & 347,636 & 364,091 & 358,962 & 361,851 & 355,373 &\
AY 3 & 243,469 & 289,974 & 343,664 & 360,833 & 372,574 & 373,362 & 382,361 & 380,258 & &\
AY 4 & 338,857 & 359,745 & 391,942 & 411,723 & 430,550 & 442,790 & 437,408 & & &\
AY 5 & 253,271 & 336,945 & 372,591 & 393,272 & 408,099 & 415,102 & & & &\
AY 6 & 247,272 & 347,841 & 392,010 & 425,802 & 430,843 & & & & &\
AY 7 & 411,645 & 612,109 & 651,992 & 688,353 & & & & & &\
AY 8 & 254,447 & 368,721 & 405,869 & & & & & & &\
AY 9 & 373,039 & 494,306 & & & & & & & &\
AY 10 & 453,496 & & & & & & & & &\
Note that although it may be natural to consider a possible dependence among different lines of business, here we refrain from incorporating dependence in this paper in order to focus on variable selection via LAAD penalty. For this reason, we note without the superscript which denotes each line of business. Those who are interested in the dependence modeling among different lines of business might refer to @shi2012multireserve and @jeong2019vinereserving.
Model specifications and estimation {#sub:model}
-----------------------------------
In our search for a loss development model, we use cross-classfied model which was also introduced in @shi2011depreserve and @taylor2016. For each line of business, unconstrained lognormal cross-classified model is formulated as follows: $$\label{eq:unconst}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb E}\left[ \log {Y_{ij}} \right] =\mu_{ij}=\gamma+\alpha_i + \delta_j,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ means the overall mean of the losses from the line of business, $\alpha_i$ is the effect for $i^{th}$ accident year and $\delta_j$ means the cumulative development at $j^{th}$ year.
[lrrrr]{} & &\
(l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[2-3]{} (l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[4-5]{} & Estimate & Pr(>|t|) & Estimate & Pr(>|t|)\
$\gamma$ & 11.382 & 0.000 & 12.173 & 0.000\
$\delta_2$ & 0.789 & 0.000 & 0.260 & 0.000\
$\delta_3$ & 1.236 & 0.000 & 0.359 & 0.000\
$\delta_4$ & 1.515 & 0.000 & 0.430 & 0.000\
$\delta_5$ & 1.673 & 0.000 & 0.464 & 0.000\
$\delta_6$ & 1.779 & 0.000 & 0.491 & 0.000\
$\delta_7$ & 1.825 & 0.000 & 0.489 & 0.000\
$\delta_8$ & 1.850 & 0.000 & 0.506 & 0.000\
$\delta_9$ & 1.874 & 0.000 & 0.508 & 0.000\
$\delta_{10}$ & 1.936 & 0.000 & 0.432 & 0.000\
$\alpha_2$ & 0.168 & 0.020 & 0.065 & 0.027\
$\alpha_3$ & 0.221 & 0.004 & 0.188 & 0.000\
$\alpha_4$ & 0.505 & 0.000 & 0.370 & 0.000\
$\alpha_5$ & 0.396 & 0.000 & 0.282 & 0.000\
$\alpha_6$ & 0.616 & 0.000 & 0.323 & 0.000\
$\alpha_7$ & 0.570 & 0.000 & 0.835 & 0.000\
$\alpha_8$ & 0.461 & 0.000 & 0.347 & 0.000\
$\alpha_9$ & 0.410 & 0.002 & 0.667 & 0.000\
$\alpha_{10}$ & 0.439 & 0.010 & 0.852 & 0.000\
Adj-$R^2$ & 0.999 & & 0.999 &\
Although the constrained lognormal regression model shows us nearly perfect fit in terms of adjusted $R^2$, there are two issues which need to be considered. Firstly, it is natural that incremental reported loss amount gradually decreases while cumulative reported loss amount still increases until it is developed to ultimate level, which is equivalent to $\delta_j \geq \delta_{j'}$ for $j \geq j'$. It is observed, however, that estimated values $\delta_j$ do not show that pattern for both lines of business in Table \[tab:naive\]. Secondly, it is known that development of loss is recorded usually for ten years in the triangle which follows the format of Schedule P, the NAIC-mandated Annual Statement. However, it is also known that there can be a claim which takes much more than ten years to be finalized in a long-tail line of P&C insurance such as workers compensation. Therefore, one needs to consider the ‘tail development factor’, which accounts for the magnitude of loss development from a finite stage of development to ultimate.
In order to handle aforementioned issues simultaneously, we propose a penalized cross-classfied model. Since both $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ are nuisance parameters in terms of tail factor selction, we modify the formulation in (\[eq:unconst\]) in the following way: $$\label{eq:inc}
C_{i,j+1} := \log \frac{{Y_{i,j+1}}}{Y_{i,j}} \text{ and } \ C_{i,j+1} \sim {\mathcal{N}} \left(\eta_{j+1},{\sigma}^2 \right) \ \text{where } \delta_j=\sum_{l=1}^j \eta_l.$$ In this formulation, $\eta_l$ can be interpreted as incremental development factor from $(l-1)^{th}$ year to $l^{th}$ year so that if $\eta_{L+1}=0$ for a certain value of $L$, then it implies there is no more development of loss after $L$ years of development and $\eta_L$ would determine the tail factor. Therefore, this formulation allows us to systematically choose tail factor based on variable selection procedure performed with penalized regression on given data, not by a subjective judgment. In that regard, we propose the following three model specifications:
- **Unconstrained model** - a model which minimizes the following for each line of business: $$\sum_{i=1}^I \sum_{j=1}^{I-i} \left({C_{i,j+1}} - \eta_{j+1}\right)^2,$$
- **LASSO constrained model** - a model which minimizes the following for each line of business with LASSO penalty: $$\sum_{i=1}^I \sum_{j=1}^{I-i} \left({C_{i,j+1}} - \eta_{j+1}\right)^2 + \lambda \left[ \sum_{j=2}^{J-1} |\eta_{j+1}| \right],$$
- **LAAD constrained model** - a model which minimizes the following for each line of business with LAAD penalty: $$\sum_{i=1}^I \sum_{j=1}^{I-i} \left({C_{i,j+1}} - \eta_{j+1}\right)^2 + r \left[ \sum_{j=2}^{J-1} \log ( 1+|\eta_{j+1}|) \right].$$
Note that for both of LASSO and LAAD constrained models, $\eta_{2}$ is not penalized in estimation in order to avoid underreserving issue due to penalization.
When a variable selection via penalization is implemented, it is required to set the tuning parameter which controls the magnitude of penalty, either via cross-validation or based on prior knowledge. In our search for the tuning parameter for LASSO constrained model, usual cross-validation method is applied with *glmnet* routine in *R* to choose optimal $\lambda$ so that the average of root mean squared errors (RMSEs) on n-fold cross-validation with each value of tuning parameters are examined and a value is chosen which yields the smallest average of cross-validation RMSEs. For detail, see [@friedman2009glmnet].
For the calibration of the tuning parameter for LAAD constrained model, we apply the idea of prior elicitation in Bayesian statistics. One can recall that derivation of LAAD penalty was based on a hierarchical Bayesian model. In this sense, calibration of the tuning parameter for LAAD penalty is equivalent to the elicitation of Laplace hyperprior. Based on our experience reserve modeling and theoretical background on penalization method, we hope that incremental loss development is decreasing as the development lag increases while it remains non-negative and also induces bias because penalization should not be too large. Therefore, we choose optimal $r$ as the smallest value among the tuning parameters satisfying $\hat{\eta}_2 \geq \hat{\eta}_3 \geq \cdots \geq \hat{\eta}_J \geq 0$ in their resulting estimation.
Note that apart from the choice of tuning parameters, we also need to consider different attributes of covariates (for example, binary, ordinal, discrete, or continuous) when we do variable selection via penalization. However, since the covariates used in our empirical analysis are all binary factor variables, we can claim that either direct use of $L_1$ penalty or its transformation is innocuous. For the variable selection on the covariates with diverse attributes, see @devriendt2018sparse.
Once the parameters are estimated in each model, the corresponding incremental development factor $j^{th}$ lag can be also estimated as $\exp (\hat{\zeta}_j )$, based on the formulation of lognormal cross-classified model. Table \[tab:6\] summarizes the estimated results of incremental development factors for the three calibrated models. One can see that the unconstrained model deviates from our expectations on the development pattern. For example, in the case of General Liability, incremental development factor of $7^{th}$ lag is less than that of $8^{th}$ lag. In the case of Other Casualty, it is also shown that incremental development factor of $9^{th}$ lag is less than 1, which is not intuitive as well. Further, the unconstrained model also fails to estimate a tail factor. With regard to the LASSO constrained model, it is clear that naive implementation of variable selection is not working on this example. Even after the cross-validation procedure which picks the best value of $\lambda$ for each of business line, the resulting estimates are less reasonable to explain loss development pattern. For instance, in the case of Other Casualty, estimated incremental loss development factors for $9^{th}$ and $10^{th}$ lags are still less than 1. Finally, we see that the LAAD constrained model ends up with reasonable estimates so that $\hat{\eta}_2 \geq \hat{\eta}_3 \geq \cdots \geq \hat{\eta}_J \geq 0$ is always satisfied for both business lines and tail factors are well estimated with a pattern that is intuitive. For example, in the case of Other Casualty, we have $\hat{\eta}_8^{(2)} = \hat{\eta}_9^{(2)}=\hat{\eta}_{10}^{(2)}=0$ so that $\exp(\hat{\eta}_6^{(2)})=1.0085$ is given as the tail factor.
[lrrrrrr]{} & &\
(l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[2-4]{} (l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[5-7]{} & Unconstrained & LASSO & LAAD & Unconstrained & LASSO & LAAD\
$\exp{(\eta_2)}$ & 2.2022 & 2.3203 & 2.4066 & 1.2975 & 1.3064 & 1.3570\
$\exp{(\eta_3)}$ & 1.5681 & 1.5514 & 1.5408 & 1.1052 & 1.1016 & 1.0876\
$\exp{(\eta_4)}$ & 1.3108 & 1.2956 & 1.2846 & 1.0792 & 1.0754 & 1.0606\
$\exp{(\eta_5)}$ & 1.1723 & 1.1574 & 1.1458 & 1.0352 & 1.0312 & 1.0157\
$\exp{(\eta_6)}$ & 1.1569 & 1.1407 & 1.1281 & 1.0298 & 1.0254 & 1.0085\
$\exp{(\eta_7)}$ & 1.0465 & 1.0299 & 1.0164 & 0.9959 & 1.0000 & 1.0000\
$\exp{(\eta_8)}$ & 1.0512 & 1.0317 & 1.0163 & 1.0024 & 1.0000 & 1.0000\
$\exp{(\eta_9)}$ & 1.0106 & 1.0000 & 1.0000 & 0.9929 & 0.9998 & 1.0000\
$\exp{(\eta_{10})}$ & 1.0147 & 1.0000 & 1.0000 & 0.9589 & 0.9685 & 1.0000\
Model validation {#sub:val}
----------------
To validate the predictive models for loss development, calibrated using the training set (upper loss triangles) $\mathcal{D}_{1:10}$ defined in (\[eq:trn\]), we use cumulative (or incremental) payments of claims for calendar year 2012 as a validation set, obtained from ACE Limited 2012 Global Loss Triangles. Note that those data points can be described as $\mathcal{D}_{11} = \{Y{_{ij}}: 2 \leq i \leq 10 \text{ and } j = 12-i, n=1,2\}$.
Based on the estimated incremental development factor, one can predict cumulative (or incremental) payments of claims for the subsequent calendar year. For example, according to the model specification in (\[eq:inc\]), it is possible to predict the cumulative payment for $i^{th}$ accident year at $j+1^{th}$ lag as of $j^{th}$ lag as follows: $$\hat{Y}_{i,j+1} = Y_{i,j} \times {\mathbb E}\left[Y_{i,j+1}/Y_{i,j}\right] = Y_{i,j} \times {\mathbb E}\left[\exp(C_{i,j+1})\right] =Y_{i,j} \times \exp(\eta_{j+1}+\frac{1}{2} {\sigma}^2).$$ Table \[tab:7\] provides the predicted values of incremental claims under each model and the actual values as well. According to the table, we can see that in case of Other Casualty line, both unconstrained and LASSO models fail to predict the paid claims for mature years which may lead to underreserving.
It is also possible to evaluate the performance of prediction based on usual validation measures such as root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) defined as follows, where smaller values of RMSE and MAE indicate preferred model: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{RMSE } =: \sqrt{\frac{1}{9}\sum_{i=2}^{10} (\hat{Y}_{i,12-i} - Y_{i,12-i})^2}, \quad \text{MAE }=: \frac{1}{9}\sum_{i=2}^{10} |\hat{Y}_{i,12-i} - Y_{i,12-i}|.
\end{aligned}$$
Table \[tab:8\] shows us that LAAD model is the most preferred in terms of prediction performance measured by RMSE and MAE in both lines of business.
[lrrrrrr]{} & &\
(l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[2-4]{} (l[3pt]{}r[3pt]{})[5-7]{} & Unconstrained & LASSO & LAAD & Unconstrained & LASSO & LAAD\
RMSE & 45447.55 & 39250.54 & 36573.14 & 14075.55 & 12506.03 & 9919.94\
MAE & 28395.27 & 24200.97 & 23778.28 & 10738.65 & 9478.27 & 7685.04\
Finally, to account for uncertainty of parameter estimation in each model, we incorporate the bootstrap approach to simulate unpaid claims for subsequent calendar year under each model. Similar bootstrap approach has been done in @shi2011depreserve and @gao2018bayesian. From Figure \[fig:4\], one can see that simulated unpaid claims under LAAD model is the closest to the actual unpaid claims for that year in General Liability line, while all three models show similar behavior in case of Other Casualty line. Details of simulation scheme with bootstrap is provided in Appendix C.
![\[fig:4\]Predictive density of incremental reported losses for each model via Bootstrap](bootstrap-1.pdf)
Concluding remarks {#sec:conclude}
==================
In this paper, we introduce LAAD penalty derived from the use of Laplace hyperprior for the $\lambda$ in Bayesian LASSO. It is also shown that the proposed penalization method has some good properties such as variable selection with reversion to the true regression coefficients, analytic solution for the univariate case, and an optimization algorithm for the multivariate case which converges under modest condition via coordinate descent. The novelty of the proposed method is also shown with a simulation study. In the simulation study, use of LAAD penalty outperforms the other methods such as OLS or LASSO penalization in terms of better prediction and the ability to capture the correct level of model sparsity. Finally, we also explore a possible use of LAAD penalty in actuarial application, especially calibration of loss development model and tail factor selection. According to the results of the empirical analysis, one can see that use of LAAD penalty ended up with reasonable loss development pattern while the other methods deviate from that pattern. As future research work, with several advantages described in this paper, it is expected that one can apply regularization method with LAAD penalty not only to aggregate loss reserving model but also to individual loss reserving model, which would naturally incorporate many more covariates.
It is easy to see that $\hat{\theta}\times z \geq 0$ so we can start from the case that $z$ is not a negative number. Then we have the following: $$\begin{aligned}
&l'(\theta|r,z)=(\theta-z)+\frac{r}{1+\theta}, \ l''(\theta|r,z)=1-\frac{r}{(1+\theta)^2}, \\
&l'(\theta^*)=0 \Leftarrow \theta^* = \frac{z-1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $z=r=1$, then $l''(\theta)=(\theta^2+2\theta)/(1+\theta)^2 > 0$ for $\theta>0$ and $\theta^*=0$. Thus, $\hat{\theta}=0$.
Case 1) $z \geq r$
Since $\hat{\theta}$ should be non-negative, we just need to consider $\theta^* = \frac{z-1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}$. If $z \leq 1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&4(1+\theta^*)^2 \geq (z+1+|z-1|)^2 = 2^2 > 4r \ \Rightarrow \ \therefore \ l''(\theta^*|r,z)>0.
\end{aligned}$$ If $z>1$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&4(1+\theta^*)^2 \geq (z+1+|z-1|)^2 = 4z^2 > 4z \geq 4r \ \Rightarrow \ \therefore \ l''(\theta^*|r,z)>0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for both cases we have only one local minimum point $\theta^*$ for $l'(\theta|r,z)$ and $\theta^*$ is indeed, a global minimum point so that $\hat{\theta}= \frac{z-1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}$.
Case 2) $z < r, z < 1$
In this case, $\theta^* < 0$ so that $l'(\theta|r,z) >0$ $\forall \theta \geq 0$. Therefore, $l(\theta|r,z)$ strictly increasing and $\hat{\theta}= 0$.
Case 3) $r \geq (\frac{z+1}{2})^2$
In this case, $\theta^* \notin \mathbb{R}$. Moreover, $(\frac{z+1}{2})^2 \geq z$, $l'(0|r,z) =r-z \geq 0$ and $l'(\theta|r,z) >0$ $\forall \theta > 0$. Therefore, $\hat{\theta}= 0$.
Case 4) $1 \leq z < r < (\frac{z+1}{2})^2$
Here, let $\theta^{*}=\frac{z-1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}$ and $\theta^{'}=\frac{z-1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}$. Now, let us show that $\theta^{*}$ is the local minimum of $l(\theta|r,z)$ - which only requires to show that $l''(\theta^{*}|r,z)>0$. Again, it suffices to show that $4(1+\theta^{*})^2 > 4r$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&4(1+\theta^{*})^2 = (z+1+\sqrt{(z+1)^2-4r})^2 > (z+1)^2+(z+1)^2- 4r > 4r\ \Rightarrow \ \therefore \ l''(\theta^{*}|r,z)>0.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\theta^{*}$ is a local minimum of $l(\theta|r,z)$ and $\hat{\theta}$ would be either $\theta^{*}$ or $0$. So in this case, we have to compute $\Delta(z|r) = l(\theta^{*}|r,z)-l(0|r,z)$ and $$\hat{\theta} = \begin{cases}
\theta^{*} \ , \quad \text{if } \Delta(z|r) < 0, \\
0 \quad, \quad \text{if } \Delta(z|r) > 0
\end{cases}$$ Note that for fixed $r$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(z|r) &= \frac{1}{2}(\theta^{*})^2-\theta^{*}z+r\log(1+\theta^{*}), \\
\Delta'(z|r) &= (\theta^{*}-z+\frac{r}{1+\theta^{*}})\frac{\partial \theta^{*}}{\partial z} -\theta^{*} \\
&= -\theta^{*} \quad (\because \ l(\theta^{*}|r,z)=\theta^{*}-z+\frac{r}{1+\theta^{*}}=0)
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\Delta(z|r)$ is strictly decreasing with respect to $z$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(z|r) &= \frac{1}{2}(\theta^{*})^2-\theta^{*}z+r\log(1+\theta^{*}) \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{z-1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}\right)^2 -\left(\frac{z-1}{2} \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}\right)z \\
& \quad + r \log\left(\frac{z+1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}\right) = 0
\end{aligned}$$ has unique solution because $\Delta(z|r)<0 \Leftrightarrow \hat{\theta}=\theta^{*}$ if $z=r$ and $\Delta(z|r)>0 \Leftrightarrow \hat{\theta}=0$ if $z=2\sqrt{r}-1$. Hence $$\hat{\theta} = \left(\frac{z-1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2+4z-4r}}{2}\right)(\mathbbm{1}_{ \{z\geq z^*(r) \}}).$$ where $z^*(r)$ is the unique solution of $\Delta(z|r)=0$ for given $r$. See Figure \[fig:5\].
![\[fig:5\]Distribution of optimizer along with r and z](solregion-1.pdf)
Once we get a result for $z \geq 0$, we can use the same approach to $l(\theta|r,-z)$ when $z<0$.
Suppose $\beta_j$ is fixed as $w_j$ for all $j=1,\ldots, k-1,k+1, \ldots, p$. Then we can observe that $$\begin{aligned}
l_k(\theta) &= \frac{1}{2} \bigg|\bigg| (y-\sum_{j\ne k}X_j w_j)-X_k\theta \bigg|\bigg|^2 + r \log(1+|\theta|) + r\sum_{j \ne k} \log(1+|w_j|) \\
&=\frac{1}{2} || t_k -X_k\theta||^2+r \log(1+|\theta|) + r\sum_{j \ne k} \log(1+|w_j|) \\
&=\frac{1}{2} (\theta'X'_kX_k\theta -2\theta X_k't_k+t_k't_k) + r \log(1+|\theta|) + r\sum_{j \ne k} \log(1+|w_j|) \\
&=\frac{1}{2} (\theta-z_k)^2 + r \log(1+|\theta|) + C_k \\
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_k =\frac{1}{2}(t_k't_k-t_k'X_k X_k't_k) + r\sum_{j \ne k} \log(1+|\beta_j|)$ and $z_k=X_k't_k$.\
As usual, we can start from the case that $z_k\geq 0$. First, one can easily check that $l_k(\theta)$ is a decreasing function of $\theta$ where $\theta \leq0$ and $z_k\geq 0$. When $\theta > 0$, according to the arguments in the proof of Theorem 1, $l_k(\theta)$ is strictly decreasing when $\theta \in (0,\theta^*]$ and strictly increasing when $\theta \in [\theta^*,\infty)$ if $r$ and $z_k$ belong to Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3. Note that if $r\leq 1$, then we may exclude Case 4. Therefore, $l_k(\theta)$ is hemivariate and quasi-convex if $z_k\geq 0$ and also if $z_k < 0$ because of the symmetry of penalty term.
- Simulate $\{\hat{c}_{ij[r]} |\, i=1,\ldots, I,\, j=1,\ldots J-I+1, \,n=1,2\}$ where $\log \hat{c}_{ij[r]} \sim \mathcal{N}(\hat{\eta}_{ij}, \hat{\sigma}^{2})$.
- Using the simulated values of $\hat{c}_{ij[r]}$ in step (1), estimate bootstrap replication of the parameters $\{(\hat{\eta}_{ij[r]}, \hat{\sigma}_{[r]}^{2})|\,i=1,\ldots, I,\, j=1,\ldots J-I+1, \,n=1,2 \}$.
- Based on $(\hat{\eta}_{ij[r]}, \hat{\sigma}_{[r]}^{2})$, predict the unpaid loss ${L}$ for the next year which is given as follows: $$\hat{L}_{[r]} =\sum_{i=2}^{10} \left(\exp{(\hat{\eta}_{i,12-i[r]}+\hat{\sigma}_{[r]}^{2}/2)}-1\right) y_{i,11-i}$$ Note that the values of $y_{i,11-i}$ for $i=2, \ldots, 10$ and $n=1,2$ are already known in advance from the training set.
- Repeat steps (1), (2), and (3) for $r=1, \ldots, R$ to obtain the predictive distribution and standard error of ${L}$.
[^1]: [](mailto:[email protected]); Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, 341 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT, 06268-1009, USA.
[^2]: [](mailto:[email protected]); Department of Statistics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-3143, USA.
[^3]: [](mailto:[email protected]); Corresponding author, Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, 341 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT, 06268-1009, USA.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We are interested in subgroups of the reals that are small in one and large in another sense. We prove that, in ZFC, there exists a non–meager Lebesgue null subgroup of ${{\mathbb R}}$, while it is consistent that there there is no non–null meager subgroup of ${{\mathbb R}}$. This answers a question from Filipczak, Ros[ł]{}anowski and Shelah [@FRSh:1031].'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Nebraska at Omaha\
Omaha, NE 68182-0243, USA
- |
Institute of Mathematics\
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem\
91904 Jerusalem, Israel\
and Department of Mathematics\
Rutgers University\
New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA
author:
- 'Andrzej Ros[ł]{}anowski'
- Saharon Shelah
date: 'May 23, 2016'
title: 'Small–large subgroups of the reals'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Subgroups of the reals which are small in one and large in another sense were crucial in Filipczak, Ros[ł]{}anowski and Shelah [@FRSh:1031]. If there is a non–meager Lebesgue null subgroup of $({{\mathbb R}},+)$, then there is no translation invariant Borel hull operation on the $\sigma$–ideal ${{\mathcal N}}$ of Lebesgue null sets. That is, there is no mapping $\psi$ from ${{\mathcal N}}$ to Borel sets such that for each null set $A\subseteq {{\mathbb R}}$:
- $A\subseteq \psi(A)$ and $\psi(A)$ is null, and
- $\psi(A+t)=\psi(A)+t$ for every $t\in {{\mathbb R}}$.
Parallel claims hold true if “Lebesgue null” is interchanged with “meager” and/or $({{\mathbb R}},+)$ is replaced with $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$.
If ${{\mathcal M}}$ is the $\sigma$–ideal of meager subsets of ${{\mathbb R}}$ (and ${{\mathcal N}}$ is the null ideal on ${{\mathbb R}}$) and $\{{{\mathcal I}},{{\mathcal J}}\}=\{{{\mathcal N}},{{\mathcal M}}\}$, then various set theoretic assumptions imply the existence of a subgroup of ${{\mathbb R}}$ which belongs to ${{\mathcal I}}$ but not to ${{\mathcal J}}$. But in [@FRSh:1031 Problem 4.1] we asked if the existence of such subgroups can be shown in ZFC. This question is interesting [*per se*]{}, regardless of its connections to translation invariant Borel hulls.
The present paper presents two theorems. First, in Theorem \[firstres\] we give ZFC examples of null non-meager subgroups of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$ and $({{\mathbb R}},+)$, respectively. Next in Theorem \[mainthm\] we show that it is consistent with ZFC that every meager subgroup of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$ and/or $({{\mathbb R}},+)$ has Lebesgue measure zero. This answers [@FRSh:1031 Problem 4.1]. Also, our results give another example of a strange asymmetry between measure and category.
[**Notation**]{}Our notation is rather standard and compatible with that of classical textbooks (like Jech [@J] or Bartoszyński and Judah [@BaJu95]). However, in forcing we keep the older convention that [*a stronger condition is the larger one*]{}.
1. The Cantor space ${{}^{\omega}2}$ of all infinite sequences with values 0 and 1 is equipped with the natural product topology, the product measure $\lambda$ and the group operation of coordinate-wise addition $+_2$ modulo 2.
2. Ordinal numbers will be denoted be the lower case initial letters of the Greek alphabet $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$. Finite ordinals (non-negative integers) will be denoted by letters $i,j,k,\ell,m,n$ while integers will be called $L,M$.
3. Most of our intervals will be intervals of non-negative integers, so $[m,n)=\{k\in \omega: m\leq k<n\}$ etc. They will be denoted by letter $J$ (with possible indices). However, we will also use the notation $[0,1)$ to denote the unit interval of reals.
4. The Greek letter $\kappa$ will stand for an uncountable cardinal such that $\kappa^{\aleph_0} = \kappa\geq\aleph_2$.
5. For a forcing notion ${{\mathbb P}}$, all ${{\mathbb P}}$–names for objects in the extension via ${{\mathbb P}}$ will be denoted with a tilde below (e.g., $\name{\tau}$, $\name{X}$), and $\name{G}_{{\mathbb P}}$ will stand for the canonical ${{\mathbb P}}$–name for the generic filter in ${{\mathbb P}}$.
6. We fix a well ordering $\prec^*$ of all hereditarily finite sets.
7. The set of all partial finite functions with domains included in $\omega$ and with values in $2$ is denoted ${{}^{\mathunderaccent\smile-3 \omega}2}$.
Null non–meager
===============
Here we will give a ZFC construction of a non–meager Lebesgue null subgroup of the reals. The main construction is done in ${{}^{\omega}2}$ and then we transfer it to ${{\mathbb R}}$ using the standard binary expansion ${{\bf E}}$.
\[binexp\] Let $D_0^\infty=\{x\in {{}^{\omega}2}:(\exists^\infty i<\omega)(x(i)=0)\}$ and for $x\in D^\infty_0$ let ${{\bf E}}(x)=\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty x(i)2^{-(i+1)}$.
\[expanding\]
1. The function ${{\bf E}}:D^\infty_0\longrightarrow [0,1)$ is a continuous bijection, it preserves both the measure and the category.
2. Assume that
1. $x,y,z\in D^\infty_0$, ${{\bf E}}(z)={{\bf E}}(x)+{{\bf E}}(y)$ modulo 1, and
2. $n<m<\omega$ and both $x{{\restriction}}[n,m]$ and $y{{\restriction}}[n,m]$ are constant.
Then $z{{\restriction}}[n,m-1]$ is constant.
3. Assume that
1. $x,y\in D^\infty_0$, $0<{{\bf E}}(x)$ and ${{\bf E}}(y)=1-{{\bf E}}(x)$,
2. $n<m<\omega$ and $x{{\restriction}}[n,m]$ is constant.
Then $y{{\restriction}}[n,m-1]$ is constant.
(1)Well known.
(2,3)Straightforward (just consider the possible constant values and analyze how the addition is performed).
\[firstres\]
1. There exists a null non-meager subgroup of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$.
2. There exists a null non-meager subgroup of $({{\mathbb R}},+)$.
(1)For $k\in\omega$ let $n_k=\frac{1}{2}k(k+1)$ and let $D$ be a non-principal ultrafilter on $\omega$. Define $$H_D=\Big\{x\in {{}^{\omega}2}:\big(\exists m<\omega\big)\big(\exists j<2\big)
\big(\big\{k>m: x{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-m)\equiv j\big\}\in D \big)
\Big\}.$$
1. $H_D$ is a subgroup of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$.
Why? Suppose that $x_0,x_1\in H_D$ and let $m_\ell<\omega$ and $j_\ell<2$ be such that $$A_\ell\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\big\{k>m_\ell: x_\ell{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}
-m_\ell)\equiv j_\ell\big\}\in D.$$ Let $m=\max(m_0,m_1)$ and $j=j_0-_2 j_1$. Then $A_0\cap A_1\in D$ and for each $k\in A_0\cap A_1$ we have $(x_0-_2 x_2){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-m)\equiv
j$. Hence $x_0-_2 x_1\in H_D$.
1. $H_D\in{{\mathcal N}}$.
Why? For each $m<k<\omega$ and $j<2$ we have $$\lambda(\{x\in{{}^{\omega}2}: x{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-m)\equiv j\})=2^{m-(k+1)}$$ and therefore for each $m<\omega$ and $j<2$ $$\lambda(\{x\in{{}^{\omega}2}: (\exists ^\infty k)(x{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-m)\equiv
j)\})=0.$$ Now note that $H_D\subseteq \bigcup\limits_{m<\omega}\bigcup\limits_{j<2}
\big\{x\in{{}^{\omega}2}: (\exists ^\infty k)(x{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-m)\equiv
j)\big\}$.
1. $H_D\notin {{\mathcal M}}$.
Why? Suppose that $W$ is a dense $\Pi^0_2$ subset of ${{}^{\omega}2}$. Then we may choose an increasing sequence $\langle k_i:i\in\omega\rangle$ and a function $f\in {{}^{\omega}2}$ such that $$\Big\{x\in{{}^{\omega}2}: \big(\exists^\infty i\big)\big(x{{\restriction}}[n_{k_i},n_{k_{i+1}})=
f{{\restriction}}[n_{k_i},n_{k_{i+1}})\big)\Big\}\subseteq W.$$ Let $A=\bigcup \{[k_{2i},k_{2i+1}):i\in\omega\}$ and $B=\bigcup \{[k_{2i+1},k_{2i+2}):i\in\omega\}$. Then either $A\in D$ or $B\in D$. Let $x_A,x_B\in{{}^{\omega}2}$ be such that, for each $i\in \omega$, $$\begin{array}{l}
x_A{{\restriction}}[n_{k_{2i}},n_{k_{2i+1}})\equiv 0,\quad
x_A{{\restriction}}[n_{k_{2i+1}},n_{k_{2i+2}})=f{{\restriction}}n_{k_{2i+1}},n_{k_{2i+2}})\quad
\mbox{ and}\\
x_B{{\restriction}}[n_{k_{2i+1}},n_{k_{2i+2}})\equiv 0,\quad
x_B{{\restriction}}[n_{k_{2i}},n_{k_{2i+1}})=f{{\restriction}}n_{k_{2i}},n_{k_{2i+1}}).
\end{array}$$ Then $x_A,x_B\in W$ and either $x_A\in H_D$ or $x_B\in H_D$. Consequently, $W\cap
H_D\neq\emptyset$.
(2)Consider $H_D^*={{\bf E}}[H_D\cap D^\infty_0]+{{\mathbb Z}}$. It follows from \[expanding\](1) that $H_D^*$ is a Lebesgue null meager subset of ${{\mathbb R}}$. We will show that it is a subgroup of $({{\mathbb R}},+)$.
Suppose that $x_0,x_1\in H_D\cap D^\infty_0$ and $L_0,L_1\in{{\mathbb Z}}$ and we will argue that $({{\bf E}}(x_0)+L_0)+({{\bf E}}(x_1)+L_1)\in H_D^*$. Let $m_\ell<\omega$ be such that $$A_\ell\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\big\{k>m_\ell: x_\ell{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}
-m_\ell)\mbox{ is constant }\big\}\in D$$ and let $m=\max(m_0,m_1)+1$. Choose $y\in D^\infty_0$ and $M\in \{0,1\}$ such that ${{\bf E}}(x_0)+{{\bf E}}(x_1)={{\bf E}}(y)+M$. It follows from \[expanding\](2) that for every $k\in A_0\cap A_1$, $k>m$, we have that $y{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1} -m)$ is constant and since $A_0\cap A_1\in D$ we conclude $y\in
H_D$. Consequently, $({{\bf E}}(x_0)+L_0)+({{\bf E}}(x_1)+L_1)={{\bf E}}(y)+(M+L_0+L_1)\in
H_D^*$.
Now assume that $x\in H_D\cap D^\infty_0$, $L\in{{\mathbb Z}}$ and we will argue that $-({{\bf E}}(x)+L)\in H_D^*$. If ${{\bf E}}(x)=0$ then the assertion is clear, so assume also ${{\bf E}}(x)>0$. Let $m<\omega$ be such that $$A\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\big\{k>m: x{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1} -m)\mbox{ is constant
} \big\}\in D.$$ Choose $y\in D^\infty_0$ such that $1-{{\bf E}}(x)={{\bf E}}(y)$. It follows from \[expanding\](3) that for every $k\in A$, $k>m+1$, we have that $y{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1} -(m+1))$ is constant. Consequently, $y\in H_D$ and $-({{\bf E}}(x)+L)={{\bf E}}(y)-1-L\in H_D^*$.
A somewhat simpler non–meager null subgroup of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$ is $$H_D^-=\Big\{x\in {{}^{\omega}2}:\big\{k\in\omega: x{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})\equiv 0\big\}
\in D\Big\}.$$ The group $H_D$, however, was necessary for our construction of $H^*_D<{{\mathbb R}}$.
There exists no translation invariant Borel hull for the null ideal on ${{}^{\omega}2}$ and/or on ${{\mathbb R}}$.
Some technicalities
===================
Here we prepare the ground for our consistency results.
Moving from ${{\mathbb R}}$ to ${{}^{\omega}2}$
-----------------------------------------------
First, let us remind connections between the addition in ${{\mathbb R}}$ and that of ${{}^{\omega}2}$ (via the binary expansion ${{\bf E}}$, see \[binexp\]).
Let $J=[m,n)$ be a non-empty interval of integers and $c\in\{0,1\}$. For sequences $\rho,\sigma \in {}^J2$ we define $\rho\circledast_c \sigma$ as the unique $\eta\in {}^J 2$ such that $$\Big(\sum_{i=m}^{n-1}\rho(i)2^{-(i+1)}+\sum_{i=m}^{n-1}
\sigma(i)2^{-(i+1)} +c\cdot 2^{-n}\Big) - \sum_{i=m}^{n-1} \eta(i)2^{-(i+1)}
\in \{0,2^{-m}\}.$$ For notational convenience we also set $\rho\circledast_2\sigma= \rho +_2
\sigma$ (coordinate-wise addition modulo 2).
The operation $\circledast_c$ is defined on the set ${}^J2$, so it does depend on $J$. We may, however, abuse notation and use that same symbol $\circledast_c$ for various $J$.
\[carrying\] Let $m,\ell,n$ be integers such that $m<\ell<n$ and let $J=[m,n)$.
1. For each $c\in \{0,2\}$, $({}^J2,\circledast_c)$ is an Abelian group.
2. If $\rho,\sigma\in {}^J 2$ and $\rho(\ell)=\sigma(\ell)$, then $(\rho\circledast_0\sigma){{\restriction}}[m,\ell)=
(\rho\circledast_1\sigma){{\restriction}}[m,\ell)$.
3. If $\rho,\sigma\in {}^J 2$ and $(\rho \circledast_0
\sigma)(\ell)=0$, then $(\rho\circledast_0\sigma){{\restriction}}[m,\ell)=
(\rho\circledast_1\sigma){{\restriction}}[m,\ell)$.
4. Suppose that $r,s\in [0,1)$, $\rho,\sigma,\eta\in D^\infty_0$, ${{\bf E}}(\rho)=r$, ${{\bf E}}(\sigma)=s$ and ${{\bf E}}(\eta)=r+s$ modulo 1. Then
- if $\sum\limits_{i\geq n} \big((\rho(i)+\sigma(i))/2^{i+1}
\big)\geq 2^{-n}$, then $\eta{{\restriction}}J= (\rho{{\restriction}}J)\circledast_1
(\sigma{{\restriction}}J)$;
- if $\sum\limits_{i\geq n} \big((\rho(i)+\sigma(i))/2^{i+1}
\big)< 2^{-n}$, then $\eta{{\restriction}}J= (\rho{{\restriction}}J)\circledast_0
(\sigma{{\restriction}}J)$.
The combinatorial heart of our forcing arguments
------------------------------------------------
For this subsection we fix a strictly increasing sequence $\bar{n}=\langle
n_j:j<\omega\rangle\subseteq \omega$.
\[translation\] We define $\bar{m}[\bar{n}]=\langle
m_i:i<\omega\rangle$, $\bar{N}[\bar{n}]=\langle N(i):i<\omega\rangle$, $\bar{J}[\bar{n}]=\langle J_i:i<\omega\rangle$, $\bar{H}[\bar{n}]=\langle
H_i: i<\omega\rangle$, $\pi[\bar{n}]=\langle \pi_i:i<\omega\rangle$ and ${{\bf F}}[\bar{n}]$ as follows.
We set $m_0=0$ and then inductively for $i<\omega$ we let
1. $m_{i+1}=2^{n_{m_i}+1081}$.
Next, for $i<\omega$,
1. $N(i)=n_{m_i}$, $J_i=\big[N(2^i),N(2^{i+1})\big)$, and
2. $H_i=\big\{a\subseteq {}^{J_i}2:(1-2^{-N(2^i)})\cdot 2^{|J_i|}\leq |a|
\big\}$.
We also set $\pi_i:|H_i|\longrightarrow H_i$ to be the $\prec^*$–first bijection from $|H_i|$ onto $H_i$. Finally, for $\eta\in\prod\limits_{m<\omega} (m+1)$ we let
1. ${{\bf F}}_0[\bar{n}](\eta)=\big\{x\in{{}^{\omega}2}: \big(\forall i<\omega
\big) \big(x{{\restriction}}J_i\in \pi_i(\eta(|H_i|-1)) \big) \big\}$ and\
${{\bf F}}[\bar{n}](\eta)=\big\{x\in{{}^{\omega}2}: \big(\forall^\infty i<\omega \big)
\big(x {{\restriction}}J_i\in \pi_i(\eta(|H_i|-1)) \big) \big\}.$
\[itspos\] For every $\eta\in\prod\limits_{m<\omega} (m+1)$, ${{\bf F}}_0[\bar{n}](\eta)
\subseteq {{}^{\omega}2}$ is a closed set of positive Lebesgue measure, and ${{\bf F}}[\bar{n}](\eta)$ is a $\Sigma^0_2$ set of Lebesgue measure 1.
Note that $J_i\cap J_j=\emptyset$ and $|H_i|<|H_j|$ for $i<j$, and $\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty 2^{-N(2^i)}<1$.
\[combheart\] Let $i<\omega$, $c\in\{0,2\}$ and let $\eta\in {}^{J_i} 2$. Suppose that for each $\ell<2^i$ and $x<2$ we are given a function ${{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x:
H_i\longrightarrow {}^{J_i} 2$ such that ${{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(a)\in a$ for each $a\in
H_i$. Then there are $a^0,a^1\in H_i$ such that for every $\ell<2^i$ there is $k\in [m_{2^i+\ell},m_{2^i+\ell+1})$ satisfying $$\big( {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a^0){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) \big)
\circledast^k_c \big ({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a^1){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) \big) = \eta{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) ,$$ where $\circledast^k_c$ denotes the operation $\circledast_c$ on ${}^{[n_k,n_{k+1})}2$.
We start the proof with the following Claim.
\[cl1\] If ${{\mathcal A}}\subseteq H_i$, $|{{\mathcal A}}|\leq 2^{|J_i|-N(2^i)-i}$ and $x<2$, then there is $b\in H_i$ such that ${{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(b)\notin \{{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(a): a\in{{\mathcal A}}\}$ for each $\ell<2^i$.
Note that $|\{{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(a):\ell<2^i\ \&\ a\in{{\mathcal A}}\}|\leq 2^i\cdot
2^{|J_i|-N(2^i)-i}=2^{|J_i|-N(2^i)}$, so letting $b={}^{J_i}2\setminus
\{{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(a): \ell<2^i\ \&\ a\in {{\mathcal A}}\}$ we have $b\in H_i$. Since ${{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(b)\in b$ we see that $b$ is as required in the claim.
It follows from Claim \[cl1\] that we may pick sequences $\langle a_j^0:
j<j^*\rangle\subseteq H_i$ and $\langle a_j^1:j<j^*\rangle\subseteq H_i$ with ${{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(a^x_{j_1})\neq {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^x(a^x_{j_2})$ for $j_1<j_2<j^*$, $\ell<2^i$, $x<2$ and such that $j^*>2^{|J_i|-N(2^i)-i}$. Now, by induction on $\ell<2^i$, we choose sets $X_\ell,Y_\ell\subseteq j^*$ and integers $k_\ell\in [m_{2^i+\ell},m_{2^i+\ell+1})$ such that the following demands are satisfied.
1. $X_{\ell+1}\subseteq X_\ell\subseteq j^*$, $Y_{\ell+1} \subseteq
Y_\ell \subseteq j^*$,
2. if $j_0\in X_\ell$ and $j_1\in Y_\ell$ then $$\big({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_{j_0}^0){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})\big)
\circledast^{k_\ell}_c \big({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_{j_1}^1){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})\big) =\eta{{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1}),$$
3. $\min\big(|X_\ell|,|Y_\ell|\big)\geq j^*\cdot 2^{N(2^i) -
N(2^i+\ell+1)-\ell-1}$.
We stipulate $X_{-1}=Y_{-1}=j^*$ and we assume that $X_{\ell-1},Y_{\ell-1}$ have been already determined (and $\min\big(|X_{\ell-1}|,|Y_{\ell-1}|\big)
\geq j^*\cdot 2^{N(2^i)-N(2^i+\ell)-\ell}$ if $\ell>0$). Let $$\begin{array}{l}
X^*=\big\{j\in X_{\ell-1}: |X_{\ell-1}|\cdot 2^{N(2^i+\ell)-N(2^i+
\ell+1)-1} \leq\\
\ \big|\{j'\in X_{\ell-1}:{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_{j'}^0){{\restriction}}[N(2^i{+}
\ell), N(2^i{+}\ell{+}1)) = {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0){{\restriction}}[N(2^i{+}\ell),N(2^i{+}\ell{+}1)) \} \big|\big\},\\
Y^*=\big\{j\in Y_{\ell-1}: |Y_{\ell-1}|\cdot 2^{N(2^i+\ell)-N(2^i+
\ell+1)-1} \leq\\
\ \big|\{j'\in Y_{\ell-1}:{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_{j'}^1){{\restriction}}[N(2^i{+}
\ell), N(2^i{+}\ell{+}1)) = {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_j^1){{\restriction}}[N(2^i{+}\ell),N(2^i{+}\ell{+}1)) \} \big|\big\}.
\end{array}$$
\[cl2\] $|X^*|\geq \frac{1}{2} |X_{\ell-1}|$ and $|Y^*|\geq \frac{1}{2} |Y_{\ell-1}|$.
Assume towards contradiction that $|X^*|<\frac{1}{2}|X_{\ell-1}|$. Then for some $\nu_0\in {}^{[N(2^i+\ell),N(2^i+\ell+1))} 2$ we have $$\begin{array}{r}
\big|\big\{j\in X_{\ell-1}\setminus X^*: \nu_0\subseteq{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0) \big\}
\big| \geq |X_{\ell-1}\setminus X^*|\cdot 2^{N(2^i+\ell)-N(2^i+\ell+1)}> \\
\frac{1}{2}|X_{\ell-1}|\cdot 2^{N(2^i+\ell)-N(2^i+\ell+1)}.
\end{array}$$ Let $j\in X_{\ell-1}\setminus X^*$ be such that $\nu_0\subseteq
{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0)$. Then $j\in X^*$, a contradiction.
Similarly for $Y^*$.
\[cl3\] For some $k\in [m_{2^i+\ell},m_{2^i+\ell+1})$ we have that both $\big|\big\{ {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}):j\in X^*\big\}\big|>
2^{n_{k+1}-n_k-1}$ and $\big|\big\{ {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_j^1){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}):j\in Y^*\big\}\big|> 2^{n_{k+1}-n_k-1}$.
Let $$K^X=\big\{k\in [m_{2^i+\ell},m_{2^i+\ell+1}): |\{ {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}):j\in X^*\}|\leq 2^{n_{k+1}-n_k-1}\big\}$$ and $$K^Y=\big\{k\in [m_{2^i+\ell},m_{2^i+\ell+1}): |\{ {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_j^1){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}):j\in Y^*\}|\leq 2^{n_{k+1}-n_k-1}\big\}.$$ Assume towards contradiction that $|K^X|\geq \frac{1}{2}(m_{2^i+\ell+1}
-m_{2^i+\ell})$. Then $$|X^*|=|\{{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0):j\in X^*\}|\leq 2^{-1/2 (m_{2^i+\ell+1}-
m_{2^i+\ell})} \cdot 2^{|J_i|}< 2^{|J_i|}\cdot 2^{-4N(2^i+\ell)}.$$ (Remember \[translation\]$(*)_1$.) Hence $|X_{\ell-1}|\leq 2^{|J_i|-
4N(2^i+\ell)+1}$. If $\ell=0$ then we get $2^{|J_i|-2N(2^i)}< j^*\leq
2^{|J_i|- 4N(2^i)+1}$, which is impossible. If $\ell>0$, then by the inductive hypothesis (iii) we know that $|X_{\ell-1}|\geq j^*\cdot
2^{N(2^i)-N(2^i+\ell)-\ell}>2^{|J_i|-i-N(2^i+\ell)-\ell}$, so $3N(2^i+\ell)-1<i+\ell$, a clear contradiction. Consequently $|K^X|<
\frac{1}{2}(m_{2^i+\ell+1} -m_{2^i+\ell})$, and similarly $|K^Y|<
\frac{1}{2}(m_{2^i+\ell+1} -m_{2^i+\ell})$. Pick $k\in
[m_{2^i+\ell}, m_{2^i+\ell+1})$ such that $k\notin K^X\cup K^Y$.
Now, let $k_\ell\in [m_{2^i+\ell}, m_{2^i+\ell+1})$ be as given by Claim \[cl3\]. Necessarily the sets $\big\{\rho\in {}^{[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})} 2: (\exists j\in X^*)(
({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1}))\circledast_c^{k_\ell} \rho
= \eta{{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1}))\big\}$ and $\big\{{{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_j^1){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1}):j\in Y^*\big\}$ have non-empty intersection. Therefore, we may find $j_X\in X^*$ and $j_Y\in
Y^*$ such that $$\big({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_{j_X}^0){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})\big)
\circledast_c^{k_\ell} \big({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_{j_Y}^1){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})\big) = \eta{{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1}).$$ Set $$X_\ell=\big\{j\in X_{\ell-1}: {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_j^0){{\restriction}}[N(2^i+\ell),
N(2^i+\ell+1))= {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a_{j_X}^0){{\restriction}}[N(2^i+\ell),
N(2^i+\ell+1))\big\},$$ and $$Y_\ell=\big\{j\in Y_{\ell-1}: {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_j^1){{\restriction}}[N(2^i+\ell),
N(2^i+\ell+1))= {{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a_{j_Y}^1){{\restriction}}[N(2^i+\ell),
N(2^i+\ell+1))\big\}.$$ By the definition of $X^*,Y^*$ and by the inductive hypothesis (iii) we have $$|X_\ell|\geq |X_{\ell-1}|\cdot 2^{N(2^i+\ell)-N(2^i+\ell+1) -1} \geq
j^*\cdot 2^{N(2^i)-\ell -N(2^i+\ell+1) -1}$$ and similarly for $Y_\ell$. Consequently, $X_\ell,Y_\ell$ and $k_\ell$ satisfy the inductive demands (i)–(iii).
After the above construction is completed fix any $j_0\in X_{2^i-1}$, $j_1\in Y_{2^i-1}$ and consider $a^0=a_{j_0}$ and $a^1=a_{j_1}$. For each $\ell<2^i$ we have $j_0\in X_\ell$, $j_1\in Y_\ell$ so $$\big({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^0(a^0){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})\big)
\circledast^{k_\ell}_c \big({{\mathcal Z}}_\ell^1(a^1){{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1})\big) = \eta{{\restriction}}[n_{k_\ell},n_{k_\ell+1}).$$ Hence $a^1,a^2\in H_i$ are as required.
The $*$–Silver forcing notion
-----------------------------
The consistency result of the next section will be obtained using CS product of the following forcing notion ${{\mathbb S}}_*$.
\[fordef\]
1. We define the $*$–Silver forcing notion ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ as follows.\
[**A condition** ]{} in ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ is a partial function $p:{{\rm dom}}(p)
\longrightarrow \omega$ such that ${{\rm dom}}(p)\subseteq\omega$ is coinfinite and $p(m)\leq m$ for each $m\in{{\rm dom}}(p)$.\
[**The order** ]{} $\leq=\leq_{{{\mathbb S}}_*}$ of ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ is the inclusion, i.e., $p\leq q$ if and only if $p\subseteq q$.
2. For $p\in {{\mathbb S}}_*$ and $1\leq n<\omega$ we let $u(n,p)$ be the set of the first $n$ elements of $\omega\setminus {{\rm dom}}(p)$ (in the natural increasing order). Then for $p,q\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ we let\
$p\leq_n q$ if and only if $p\leq q$ and $u(n,q)=u(n,p)$.
We also define $p\leq_0 q$ as equivalent to $p\leq q$.
3. Let $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$. We let $S(n,p)$ be the set of all functions $s:
u(n,p)\longrightarrow \omega$ with the property that $s(m)\leq m$ for all $m\in u(n,p)$.
4. We let $\name{\eta}$ to be the canonical ${{\mathbb S}}_*$–name such that $${\Vdash}\name{\eta}=\bigcup\{p:p\in\name{G}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*}\}.$$
The forcing notion ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ may be represented as a forcing of the type ${{\mathbb Q}}_{{\rm w}\infty}^*(K,\Sigma)$ for some finitary creating pair $(K,\Sigma)$ which captures singletons, see Ros[ł]{}anowski and Shelah [@RoSh:470 Definition 2.1.10]. It is a close relative of the Silver forcing notion and, in a sense, it lies right above all ${{\mathbb S}}_n$’s studied for instance in Ros[ł]{}anowski [@Ro0x] and Ros[ł]{}anowski and Steprāns [@RoSt08].
\[basiclemma\]
1. $({{\mathbb S}}_*,\leq_{{{\mathbb S}}_*})$ is a partial order of size ${{\mathfrak c}}$. If $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ and $s\in S(n,p)$ then $p\cup s\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ is a condition stronger than $p$.
2. ${\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*} \name{\eta}\in \prod\limits_{m<\omega} (m+1)$ and $p{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*} p\subseteq\name{\eta}$ (for $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$).
3. If $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ and $1\leq n<\omega$, then the family $\{p\cup s:s\in
S(n,T)\}$ is an antichain pre-dense above $p$.
4. The relations $\leq_n$ are partial orders on ${{\mathbb S}}_*$, $p\leq_{n+1} q$ implies $p\leq_n q$.
5. Assume that $\name{\tau}$ is an ${{\mathbb S}}_*$–name for an ordinal, $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$, $1\leq n,m<\omega$. Then there is a condition $q\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ such that $p\leq_n q$, $\max\big(u(n+1,q)\big)>m$ and for all $s\in
S(n,q)$ the condition $q\cup s$ decides the value of $\name{\tau}$.
6. The forcing notion ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ satisfies Axiom A of Baumgartner [@B3 § 7] as witnessed by the orders $\leq_n$, it is ${{}^{\omega}\omega}$–bounding and, moreover, every meager subset of ${{}^{\omega}2}$ in an extension by ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ is included in a $\Sigma^0_2$ meager set coded in the ground model.
Straightforward - the same as for the Silver forcing notion.
\[product\] Assume $\kappa^{\aleph_0} = \kappa\geq\aleph_2$.
1. ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ is the CS product of $\kappa$ many copies of ${{\mathbb S}}_*$. Thus\
[**a condition**]{} $p$ in ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ is a function with a countable domain ${{\rm dom}}(p)\subseteq \kappa$ and with values in ${{\mathbb S}}_*$, and\
[**the order**]{} $\leq$ of ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ is such that\
$p\leq q$ if and only if ${{\rm dom}}(p)\subseteq {{\rm dom}}(q)$ and $(\forall \alpha\in
{{\rm dom}}(p))(p(\alpha)\leq_{{{\mathbb S}}_*} q(\alpha))$.
2. Suppose that $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ and $F\subseteq {{\rm dom}}(p)$ is a finite non-empty set and $\mu:F\longrightarrow\omega\setminus\{0\}$. Let $v(F,\mu,p)=\prod\limits_{\alpha\in F} u(\mu(\alpha),p(\alpha))$ and $T(F,\mu,p)=\prod\limits_{\alpha\in F} S(\mu(\alpha),p(\alpha))$.
If $\sigma \in T(F,\mu,p)$ then let $p|\sigma$ be the condition $q\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ such that ${{\rm dom}}(q)={{\rm dom}}(p)$ and $q(\alpha)=p(\alpha)\cup\sigma(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in F$ and $q(\alpha)=p(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in {{\rm dom}}(q)\setminus F$.
We let $p\leq_{F,\mu} q$ if and only if $p\leq q$ and $v(F,\mu,p)=
v(F,\mu,q)$.
If $\mu$ is constantly $n$ then we may write $n$ instead of $\mu$.
3. Suppose that $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ and $\name{\bar{\tau}}= \langle
\name{\tau}_n: n<\omega\rangle$ is a sequence of names for ordinals. We say that [*$p$ determines $\name{\bar{\tau}}$ relative to $\bar{F}$*]{} if
- $\bar{F}=\langle F_n: n<\omega\rangle$ is a sequence of finite subsets of ${{\rm dom}}(p)$, and
- $p$ forces a value to $\name{\tau}_0$ and for $1\leq n<\omega$ and $\sigma\in T(F_n,n,p)$ the condition $p|\sigma$ decides the value of $\name{\tau}_n$.
\[blprod\]
1. The forcing notion ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ satisfies ${{\mathfrak c}}^+$–chain condition.
2. Suppose that $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$, $F\subseteq {{\rm dom}}(p)$ is finite non-empty, $\mu:F\longrightarrow \omega\setminus\{0\}$ and $\name{\tau}$ is a name for an ordinal. Then there is a condition $q\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ such that $p\leq_{F,\mu} q$ and for every $\sigma\in T(F,\mu,q)$ the condition $q|\sigma$ decides the value of $\name{\tau}$.
3. Suppose that $p\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ and $\name{\bar{\tau}}= \langle
\name{\tau}_n: n<\omega\rangle$ is a sequence of ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$–names for objects from the ground model ${{\mathbf V}}$. Then there is a condition $q\geq
p$ and a $\subseteq$–increasing sequence $\bar{F}=\langle
F_n:n<\omega\rangle$ of finite subsets of ${{\rm dom}}(q)$ such that $q$ determines $\name{\bar{\tau}}$ relative to $\bar{F}$.
4. Assume $p,\name{\bar{\tau}}$ are as in (3) above and $p{\Vdash}$ “$\name{\bar{\tau}}$ is a sequence of elements of ${{}^{\mathunderaccent\smile-3 \omega}2}$ with disjoint domains”. Then there are a condition $q\geq p$ and an increasing sequence $\bar{F}$ of finite subsets of ${{\rm dom}}(q)$ and a function $f=(f_0,f_1):\bigcup\limits_{1\leq n<\omega} T(F_n,n,q) \longrightarrow
\omega\times{{}^{\mathunderaccent\smile-3 \omega}2}$ such that $q|\sigma{\Vdash}\name{\tau}_{f_0(\sigma)} =
f_1(\sigma)$ (for all $\sigma\in{{\rm dom}}(f)$) and the elements of $\langle {{\rm dom}}(f_1(\sigma)):\sigma\in \bigcup_{n<\omega} T(F_n,n,q) \rangle$ are pairwise disjoint.
The same as for the CS product of Silver or Sacks forcing notions, see e.g. Baumgartner [@Ba85 §1].
\[corprod\] Assume $\kappa=\kappa^{\aleph_0}\geq \aleph_2$. The forcing notion ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ is proper and every meager subset of ${{}^{\omega}2}$ in an extension by ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ is included in a $\Sigma^0_2$ meager set coded in the ground model.
If CH holds, then ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ preserves all cardinals and cofinalities and ${\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)} 2^{\aleph_0} =\kappa$.
Meager non–null
===============
The goal of this section is to present a model of ZFC in which every meager subgroup of ${{\mathbb R}}$ or ${{}^{\omega}2}$ is also Lebesgue null.
\[mainthm\] Assume CH. Let $\kappa=\kappa^{\aleph_0}\geq\aleph_2$. Then
1. ${\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}$“ $2^{\aleph_0}=\kappa$ and every meager subgroup of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$ is Lebesgue null. ”
2. ${\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}$“ every meager subgroup of $({{\mathbb R}},+)$ is Lebesgue null. ”
For $\alpha<\kappa$ let $\name{\eta}_\alpha$ be the canonical name for the ${{\mathbb S}}_*$–generic function in $\prod\limits_{m<\omega} (m+1)$ added on the $\alpha^{\rm th}$ coordinate of ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$.
(1)Suppose towards contradiction that for some $p_0\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ and a ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$–name $\name{H}$ we have $$p_0{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)} \mbox{`` $\name{H}$ is a meager non--null
subgroup of $({{}^{\omega}2},+_2)$. ''}$$ By Corollary \[corprod\] (or, actually, Lemma \[blprod\](4)) we may pick a condition $p_1\geq p_0$, a strictly increasing sequence $\bar{n}=\langle
n_j: j<\omega\rangle\subseteq \omega$ and a function $f\in{{}^{\omega}2}$ such that
1. $p_1{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)} \mbox{`` }\name{H}\subseteq
\big\{ x\in {{}^{\omega}2}: \big (\forall^\infty j<\omega\big)\big(x{{\restriction}}[n_j,n_{j+1})\neq f{{\restriction}}[n_j,n_{j+1}) \big) \big\} \mbox{. ''}$
Let $\bar{m}=\bar{m}[\bar{n}]$, $\bar{N}=\bar{N}[\bar{n}]$, $\bar{J}=\bar{J}[\bar{n}]$, $\bar{H}=\bar{H}[\bar{n}]$, $\pi=\pi[\bar{n}]$ and ${{\bf F}}={{\bf F}}[\bar{n}]$ be as defined in Definition \[translation\] for the sequence $\bar{n}$. Also let $A=\{|H(i)|-1:i<\omega\}$ and $r^+\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ be such that ${{\rm dom}}(r^+)=\omega\setminus A$ and $r^+(k)=0$ for $k\in {{\rm dom}}(r^+)$.
Since, by Lemma \[itspos\], we have ${\Vdash}$“ ${{\bf F}}(\name{\eta}_\alpha)\subseteq {{}^{\omega}2}$ is a measure one set ”, we know that $p_1{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)} \mbox{`` }(\forall\alpha<
\kappa)({{\bf F}}(\name{\eta}_\alpha) \cap\name{H}\neq\emptyset )\mbox{
''}$. Consequently, for each $\alpha<\kappa$, we may choose a ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$–name $\name{\rho}_\alpha$ for an element of ${{}^{\omega}2}$ such that $$p_1{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}\mbox{`` }\name{\rho}_\alpha\in \name{H}
\ \&\ \name{\rho}_\alpha\in {{\bf F}}(\name{\eta}_\alpha) \mbox{ ''.}$$ Let us fix $\alpha\in\kappa\setminus {{\rm dom}}(p_1)$ for a moment. Let $p_1^\alpha\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ be a condition such that ${{\rm dom}}(p_1^\alpha)=
{{\rm dom}}(p_1)\cup\{\alpha\}$, $p_1^\alpha(\alpha)=r^+$ and $p_1\subseteq
p_1^\alpha$. Using the standard fusion based argument (like the one applied in the classical proof of Lemma \[blprod\](3) with \[blprod\](2) used repeatedly), we may find a condition $q^\alpha\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$, a sequence $\bar{F}=\langle F^\alpha_n: n<\omega \rangle$ of finite sets, a sequence $\langle \mu^\alpha_n:n<\omega\rangle$ and an integer $i^\alpha<\omega$ such that the following demands $(*)_1$–$(*)_6$ are satisfied.
1. $q^\alpha\geq p^\alpha_1$, ${{\rm dom}}(q^\alpha)=
\bigcup\limits_{n<\omega} F^\alpha_n$, $F^\alpha_n\subseteq
F^\alpha_{n+1}$ and $F^\alpha_0=\{\alpha\}$.
2. $\mu^\alpha_n:F^\alpha_n\longrightarrow\omega$, $\mu^\alpha_n
(\alpha)=n+1$, $\mu^\alpha_n(\beta)=n$ for $\beta\in F^\alpha_n\setminus\{
\alpha\}$.
3. $\min\big(\omega\setminus {{\rm dom}}(q^\alpha(\alpha))\big)
>|H(i^\alpha)|$ and\
if $\max\big(u(n+1,q^\alpha(\alpha))\big)=|H(i)|-1$ and $n\geq 1$, then $|T(F_n,n,q^\alpha)|^2<2^i$,
4. $q^\alpha{\Vdash}\big(\forall i\geq i^\alpha \big) \big(
\name{\rho}_\alpha{{\restriction}}J_i\in \pi_i(\name{\eta}_\alpha(|H_i|-1))\big)$, and
5. $q^\alpha$ determines $\name{\rho}_\alpha$ relative to $\bar{F}$, moreover
6. if $\sigma\in T(F^\alpha_n,\mu^\alpha_n,q^\alpha)$ and $\max\big(u(n+1,q^\alpha(\alpha))\big)=|H(i)|-1$, then $q^\alpha|\sigma$ decides the value of $\name{\rho}_\alpha{{\restriction}}J_i$.
Unfixing $\alpha$ and using a standard $\Delta$–system argument with CH we may find distinct $\gamma,\delta\in\kappa\setminus {{\rm dom}}(p_1)$ such that ${\rm otp}({{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma))={\rm otp}({{\rm dom}}(q^\delta))$ and if $g:{{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma)\longrightarrow {{\rm dom}}(q^\delta)$ is the order preserving bijection, then the following demands $(*)_7$–$(*)_9$ hold true.
1. $i^\gamma=i^\delta$, $g{{\restriction}}\big({{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma)\cap
{{\rm dom}}(q^\delta)\big)$ is the identity, $g(\gamma)=\delta$,
2. $q^\gamma(\beta)=q^\delta(g(\beta))$ for each $\beta\in
{{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma)$, and $g[F^\gamma_n]=F^\delta_n$,
3. if $F\subseteq {{\rm dom}}(q^\delta)$ is finite, $\mu:F\longrightarrow \omega\setminus\{0\}$, $i<\omega$, $\sigma\in T(F,\mu,q^\delta)$, then $$q^\delta|\sigma{\Vdash}\name{\rho}_\delta{{\restriction}}J_i=z\quad\mbox{ if and
only if }\quad q^\gamma|(\sigma\circ g){\Vdash}\name{\rho}_\gamma {{\restriction}}J_i=z.$$
Clearly $q^*\stackrel{\rm def}{=}q^\gamma\cup q^\delta$ is a condition stronger than both $q^\gamma$ and $q^\delta$. Let $F^*_n=F^\gamma_n \cup
F^\delta_n$ for $n<\omega$.
Let $\langle k_\ell:\ell<\omega\rangle$ be the increasing enumeration of $\omega\setminus{{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma(\gamma)) = \omega\setminus {{\rm dom}}(q^\delta(
\delta))$. Note that by the choice of $r^+$ and $p_1^\gamma$, we have $\omega\setminus {{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma(\gamma))\subseteq A$, so each $k_\ell$ is of the form $|H(i)|-1$ for some $i$. Now we will choose conditions $r_\delta,r_\gamma\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ so that $${{\rm dom}}(r_\delta)={{\rm dom}}(r_\gamma)={{\rm dom}}(q^\delta(\delta))\cup\{k_{2\ell}:
\ell< \omega\},$$ $q^\delta(\delta)\leq r_\delta$, $q^\gamma(\gamma)\leq r_\gamma$ and the values of $r_\delta(k_{2\ell}),r_\gamma(k_{2\ell})$ are picked as follows.
Let $i$ be such that $k_{2\ell}=|H(i)|-1$. If $x\in\{\gamma,\delta\}$ and $\sigma\in T(F^x_{2\ell},\mu^x_{2\ell},q^x)$ then $q^x|\sigma$ decides the value of $\name{\rho}_x{{\restriction}}J_i$ (by $(*)_6$) and this value belongs to $\pi_i\big(\sigma(x)(k_{2\ell})\big)$ (by $(*)_4+(*)_3$). Consequently, for $x\in\{\gamma,\delta\}$ and $\tau\in T(F_{2\ell}^*,2\ell,q^*)$ we may define a function ${{\mathcal Z}}_\tau^x:H(i)\longrightarrow {}^{J_i} 2$ so that
1. [**if**]{} $a\in H(i)$, $\mu:F_{2\ell}^* \longrightarrow \omega$ is such that $\mu(x)=2\ell+1$ and $\mu(\alpha)=2\ell$ for $\alpha\neq x$, and $\tau_a\in T(F_{2\ell}^*,\mu,q^*)$ is such that $\tau_a(\alpha)=\tau(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in F^*_{2\ell}\setminus \{x\}$ and $\tau_a(x)=\tau(x)\cup\{(k_{2\ell},a)\}$,\
[**then**]{} $q^*|\tau_a{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)} \name{\rho}_x{{\restriction}}J_i={{\mathcal Z}}^x_\tau(a)$ and ${{\mathcal Z}}^x_\tau(a)\in a$.
Since $|T(F_{2\ell}^*,2\ell,q^*)|\leq
|T(F_{2\ell}^\gamma,2\ell,q^\gamma)|^2< 2^i$ (remember $(*)_3$), we may use Lemma \[combheart\] to find $r_\delta(k_{2\ell}),r_\gamma(k_{2\ell})\leq
k_{2\ell}$ such that
1. for every $\tau\in T(F_{2\ell}^*,2\ell,q^*)$ there is $k\in [m_{2^i},m_{2^{i+1}})$ satisfying $$\big( {{\mathcal Z}}_\tau^\gamma(\pi_i(r_\gamma(k_{2\ell}))){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) \big)
+_2 \big ({{\mathcal Z}}_\tau^\delta(\pi_i(r_\delta(k_{2\ell}))){{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})
\big) = f{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) .$$ (Remember, $f$ was chosen in $(*)_0$.)
This completes the definition of $r_\gamma$ and $r_\delta$. Let $q^+\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ be such that ${{\rm dom}}(q^+)={{\rm dom}}(q^*)= {{\rm dom}}(q^\gamma)\cup
{{\rm dom}}(q^\delta)$ and $q^+(\alpha)=q^*(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in{{\rm dom}}(q^+)\setminus\{\gamma,\delta\}$ and $q^+(\gamma)=r_\gamma$ and $q^+(\delta)=r_\delta$. Then $q^+$ is a (well defined) condition stronger than both $q^\gamma$ and $q^\delta$ and such that
1. $q^+{\Vdash}\Big(\exists^\infty k<\omega\Big)\Big(
\big( \name{\rho}_\gamma{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) \big)+_2 \big
(\name{\rho}_\delta{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) \big) = f{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}) \Big)$
(by $(*)_{10}+(*)_{11}$). Consequently, by $(*)_0$,
1. $q^+{\Vdash}$“ $\name{\rho}_\gamma,
\name{\rho}_\delta\in \name{H}$ and $\name{\rho}_\gamma+_2 \name{\rho}_\delta
\notin\name{H}$ and $(\name{H},+_2)$ is a group”,
a contradiction.
(2)The proof is a small modification of that for the first part, so we describe the new points only. Assume towards contradiction that for some $p_0\in{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ and a ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$–name $\name{H}^*$ we have $$p_0{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)} \mbox{`` $\name{H}^*$ is a meager non--null
subgroup of $({{\mathbb R}},+)$ ''.}$$ Let $\name{H}_0,\name{H}_1$ be ${{\mathbb S}}_*$–names for subsets of $D^\infty_0$ such that $$p_0{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}\mbox{`` }\name{H}_0={{\bf E}}^{-1}[\name{H}^* \cap
[0,1/2)] \mbox{ and } \name{H}_1={{\bf E}}^{-1}[\name{H}^* \cap [0,1)] \mbox{
''.}$$ Necessarily $p_0{\Vdash}$“ $\name{H}^*\cap [0,1/2)$ is not null ”, so it follows from \[expanding\](1) that $$p_0{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}\mbox{`` }\name{H}_0\notin {{\mathcal N}}\mbox{ and }
\name{H}_1\in {{\mathcal M}}\mbox{ and }\name{H}_0\subseteq \name{H}_1 \mbox{
''.}$$ Clearly we may pick a condition $p_1\geq p_0$, a sequence $\bar{n}=\langle
n_j: j<\omega\rangle\subseteq \omega$ and a function $f\in{{}^{\omega}2}$ such that
1. $n_{j+1}>n_j+j+1$ for each $j$,
2. $f(n_{j+1}-1)=0$ for each $j$, and
3. $p_1{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}$“$\name{H}_1\subseteq
\big\{ x\in {{}^{\omega}2}: \big (\forall^\infty j<\omega\big)\big(x{{\restriction}}[n_j,n_{j+1}{-}1)\neq f{{\restriction}}[n_j,n_{j+1}{-}1) \big) \big\}$.”\
(Note: “$ [n_j,n_{j+1}-1)$” not “$ [n_j,n_{j+1})$”.)
Like in part (1), let $\bar{m}=\bar{m}[\bar{n}]$, $\bar{N}=\bar{N}[\bar{n}]$, $\bar{J}=\bar{J}[\bar{n}]$, $\bar{H}=\bar{H}[\bar{n}]$, $\pi=\pi[\bar{n}]$ and ${{\bf F}}={{\bf F}}[\bar{n}]$. Let $A=\{|H(i)|-1:i<\omega\}$ and $r^+\in{{\mathbb S}}_*$ be such that ${{\rm dom}}(r^+)=\omega\setminus A$ and $r^+(k)=0$ for $k\in {{\rm dom}}(r^+)$. Then each $\alpha<\kappa$ fix a ${{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$–name $\name{\rho}_\alpha$ such that $p_1{\Vdash}_{{{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)}$“ $\name{\rho}_\alpha\in \name{H}_0\cap {{\bf F}}(\name{\eta}_\alpha)$ ”.
Now repeat the arguments of the first part (with $(*)_1$–$(*)_{11}$ there applied to our $\bar{n},f,\name{\rho}_\alpha$ and $\circledast_0$ here) to find $\gamma,\delta\in \kappa{{\rm dom}}(p_1)$ such that
1. $q^+{\Vdash}$“ $\big(\exists^\infty k<\omega\big)\big(
(\name{\rho}_\gamma{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})) \circledast_0
(\name{\rho}_\delta{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})) =f{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})\big)$ ”.
Let $G\subseteq {{\mathbb S}}_*(\kappa)$ be a generic over ${{\mathbf V}}$ such that $q^+\in
G$ and let us work in ${{\mathbf V}}[G]$. Let $\eta\in D^\infty_0$ be such that ${{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G) +{{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\delta^G) ={{\bf E}}(\eta)$ (remember ${{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G),{{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\delta^G)<1/2$). We know from $(\lozenge)$ that there are infinitely many $k<\omega$ satisfying
1. $(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})) \circledast_0
(\name{\rho}_\delta^G{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})) =f{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1})$.
Since $f(n_{k+1}-1)=0$ (see $(\oplus)_1$), we get from \[carrying\](3) that for each $k$ as in $(\blacklozenge)$ we also have $$\begin{array}{l}
(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1))
\circledast_0 (\name{\rho}_\delta^G{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1))=\\
(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1)) \circledast_1
(\name{\rho}_\delta^G{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1)) =f{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1).
\end{array}$$ Therefore (by \[carrying\](4)) for each $k$ satisfying $(\blacklozenge)$ we have $\eta{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1)=f {{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1)$, so $$\big(\exists^\infty k<\omega\big)\big(\eta{{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1)=f {{\restriction}}[n_k,n_{k+1}-1)\big).$$ Consequently, by $(\oplus)_2$, we have that $\eta\notin\name{H}_1^G$, i.e., ${{\bf E}}(\eta)\notin (\name{H}^*)^G\cap [0,1)$. This contradicts the fact that ${{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G),{{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\delta^G) \in (\name{H}^*)^G$, ${{\bf E}}(\eta)={{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\gamma^G)+{{\bf E}}(\name{\rho}_\delta^G)$ and $(\name{H}^*)^G$ is a subgroup of $({{\mathbb R}},+)$.
Instead of the CS product of forcing notions ${{\mathbb S}}_*$ we could have used their CS iteration of length $\omega_2$. Of course, that would restrict the value of the continuum in the resulting model.
Problems
========
Both theorems \[firstres\](1) and \[mainthm\](1) can be repeated for other product groups. We may consider a sequence $\langle
H_n:n<\omega\rangle$ of finite groups and their coordinate-wise product $H=\prod\limits_{n<\omega} H_n$. Naturally, $H$ is equipped with product topology of discrete $H_n$’s and the product probability measure. Then there exists a null non–meager subgroup of $H$ but it is consistent that there is no meager non–null such subgroup. It is natural to ask now:
1. Does every locally compact group (with complete Haar measure) admit a null non–meager subgroup?
2. Is it consistent that no locally compact group has a meager non–null subgroup?
In relation to Theorem \[mainthm\], we still should ask:
Is it consistent that there exists a translation invariant Borel hull for the meager ideal on ${{}^{\omega}2}$? On ${{{\mathbb R}}}$?
[1]{}
Tomek Bartoszyński and Haim Judah. . A K Peters, Wellesley, Massachusetts, 1995.
James E. Baumgartner. . In A. Mathias, editor, [*Surveys in Set Theory*]{}, volume 87 of [ *London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes*]{}, pages 1–59, Cambridge, Britain, 1978.
James E. Baumgartner. . , 19:211–225, 1985.
Tomasz Filipczak, Andrzej Roslanowski, and Saharon Shelah. . , 40:129–140, 2015. arxiv:1308.3749.
Thomas Jech. . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. The third millennium edition, revised and expanded.
Andrzej Ros[ł]{}anowski. . , 71:881–902, 2006. arxiv:math.LO/0507519.
Andrzej Roslanowski and Saharon Shelah. . , 141(671):xii + 167, 1999. arxiv:math.LO/9807172.
Andrzej Ros[ł]{}anowski and Juris Steprāns. . , 51:593–603, 2008. arxiv:math.LO/0509392.
[^1]: Both authors acknowledge support from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (Grant no. 2010405). Publication 1081 of the second author.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In Bayesian statistics, many problems can be expressed as the evaluation of the expectation of a quantity of interest with respect to the posterior distribution. Standard Monte Carlo method is often not applicable because the encountered posterior distributions cannot be sampled directly. In this case, the most popular strategies are the importance sampling method, Markov chain Monte Carlo, and annealing. In this paper, we introduce a new scheme for Bayesian inference, called Asymptotically Independent Markov Sampling (AIMS), which is based on the above methods. We derive important ergodic properties of AIMS. In particular, it is shown that, under certain conditions, the AIMS algorithm produces a uniformly ergodic Markov chain. The choice of the free parameters of the algorithm is discussed and recommendations are provided for this choice, both theoretically and heuristically based. The efficiency of AIMS is demonstrated with three numerical examples, which include both multi-modal and higher-dimensional target posterior distributions.'
---
James L. Beck and Konstantin M. Zuev[^1]
[Computing and Mathematical Sciences, Division of Engineering and Applied Science,\
California Institute of Technology, USA]{}
KEY WORDS: Markov chain Monte Carlo, Importance Sampling, Simulated Annealing, Bayesian Inference.
Three cornerstones of computational Bayesian inference
======================================================
In Bayesian statistics, many problems can be expressed as the evaluation of the expectation of a quantity of interest with respect to the posterior distribution. Standard Monte Carlo simulation [@Metropolis_Ulam], where expectations are estimated by sample averages based on samples drawn independently from the posterior, is often not applicable because the encountered posterior distributions are multi-dimensional non-Gaussian distributions that cannot be explicitly normalized. In this case, the most popular strategies are importance sampling and Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. We briefly review these two methods first because they play an important role in the new MCMC method introduced in this paper.
*Importance sampling*: This is nearly as old as the Monte Carlo method (see, for instance, [@Kahn_Marshall]), and works as follows. Suppose we want to evaluate $\mathbb{E}_\pi[h]$ that is an expectation of a function of interest $h:\Theta\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ under distribution[^2] $\pi(\cdot)$ defined on a parameter space $\Theta\subseteq\mathbb{R}^d$, $$\label{E[h]}
\mathbb{E}_\pi[h]=\int_\Theta h(\theta)\pi(\theta)d\theta.$$ Suppose also that we are not able to sample directly from $\pi(\cdot)$, although we can compute $\pi(\theta)$ for any $\theta\in\Theta$ to within a proportionality constant. Instead, we sample from some other distribution $q(\cdot)$ on $\Theta$ which is readily computable for any $\theta\in\Theta$. Let $\theta^{(1)},\ldots,\theta^{(N)}$ be $N$ i.i.d. samples from $q(\cdot)$, and $w^{(i)}=\pi(\theta^{(i)})/q(\theta^{(i)})$ denote the *importance weight* of the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ sample, then we can estimate $\mathbb{E}_\pi[h]$ by $$\label{IS}
\hat{h}_N=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Nw^{(i)}h(\theta^{(i)})}{\sum_{i=1}^Nw^{(i)}}.$$ The estimator $\hat{h}_N$ converges almost surely as $N\rightarrow\infty$ to $\mathbb{E}_\pi[h]$ by the Strong Law of Large Numbers for any choice of distribution $q(\cdot)$, provided $\mathrm{supp}(\pi)\subseteq\mathrm{supp}(q)$. Note that the latter condition automatically holds in Bayesian updating using data $\mathcal{D}$ where $q(\theta)=\pi_0(\theta)$ is the prior density and $\pi(\theta)\propto \pi_0(\theta)L(\theta)$ is the posterior $p(\theta|\mathcal{D})$, where $L$ stands for the likelihood function $p(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$.
The estimator $\hat{h}_N$ in (\[IS\]) generally has a smaller mean square error than a more straightforward unbiased importance sampling estimator: $$\label{IS_2}
\hat{h}'_N=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nw^{(i)}h(x^{(i)}).$$ This is especially clear when $h$ is nearly a constant: if $h\approx c$, then $\hat{h}_N\approx c$, while $\hat{h}'_N$ has a larger variation. Although $\hat{h}_N$ is biased for any finite $N$, the bias can be made small by taking sufficiently large $N$, and the improvement in variance makes it a preferred alternative to $\hat{h}'_N$ [@Liu; @RobCas]. Another major advantage of using $\hat{h}_N$ instead of $\hat{h}'_N$, which is especially important for Bayesian applications, is that in using the former we need to know $\pi(\theta)$ only up to a multiplicative normalizing constant; whereas in the latter, this constant must be known exactly.
The accuracy of $\hat{h}_N$ depends critically on the choice of the *importance sampling distribution* (ISD) $q(\cdot)$, which is also called the *instrumental* or *trial* distribution. If $q(\cdot)$ is chosen carelessly such that the the importance weights $w^{(i)}$ have a large variation, then $\hat{h}_N$ is essentially based only on the few samples $\theta^{(i)}$ with the largest weights, yielding generally a very poor estimate. Hence, for importance sampling to work efficiently, $q(\cdot)$ must be a good approximation of $\pi(\cdot)$ — “the importance sampling density should mimic the posterior density” [@Geweke] — so that the variance $\mathrm{var}_q[w]$ is not large. Since usually the prior and posterior are quite different, it is, therefore, highly inefficient to use the prior as the importance sampling distribution. When $\Theta$ is high-dimensional, and $\pi(\cdot)$ is complex, finding a good importance sampling distribution can be very challenging, limiting the applicability of the method [@AuBeck2].
For the estimator $\hat{h}'_N$ in (\[IS\_2\]), it is not difficult to show that the optimal importance sampling density, i.e., $q^*(\cdot)$ that minimizes the variance of $\hat{h}'_N$, is $q^*(\theta)\propto
|h(\theta)|\pi(\theta)$. This result is sometimes attributed to Rubinstein [@Rubinstein], although it was proved earlier by Kahn and Marshall [@Kahn_Marshall]. It is not true, however, that $q^*(\cdot)$ is optimal for the estimator $\hat{h}_N$. Note also that this optimality result is not useful in practice, since when $h(\theta)\geq0$, the required normalizing constant of $q^*(\cdot)$ is $\int_\Theta
h(\theta)\pi(\theta)d\theta$, the integral of interest.
*MCMC Sampling*: Instead of generating independent samples from an ISD, we could generate dependent samples by simulating a Markov chain whose state distribution converges to the posterior distribution $\pi(\cdot)$ as its stationary distribution. *Markov chain Monte Carlo* sampling (MCMC) originated in statistical physics, and now is widely used in solving statistical problems [@NealMCMC; @Gilks_Richardson_Spiegelhalter; @Liu; @RobCas].
The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm [@Metropolis; @Hastings], the most popular MCMC technique, works as follows. Let $q(\cdot|\theta)$ be a distribution on $\Theta$, which may or may not depend on $\theta\in\Theta$. Assume that $q(\cdot|\theta)$ is easy to sample from and it is either computable (up to a multiplicative constant) or symmetric, i.e. $q(\xi|\theta)=q(\theta|\xi)$. The sampling distribution $q(\cdot|\theta)$ is called the *proposal distribution*. Starting from essentially any $\theta^{(1)}\in\mathrm{supp}(\pi)$, the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm proceeds by iterating the following two steps. First, generate a *candidate* state $\xi$ from the proposal density $q(\cdot|\theta^{(n)})$. Second, either accept $\xi$ as the next state of the Markov chain, $\theta^{(n+1)}=\xi$, with probability $\alpha(\xi|\theta^{(n)})=\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi(\xi)q(\theta^{(n)}|\xi)}{\pi(\theta^{(n)})q(\xi|\theta^{(n)})}\right\}$; or reject $\xi$ and set $\theta^{(n+1)}=\theta^{(n)}$ with the remaining probability $1-\alpha(\xi|\theta^{(n)})$. It can be shown (see, for example, [@RobCas]), that under fairly weak conditions, $\pi(\cdot)$ is the stationary distribution of the Markov chain $\theta^{(1)}, \theta^{(2)},\ldots$ and $$\label{convergence}
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N
h(\theta^{(i)})=\int_\Theta h(\theta)\pi(\theta)d\theta.$$ Since the chain needs some time (so called “burn-in” period) to converge to stationarity, in practice, an initial portion of, say, $N_0$ states is usually discarded and $$\label{MCMCestimator}
\tilde{h}_N=\frac{1}{N-N_0}\sum_{i=N_0+1}^Nh(\theta^{(i)})$$ is used as an estimator for $\mathbb{E}_{\pi}[h]$.
The two main special cases of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm are Independent Metropolis-Hastings (IMH), where the proposal distribution $q(\xi|\theta)=q_g(\xi)$ is independent of $\theta$ (so $q_g$ is a *global proposal*), and Random Walk Metropolis-Hastings (RWMH), where the proposal distribution is of the form $q(\xi|\theta)=q_l(\xi-\theta)$, i.e. a candidate state is proposed as $\xi=\theta^{(n)}+\epsilon_n$, where $\epsilon_n\sim q_l(\cdot)$ is a random perturbation (so $q_l$ is a *local proposal*). In both cases, the choice of the proposal distribution strongly affects the efficiency of the algorithms. For IMH to work well, as with importance sampling, the proposal distribution must be a good approximation of the *target distribution* $\pi(\cdot)$, otherwise a large fraction of the candidate samples will be rejected and the Markov chain will be too slow in covering the important regions for $\pi(\cdot)$. When, however, it is possible to find a proposal $q_g(\cdot)$, such that $q_g(\cdot)\approx
\pi(\cdot)$, IMH should always be preferred to RWMH because of better efficiency, i.e. better approximations of $\mathbb{E}_{\pi}[h]$ for a given number of samples $N$. Unfortunately, such a proposal is difficult to construct in the context of Bayesian inference where the posterior $\pi(\cdot)$ is often complex and high-dimensional. This limits the applicability of IMH.
Since the random walk proposal $q_l(\cdot)$ is local, it is less sensitive to the target distribution. That is why, in practice, RWMH is more robust and used more frequently than IMH. Nonetheless, there are settings where RWMH also does not work well because of the complexity of the posterior distribution. Although (\[convergence\]) is true in theory, a potential problem with RWMH (and, in fact, with any MCMC algorithm) is that the generated samples $\theta^{(1)},\ldots, \theta^{(N)}$ often consist of highly correlated samples. Therefore, the estimator $\tilde{h}_N$ in (\[MCMCestimator\]) obtained from these samples tends to have a large variance for a modest amount of samples. This is especially true when the posterior distribution contains several widely-separated modes: a chain will move between modes only rarely and it will take a long time before it reaches stationarity. If this is the case, an estimate produced by $\tilde{h}_N$ will be very inaccurate. At first glance, it seems natural to generate several independent Markov chains, starting from different random seeds, and hope that different chains will get trapped by different modes. However, multiple runs will not in general generate a sample in which each mode is correctly represented, since the probability of a chain reaching a mode depends more on the mode’s “basin of attraction” than on the probability concentrated in the mode [@Neal_tempered_transitions].
*Annealing:* The concept of *annealing* (or *tempering*), which involves moving from an easy-to-sample distribution to the target distribution via a sequence of intermediate distributions, is one of the most effective methods of handling multiple isolated modes. Together with importance sampling and MCMC, annealing constitutes the third cornerstone of computational Bayesian inference.
The idea of using the RWMH algorithm in conjunction with annealing was introduced independently in [@Kirkpatrick] and [@Cerny] for solving difficult optimization problems. The resulting algorithm, called *Simulated Annealing*, works as follows. Suppose we want to find the global minimum of a function of interest $h: \Theta
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. This is equivalent to finding the global maximum of $f_T(\theta)=\exp(-h(\theta)/T)$ for any given $T>0$. By analogy with the Gibbs distribution in statistical mechanics, $T$ is called the *temperature parameter*. Let $T_0>T_1>\ldots$ be a sequence of monotonically decreasing temperatures, in which $T_0$ is large enough so that the probability distribution $\pi_0(\theta)\propto
f_{T_0}(\theta)$ is close to uniform, and $\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}T_j=0$. At each temperature $T_j$, the Simulated Annealing method generates a Markov chain with $\pi_j(\theta)\propto \exp(-h(\theta)/T_j)$ as its stationary distribution. The final state of the Markov chain at simulation level $j$ is used as the initial state for the chain at level $j+1$. The key observation is that for any function $h$ such that $\int_\Theta \exp(-h(\theta)/T)d\theta<\infty$ for all $T>0$, distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$, as $j$ increases, puts more and more of its probability mass (converging to $1$) into a neighborhood of the global minimum of $h$. Therefore, a sample drawn from $\pi_j(\cdot)$ would almost surely be in a vicinity of the global minimum of $h$ when $T_j$ is close to zero.
The success of Simulated Annealing in finding the global minimum crucially depends on the schedule of temperatures used in the simulation. It was proved in [@Geman] that if a logarithmic schedule $T_j=T_0/\log(j+1)$ is used, then, under certain conditions, there exists a value for $T_0$ such that use of this schedule guarantees that the global minimum of $h$ will be reached almost surely. In practice, however, such a slow annealing schedule is not computationally efficient. It is more common to use either a geometric schedule, $T_{j+1}=\gamma T_j$ with $0<\gamma<1$, or some adaptive schedule, which defines the temperature for the next annealing level based on characteristics of the samples observed at earlier levels. For examples of adaptive annealing schedules, see, for instance, [@NealMCMC].
In Bayesian inference problems, the idea of annealing is typically employed in the following way. First, we construct (in advance or adaptively) a sequence of distributions $\pi_0(\cdot),\ldots,
\pi_m(\cdot)$ interpolating between the prior distribution $\pi_0(\cdot)$ and the posterior distribution $\pi(\cdot)\equiv
\pi_m(\cdot)$. Next, we generate i.i.d. samples $\theta_0^{(1)},\ldots, \theta_0^{(N)}$ from the prior, which is assumed to be readily sampled. Then, at each annealing level $j$, using some MCMC algorithm and samples $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{j-1}^{(N)}$ from the previous level $j-1$, we generate samples $\theta_{j}^{(1)},\ldots, \theta_{j}^{(N)}$ which are approximately distributed according to $\pi_j(\cdot)$. We proceed sequentially in this way, until the posterior distribution has been sampled. The rationale behind this strategy is that sampling from the multi-modal and, perhaps, high-dimensional posterior in such a way is likely to be more efficient than a straightforward MCMC sampling of the posterior.
The problem of sampling a complex distribution is encountered in statistical mechanics, computational Bayesian inference, scientific computing, machine learning, and other fields. As a result, many different efficient algorithms have been recently developed, e.g. the method of Simulated Tempering [@Marinari; @Geyer], the Tempered Transition method [@Neal_tempered_transitions], Annealed Importance Sampling [@Neal_AIS], the Adaptive Metropolis-Hastings algorithm [@BeckAu], Transitional Markov Chain Monte Carlo method [@Ching], to name a few.
In this paper we introduce a new MCMC scheme for Bayesian inference, called *Asymptotically Independent Markov Sampling* (AIMS), which combines the three approaches described above — importance sampling, MCMC, and annealing — in the following way. Importance sampling with $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ as the ISD is used for a construction of an approximation $\hat{\pi}_{j}^N(\cdot)$ of $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$, which is based on samples $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N)}\sim \pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$. This approximation is then employed as the independent (global) proposal distribution for sampling from $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$ by the IMH algorithm. Intermediate distributions $\pi_0(\cdot),\ldots,
\pi_m(\cdot)$ interpolating between prior and posterior are constructed adaptively, using the essential sample size (ESS) to measure how much $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ differs from $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$. When the number of samples $N\rightarrow\infty$, the approximation $\hat{\pi}_{j}^N(\cdot)$ converges to $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$, providing the optimal proposal distribution. In other words, when $N\rightarrow\infty$, the corresponding MCMC sampler produces independent samples, hence the name of the algorithm.
The term “Markov sampling” has several different meanings. In this paper it is used as synonymous to “MCMC sampling”.
In this introductory section, we have described all the main ingredients that we will need in the subsequent sections. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec2\], the AIMS algorithm is described. The ergodic properties of AIMS are derived in Section \[Ergodic Properties\]. The efficiency of AIMS is illustrated in Section \[examples-section\] with three numerical examples that include both multi-modal and high-dimensional posterior distributions. Concluding remarks are made in Section \[finish\].
Asymptotically Independent Markov Sampling {#sec2}
==========================================
Let $\pi_0(\cdot)$ and $\pi(\cdot)$ be the prior and the posterior distributions defined on a parameter space $\Theta$, respectively, so that, according to Bayes’ Theorem, $\pi(\theta)\propto
\pi_0(\theta)L(\theta)$, where $L$ denotes the likelihood function for data $\mathcal{D}$. Our ultimate goal is to draw samples that are distributed according to $\pi(\cdot)$.
In Asymptotically Independent Markov Sampling (AIMS), we sequentially generate samples from intermediate distributions $\pi_0(\cdot),\ldots,\pi_m(\cdot)$ interpolating between the prior $\pi_0(\cdot)$ and the posterior $\pi(\cdot)\equiv\pi_m(\cdot)$. The sequence of distributions could be specially constructed for a given problem but the following scheme [@Neal_AIS; @Ching] generally yields good efficiency: $$\label{InterPDFs}
\pi_j(\theta)\propto
\pi_0(\theta)L(\theta)^{\beta_j},$$ where $0=\beta_0<\beta_1<\ldots<\beta_m=1$. We will refer to $j$ and $\beta_j$ as the *annealing level* and the *annealing parameter* at level $j$, respectively. In the next subsection, we assume that $\beta_j$ is given and therefore the intermediate distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is also known. In Subsection \[Implementation\], we describe how to choose the annealing parameters adaptively.
AIMS at annealing level $j$ {#level j}
---------------------------
Our first goal is to describe how AIMS generates sample $\theta_{j}^{(1)},\ldots, \theta_{j}^{(N_j)}$ from $\pi_j(\cdot)$ based on the sample $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\sim\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ obtained at the previous annealing level. We start with an informal motivating discussion that leads to the simulation algorithm. In Section \[Ergodic Properties\], we rigorously prove that the corresponding algorithm indeed generates samples which are asymptotically distributed according to $\pi_j(\cdot)$, as the sample size $N_j\rightarrow\infty$. Moreover, the larger $N_{j-1}$, the less correlated generated samples $\theta_{j}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{j}^{(N_j)}$ are — a very desirable, yet rarely affordable, property for any MCMC algorithm.
Let $K_j(\cdot|\cdot)$ be any transition kernel such that $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is a stationary distribution with respect to $K_j(\cdot|\cdot)$. By definition, this means that $$\label{stationarity}
\pi_j(\theta)d\theta=\int_\Theta
K_j(d\theta|\xi)\pi_j(\xi)d\xi$$ Applying importance sampling with the sampling density $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ to integral (\[stationarity\]), we have: $$\label{ImportanceSamplingApproximation}
\begin{split}
\pi_j(\theta)d\theta&=\int_\Theta K_j(d\theta|\xi)
\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_{j-1}(\xi)}\pi_{j-1}(\xi)d\xi\\
&\approx\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
K_j(d\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
\overset{\underset{\mathrm{def}}{}}{=} \hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(d\theta),
\end{split}$$ where $\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ will be used as the *global proposal* distribution in the Independent Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, and $$\label{weights}
w^{(i)}_{j-1}=\frac{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}{\pi_{j-1}(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\propto L(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})^{\beta_j-\beta_{j-1}}\hspace{3mm}
\mbox{ and }
\hspace{3mm} \bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}=\frac{w^{(i)}_{j-1}}{\sum_{k=1}^{N_{j-1}}w^{(k)}_{j-1}} $$ are the importance weights and normalized importance weights, respectively. Note that to calculate $\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}$, we do not need to know the normalizing constants of $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ and $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$. If adjacent intermediate distributions $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ and $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$ are sufficiently close (in other words, if $\Delta\beta_j=\beta_j-\beta_{j-1}$ is small enough), then the importance weights (\[weights\]) will not vary wildly, and, therefore, we can expect that, for reasonably large $N_{j-1}$, approximation $(\ref{ImportanceSamplingApproximation})$ is accurate.
In [@Cheung], the stationary condition (\[stationarity\]) was used for an analytical approximation of the target PDF to evaluate the evidence (marginal likelihood) for a model.
Note that for any finite $N_{j-1}$, distribution $\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ will usually have both continuous and discrete parts. This follows from the fact that the transition kernel in Markov chain simulation usually has the following form: $K(d\theta|\xi)=k(\theta|\xi)d\theta+r(\xi)\delta_{\xi}(d\theta)$, where $k(\cdot|\cdot)$ describes the continuous part of the transition kernel, $\delta_{\xi}(\cdot)$ denotes the Dirac mass at $\xi$, and $r(\xi)=1-\int_\Theta k(\theta|\xi)d\theta$. This is the form, for example, for the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Therefore, (\[ImportanceSamplingApproximation\]) must be understood as the approximate equality of distributions, not densities. In other words, (\[ImportanceSamplingApproximation\]) means that $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}}[h]\approx\mathbb{E}_{\pi_j}[h]$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}}[h]\rightarrow\mathbb{E}_{\pi_j}[h]$, when $N_{j-1}\rightarrow\infty$, for all integrable functions $h$. See also Example 2.1 below.
From now on, we consider a special case where ${K}_j(\cdot|\cdot)$ is the random walk Metropolis-Hastings (RWMH) transition kernel. In this case, it can be written as follows: $$\label{RWMHkernel}
K_j(d\theta|\xi)=q_j(\theta|\xi)\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\pi_j(\xi)}\right\}d\theta
+ (1-a_j(\xi))\delta_\xi(d\theta),$$ where $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ is a symmetric *local* proposal density, and $a_j(\xi)$ is the probability of having a proper transition $\xi$ to $\Theta\setminus\{\xi\}$: $$\label{acceptProb}
a_j(\xi)=\int_\Theta
q_j(\theta|\xi)\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\pi_j(\xi)}\right\}
d\theta$$
*Example 2.1.* As a simple illustration of (\[ImportanceSamplingApproximation\]), consider the case when $\pi_j(\cdot)=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|0,1)$, $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|0,2)$, and $q_j(\cdot|\xi)=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|\xi,1/2)$, where $\mathcal{N}(\cdot|\mu,\sigma^2)$ denotes the Gaussian density with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$. The approximation $\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ based on the samples $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\sim\mathcal{N}(\cdot|0,2)$ is shown in the top panels of Figure \[example1\], for $N_{j-1}=5$ and $N_{j-1}=50$. Suppose that $h_1(\theta)=\theta$ and $h_2(\theta)=\theta^2$ are the functions of interest. Then $\mathbb{E}_{\pi_j}[h_1]=0$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\pi_j}[h_2]=1$. The convergence of $h^*_1(N_{j-1})=\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}}[h_1]$ and $h^*_2(N_{j-1})=\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}}[h_2]$ is shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[example1\].
For sampling from $\pi_j(\cdot)$, we will use the Independent Metropolis-Hastings algorithm (IMH) with the *global* proposal distribution $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$. To accomplish this, we have to be able to calculate the ratio $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)/\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)$ for any $\theta,\xi\in \Theta$ as a part of the expression for the acceptance probability $\alpha_j(\xi|\theta)=\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}$. However, as it has been already mentioned, the distribution $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ does not have a density since it has both continuous and discrete components, and, therefore, the ratio $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)/\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)$ makes no sense. To overcome this “lack-of-continuity problem”, taking into account (\[ImportanceSamplingApproximation\]) and (\[RWMHkernel\]), let us *formally* define the global proposal distribution over $\Theta$ as: $$\label{formaldefinition}
\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)\overset{\underset{\mathrm{def}}{}}{=}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}q_j(\theta|\theta^{(i)}_{j-1})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta^{(i)}_{j-1})}\right\},$$ if $\theta\notin\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$, and $$\label{formaldefinition2}
\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta_{j-1}^{(k)})\overset{\underset{\mathrm{def}}{}}{=}\infty$$ Note that $\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ is a distribution on $\Theta$, but it does not have a density. However, $\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ induces another distribution on $\Theta\setminus\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$ which does have a density, given by the r.h.s. of (\[formaldefinition\]). This motivates (\[formaldefinition\]).
Now, using (\[formaldefinition\]) and (\[formaldefinition2\]), we can calculate the ratio $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)/\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)$ as follows:
1. If $\theta,\xi\notin\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$, then $$\label{case1}
\frac{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}=
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}q_j(\theta|\theta^{(i)}_{j-1})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta^{(i)}_{j-1})}\right\}}
{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}q_j(\xi|\theta^{(i)}_{j-1})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta^{(i)}_{j-1})}\right\}}$$
2. If $\theta\notin\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$ and $\xi=\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$, then $$\label{case2}
\frac{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}=0 \hspace{3mm} \mbox{and} \hspace{3mm} \alpha_j(\xi|\theta)=0$$
3. If $\theta=\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$ and $\xi\notin\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$, then $$\label{case3}
\frac{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}=\infty \hspace{3mm} \mbox{and} \hspace{3mm} \alpha_j(\xi|\theta)=1$$
4. If $\theta=\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$ and $\xi=\theta_{j-1}^{(l)}$, then $\frac{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}$ is not defined.
Notice that in the first three cases the ratio $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)/\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)$ is readily computable, while in Case IV, it is not even defined. Therefore, it is very desirable to avoid Case IV. The key observation that allows us to do this is the following: suppose that the initial state $\theta^{(1)}_j$ of the Markov chain that is generated is such that $\theta^{(1)}_j\in
\Theta^*_j\overset{\underset{\mathrm{def}}{}}{=}
\Theta\setminus\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$, then $\theta^{(i)}_j\in\Theta^*_j$ for all $i\geq1$. Indeed, the only way for the chain to enter the set $\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$ is to generate a candidate state $\xi\in\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$; however, according to Case II, such a candidate will always be rejected. Thus, by replacing the state space $\Theta$ by $\Theta_j^*$ and using (\[case1\]) and (\[case2\]) for evaluation of $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)/\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)$, we are able to calculate the acceptance probability $\alpha_j(\xi|\theta)=\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}$ involved in the IMH algorithm. It is clear that the replacement of $\Theta$ by $\Theta_j^*$ is harmless for the ergodic properties of the Markov chain when $\Theta\subseteq\mathbb{R}^d$.
One may wonder why not just use the continuous part of $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ as the global proposal density within the IMH algorithm. In other words, why not use the density $\hat{\pi}_{j,\mathrm{cont}}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$, which is proportional to the function defined by (\[formaldefinition\]), as the proposal density. Indeed, in this case we would not have any difficulties with calculating the ratio $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)/\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)$. The problem is that it is not clear how to sample from $\hat{\pi}_{j,\mathrm{cont}}^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$, while sampling from $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(d\theta)=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1} K_j(d\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})$ is straightforward.
The above discussion leads to the following algorithm for sampling from the distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
height 0.6pt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**AIMS at annealing level $j$**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Input:`
$\vartriangleright$ $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\sim\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$, samples generated at annealing level $j-1$;
$\vartriangleright$ $\theta_j^{(1)}\in\Theta^*_j=
\Theta\setminus\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$, initial state of a Markov chain;
$\vartriangleright$ $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$, symmetric proposal density associated with the RWMH kernel;
$\vartriangleright$ $N_j$, total number of Markov chain states to be generated.
`Algorithm:`
**for** $i=1,\ldots,N_j-1$ **do**
1\) Generate a global candidate state $\xi_g\sim\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$ as follows:
a\. Select $k$ from $\{1,\ldots,N_{j-1}\}$ with probabilities $\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}$ given by (\[weights\]).
b\. Generate a local candidate $\xi_l\sim
q_j(\cdot|\theta_{j-1}^{(k)})$.
c\. Accept or reject $\xi_l$ by setting
$$\label{AcceptRejectthelocal}
\xi_g=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\xi_l, & \hbox{with probability } \min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi_l)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(k)})}\right\}; \\
\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}, & \hbox{with the remaining probability.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
2\) Update $\theta_j^{(i)}\rightarrow\theta_j^{(i+1)}$ by accepting or rejecting $\xi_g$ as follows:
**if** $\xi_g=\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$
Set $\theta_j^{(i+1)}=\theta_j^{(i)}$
**else**
Set
$$\label{AcceptRejecttheglobal}
\theta_j^{(i+1)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\xi_g, & \hbox{with probability } \min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi_g)\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta_j^{(i)})}{\pi_j(\theta_j^{(i)})\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi_g)}\right\}; \\
\theta_j^{(i)}, & \hbox{with the remaining probability.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
**end if**
**end for**
`Output:`
$\blacktriangleright$ $\theta^{(1)}_j,\ldots,\theta^{(N_j)}_j$, $N_j$ states of a Markov chain with a stationary distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schematically, the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j$ is shown in Figure \[scheme\]. The proof that $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is indeed a stationary distribution for the Markov chain generated by AIMS is given in Section \[Ergodic Properties\].
As usually for MCMC algorithms, the fact of convergence of a Markov chain to its stationary distribution does not depend on the initial state; however, the speed of convergence does. One reasonable way to chose the initial state $\theta_j^{(1)}\in\Theta^*_j$ in practical applications is the following: generate $\theta_j^{(1)}\sim
q_j(\cdot|\theta_{j-1}^{(k^*)})$, where $k^*=\arg\max_k
\bar{w}^{(k)}_{j-1}$, i.e. $\theta_{j-1}^{(k^*)}$ has the largest normalized importance weight.
The full AIMS procedure {#Implementation}
-----------------------
At the zero$^{\mathrm{th}}$ annealing level, $j=0$, we generate prior samples $\theta_0^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_0^{(N_0)}$, which usually can be readily drawn directly by a suitable choice of the prior distribution $\pi_0(\cdot)$. Then, using the algorithm described in the previous subsection, we generate samples $\theta_1^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_1^{(N_1)}$, which are approximately distributed according to intermediate distribution $\pi_1(\theta)\propto\pi_0(\theta)L(\theta)^{\beta_1}$. We proceed like this until the posterior distribution $\pi_m(\theta)\propto\pi_0(\theta)L(\theta)^{\beta_m}$ ($\beta_m=1$) has been sampled. To make the description of AIMS complete, we have to explain how to choose the annealing parameters $\beta_j$, for $j=2,\ldots,m-1$.
It is clear that the choice of the annealing parameters is very important, since, for instance, it affects the accuracy of the importance sampling approximation (\[ImportanceSamplingApproximation\]) and, therefore, the efficiency of the whole AIMS procedure. At the same time, it is difficult to make a rational choice of the $\beta_j$-values in advance, since this requires some prior knowledge about the posterior distribution, which is often not available. For this reason, we propose an adaptive way of choosing the annealing scheme.
In importance sampling, a useful measure of degeneracy of the method is the *effective sample size* (ESS) $N^{\mathrm{eff}}$ introduced in [@Kong] and [@Liu2]. The ESS measures how similar the importance sampling distribution $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ is to the target distribution $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$. Suppose $N_{j-1}$ independent samples $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}$ are generated from $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$, then the ESS of these samples is defined as $$\label{ESS}
N^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}=\frac{N_{j-1}}{1+\mathrm{var}_{\pi_{j-1}}[w]}=\frac{N_{j-1}}{\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{j-1}}[w^2]},$$ where $w(\theta)=\pi_j(\theta)/\pi_{j-1}(\theta)$. The ESS can be interpreted as implying that $N_{j-1}$ weighted samples $(\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},
w_{j-1}^{(1)}),\ldots,(\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})},
w^{(N_{j-1})}_{j-1})$ are worth $N^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}(\leq
N_{j-1}$) i.i.d. samples drawn from the target distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$. One cannot evaluate the ESS exactly but an estimate $\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}$ of $N^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}$ is given by $$\label{ESSestimate}
\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}(\bar{w}_{j-1})=\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}(\bar{w}_{j-1}^{(i)})^2},$$ where $\bar{w}_{j-1}=(\bar{w}_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\bar{w}_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})})$ and $\bar{w}_{j-1}^{(i)}$ is the normalized importance weight of $\theta_{j-1}^{(i)}$.
At annealing level $j$, when $\beta_{j-1}$ is already known, the problem is to define $\beta_j$. Let $\gamma=\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}/N_{j-1}\in(0,1)$ be a prescribed threshold that characterizes the “quality” of the weighted sample (the larger $\gamma$ is, the “better” the weighted sample is). Then we obtain the following equation: $$\label{equation on betaj}
\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}(\bar{w}_{j-1}^{(i)})^2=\frac{1}{\gamma N_{j-1}}$$ Observe that this equation can be expressed as an equation for $\beta_j$ by using (\[weights\]): $$\label{equation on betaj 2}
\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}L(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})^{2(\beta_j-\beta_{j-1})}}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}L(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})^{\beta_j-\beta_{j-1}}\right)^2}
=\frac{1}{\gamma N_{j-1}}$$ Solving this equation for $\beta_j$ gives us the value of the annealing parameter at level $j$.
Note that when $j\geq2$, the $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}$ are generated by the Markov chain sampler described in the previous subsection and therefore are not independent. This means that, because of the autocorrelations produced by the Markov chain used, the “true” ESS of this sample is, in fact, smaller than the one given by (\[ESS\]). This is useful to remember when choosing $\gamma$. Also, this is another reason to select the prior distribution $\pi_0(\cdot)$ so that samples can be generated independently at the start of each AIMS run.
Combining the AIMS algorithm at a given annealing level with the described adaptive annealing scheme gives rise to the following procedure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
height 0.6pt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The AIMS procedure**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Input:`
$\vartriangleright$ $\gamma$, threshold for the effective sample size (ESS);
$\vartriangleright$ $N_0, N_1, \ldots$, where $N_j$ is the total number of Markov chain states to be generated
at annealing level $j$;
$\vartriangleright$ $q_1(\cdot|\xi), q_2(\cdot|\xi),
\ldots$, where $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ is the symmetric proposal density associated with
the RWMH kernel at annealing level $j$.
`Algorithm:`
Set $j=0$, current annealing level.
Set $\beta_0=0$, current annealing parameter.
Sample $\theta_0^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_0^{(N_0)}\stackrel{i.i.d}{\sim}\pi_0(\cdot)$.
Calculate $\bar{W}_0^{(i)}=\frac{L(\theta_{0}^{(i)})^{1-\beta_{0}}}{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{0}}L(\theta_{0}^{(i)})^{1-\beta_{0}}}$, $i=1,\ldots,N_0$.
Calculate the ESS $\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_0=\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_0(\bar{W}_0)$ using (\[ESSestimate\]), which measures how similar the
prior distribution $\pi_{0}(\cdot)$ is to the target posterior distribution $\pi(\cdot)$.
**while** $\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_j/N_{j}<\gamma$ **do**
Find $\beta_{j+1}$ from equation (\[equation on betaj 2\]).
Calculate normalized importance weights $\bar{w}^{(i)}_j$, $i=1,\ldots,N_j$ using (\[weights\]).
Generate a Markov chain $\theta_{j+1}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{j+1}^{(N_{j+1})}$ with the stationary distribution
$\pi_{j+1}(\cdot)$ using the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j+1$.
Calculate $\bar{W}_{j+1}^{(i)}=\frac{L(\theta_{j+1}^{(i)})^{1-\beta_{j+1}}}{\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j+1}}L(\theta_{j+1}^{(i)})^{1-\beta_{j+1}}}$, $i=1,\ldots,N_{j+1}$.
Calculate the ESS $\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j+1}=\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j+1}(\bar{W}_{j+1})$ using (\[ESSestimate\]), which measures how
similar the intermediate distribution $\pi_{j+1}(\cdot)$ is to the posterior $\pi(\cdot)$.
Increment $j$ to $j+1$.
**end while**
Set $\beta_{j+1}=1$, current annealing parameter.
Set $m=j+1$, the total number of distributions in the annealing scheme.
Set $\bar{w}^{(i)}_{m-1}=\bar{W}^{(i)}_{m-1}$, $i=1,\ldots,N_{m-1}$.
Generate a Markov chain $\theta_{m}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{m}^{(N_{m})}$ with the stationary distribution
$\pi_{m}(\cdot)=\pi(\cdot)$ using the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $m$.
`Output:`
$\blacktriangleright$ $\theta^{(1)}_m,\ldots,\theta^{(N_m)}_m\dot{\sim}\pi(\cdot)$, samples that are approximately distributed according
to the posterior distribution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation issues {#impl issues}
---------------------
As it follows from the description, the AIMS procedure has the following parameters: $\gamma$, the threshold for the effective sample size; $N_j$, the length of a Markov chain generated at annealing level $j=1,\ldots,m$; and $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$, the symmetric proposal density associated with the RWMH kernel at level $j=1,\ldots,m$. Here, we discuss the choice of these parameters and how this choice affects the efficiency of AIMS.
First of all, it is absolutely clear that, as for any Monte Carlo method, the larger the number of generated samples is, the more accurate the corresponding estimates of (\[E\[h\]\]) are. However, we would like to highlight the difference between the roles of $N_{j-1}$ and $N_j$ at annealing level $j$. While $N_j$ is directly related to the convergence of the chain $\theta_j^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_j^{(N_j)}$ to its stationary distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$, $N_{j-1}$ affects this convergence implicitly through the global proposal distribution $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$: the larger $N_{j-1}$, the more accurate approximation (\[ImportanceSamplingApproximation\]) is, and, therefore, the less correlated $\theta_{j}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{j}^{(N_j)}$ are. When $N_{j-1}\rightarrow\infty$, samples $\theta_{j}^{(1)},\ldots, \theta_{j}^{(N_j)}$ become independent draws from $\pi_j(\cdot)$, hence the name of the algorithm. Thus, if we increase $N=N_{j-1}=N_j$, the effect is twofold: first, the sample size increases thereby increasing the effective number of independent samples at the $j^{\rm{th}}$ level (typical for any Monte Carlo method); second, the samples become less correlated (a useful feature of AIMS), again increasing the effective number of independent samples. As a result of these two effects, increasing $N$ has a strong influence on the effective number of independent posterior samples and so strongly reduces the variance of the estimator for (\[E\[h\]\]).
Suppose now that we are at the last annealing level and generating a Markov chain $\theta_{m}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{m}^{(N_{m})}$ with the stationary distribution $\pi_{m}(\cdot)=\pi(\cdot)$. We will refer to this chain as the posterior Markov chain. A critical question faced by users of MCMC methods is how to determine when it is safe to stop sampling from the posterior distribution and use samples $\theta_{m}^{(1)},\ldots,
\theta_{m}^{(N_{m})}$ for estimation. In other words, how large should $N_m$ be? One possible solution of this “convergence assessment problem” is to use one of the numerous published diagnostic techniques; for example, see [@CowlesCarlin] for a comparative review of MCMC convergence diagnostics. Unfortunately, none of the published diagnostics allows one to say with certainty that a finite sample from an MCMC algorithm is representative of an underlying stationary distribution. A more empirical approach for assessing convergence is to run several posterior Markov chains $\theta_{k,m}^{(1)},\ldots, \theta_{k,m}^{(N_{m})}$, $k=1,\ldots,K$, in parallel and monitor the corresponding estimators $\hat{h}_1,\ldots,\hat{h}_K$ of $\mathbb{E}_{\pi}[h]$. A stopping rule for convergence is then $$\label{stopping rule}
\max_{1\leq i<j\leq K}|\hat{h}_i-\hat{h}_j|<\varepsilon,$$ where $\varepsilon$ is a minimum precision requirement. It is important to emphasise, though, that rule (\[stopping rule\]), although easy-to-understand and easy-to-implement, does not assure convergence of the chains (especially if $\pi(\cdot)$ is multi-modal): “the potential for problems with multiple modes exists whenever there is no theoretical guarantee that the distribution is unimodal” [@Neal_AIS].
The threshold $\gamma$ affects the speed of annealing. If $\gamma$ is very small, i.e. close to zero, then AIMS will have very few intermediate distributions interpolating between the prior and posterior distributions, and this will lead to inaccurate results for a moderate number of samples. On the other hand, if $\gamma$ is very large, i.e. close to one, then AIMS will have too many intermediate distributions, which will make the algorithm computationally very expensive.
The proposed method for finding $\beta_j$-values is based on the ESS, and $\beta_j$ is defined from equation (\[equation on betaj\]) (or, equivalently, from (\[equation on betaj 2\])). A similar adaptive approach for defining an annealing scheme was proposed in [@Ching]. It is based on the coefficient of variation (COV) of the importance weights (\[weights\]). More precisely, the equation for $\beta_j$ is given by $$\label{COV-creterion}
\frac{\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{j-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}\left(w_{j-1}^{(i)}-\frac{1}{N_{j-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}w_{j-1}^{(i)}\right)^2}}{\frac{1}{N_{j-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}w_{j-1}^{(i)}}=\delta,$$ where $\delta>0$ is a prescribed threshold. It is easy to show that the ESS-criterion (\[equation on betaj\]) and the COV-criterion (\[COV-creterion\]) are mathematically equivalent; in fact, $\hat{N}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{j-1}=N_{j-1}/(1+\delta^2)$. We prefer to use the former criterion since $\gamma$ has a clear meaning: it is the factor by which the (essential) sample size of the weighted sample is reduced as a penalty for sampling from the importance sampling density instead of the target distribution. It has been found in [@Ching] that $\delta=1$ is usually a reasonable choice of the threshold. This corresponds to $\gamma=1/2$. Our simulation results (see Section \[examples-section\]) also show that annealing schemes with $\gamma$ around $1/2$ yield good efficiency.
The choice of the local proposal density $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ associated with the RWMH kernel determines the ergodic properties of the Markov chain generated by AIMS at level $j$; it also determines how efficiently the chain explores local neighborhoods of samples $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}$ generated at the previous level. This makes the choice of $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ very important.
It has been observed by many researchers that the efficiency of Metropolis-Hastings based MCMC methods is not sensitive to the type of the proposal density; however, it strongly depends on its variance (e.g. [@Gelman; @AuBeck]). For this reason, we suggest using a Gaussian density as the local proposal: $$\label{Gaussian proposal}
q_j(\theta|\xi)=\mathcal{N}(\theta|\xi,c_j^2\mathbb{I}),$$ where $\xi$ and $c_j^2\mathbb{I}$ are the mean and diagonal covariance matrix, respectively. The scaling parameter $c_j^2$ determines the “spread” of the local proposal distribution. In Section \[Ergodic Properties\], we prove (Theorem \[theorem3\]) that, under certain conditions, the acceptance rate $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j$ (i.e. the expected probability of having a proper Markov transition $\theta_j^{(i)}$ to $\theta_j^{(i+1)}\neq\theta_j^{(i)}$) satisfies $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j\geq \frac{1}{M}$, where constant $M$ depends on $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ and, therefore, on $c_j^2$. This result can be potentially used for finding an optimal $c_j^2$ that would minimize $M$. Alternatively, a more empirical way of choosing the scaling factor consists of adjusting $c_j^2$ based on the estimated acceptance rate. This works as follows: first, choose an initial value for the scaling factor, $c_{j,0}^2$, and estimate the corresponding acceptance rate $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j(c_{j,0}^2)$ based on $N_j$ generated Markov states, then modify $c_{j,0}^2$ to obtain an increase in $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j$. Whether this optimization in $c_j^2$ is useful depends on whether the accuracy of the estimator that is achieved compensates for the additional computational cost. Finally, note that our simulation results show (see Section \[examples-section\]) that, as $j$ increases, the corresponding optimal scaling factor $c_j^2$ decreases slightly. This observation coincides with intuition, since when $j$ increases, the intermediate distributions $\pi_j(\cdot)$ become more concentrated.
In the following section we establish the ergodic properties of the Markov chains generated by AIMS.
Ergodic properties of AIMS {#Ergodic Properties}
==========================
Since the discussion in Subsection \[level j\], which motivated AIMS at annealing level $j$, involved delta functions and formal equalities (\[formaldefinition\]) and (\[formaldefinition2\]), we cannot simply rely on the convergence of the IMH algorithm in verification of AIMS; a rigorous proof is needed. First we prove that the described algorithm indeed generates a Markov chain with a stationary distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$. We also explain that when the proposal density $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ is reasonably chosen, $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is the unique (and, therefore, limiting) stationary distribution of the corresponding Markov chain.
\[theorem1\] Let $\theta^{(1)}_j,\theta^{(2)}_j,\ldots$ be the Markov chain on $\Theta_j^*=\Theta\setminus\left\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\right\}$ generated by the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j$, then $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is a stationary distribution of the Markov chain.
Let $\mathcal{K}_j(\cdot|\cdot)$ denote the transition kernel of the Markov chain generated by AIMS at annealing level $j$. From the discription of the algorithm it follows that $\mathcal{K}_j(\cdot|\cdot)$ has the following form:
$$\label{AIMStransitionkernel}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{K}_j(d\xi|\theta)&=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}} \bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\xi|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}d\xi\\
&+(1-\mathcal{A}_j(\theta))\delta_{\theta}(d\xi),
\end{split}$$
where $\mathcal{A}_j(\theta)$ is the probability of having a proper transition $\theta$ to $\Theta_j^*\setminus\{\theta\}$: $$\label{AIMSacceptanceprob}
\mathcal{A}_j(\theta)=\int_{\Theta_j^*} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\xi|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}d\xi$$
A sufficient condition for $\pi_j(\cdot)$ to be a stationary distribution is for $\mathcal{K}_j(\cdot|\cdot)$ to satisfy the detailed balance condition: $$\label{DBC}
\pi_j(d\theta)\mathcal{K}_j(d\xi|\theta)=\pi_j(d\xi)\mathcal{K}_j(d\theta|\xi)$$ Without loss of generality, we assume that $\theta\neq\xi$, since otherwise (\[DBC\]) is trivial. In this case $\mathcal{K}_j(d\xi|\theta)$ is given by the first term in (\[AIMStransitionkernel\]), since the second term vanishes. Thus, all we need to prove is that function $$\label{expression}
\mathcal{E}(\theta,\xi)\overset{\underset{\mathrm{def}}{}}{=}\pi_j(\theta)\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\xi|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}$$ is symmetric with respect to permutation $\theta\leftrightarrow\xi$, for all $\theta,\xi\in\Theta_j^*$. Taking into account (\[formaldefinition\]) and a simple fact that $a\min\{1,b/a\}=b\min\{1,a/b\}$ for all $a,b>0$, we have: $$\label{expression2}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{E}(\theta,\xi)&=
\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}\\
&=\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}\right\}=\mathcal{E}(\xi,\theta)
\end{split}$$ This proves that $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is a stationary distribution of the AIMS Markov chain.
A stationary distribution is unique and is the limiting distribution for a Markov chain, if the chain is aperiodic and irreducible (see, for example, [@Tierney]). In the case of AIMS, aperiodicity is guaranteed by the fact that the probability of having a repeated sample $\theta^{(i+1)}_j=\theta^{(i)}_j$ is not zero: for example, if the local candidate state $\xi_l$ is rejected in step 1c, then we automatically have $\theta^{(i+1)}_j=\theta^{(i)}_j$. A Markov chain with stationary distribution $\pi(\cdot)$ is irreducible if, for any initial state, it has positive probability of entering any set to which $\pi(\cdot)$ assigns positive probability. It is clear that if the proposal distribution $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ is “standard” (e.g. Gaussian, uniform, log-normal, etc), then AIMS generates an irreducible Markov chain. In this case, $\pi_j(\cdot)$ is therefore the unique stationary distribution of the AIMS Markov chain, and for every $\theta\in\Theta_j^*$ $$\label{limitingproperty}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\|\mathcal{K}^n_j(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}=0,$$ with $\|\cdot\|_{\mathrm{TV}}$ denoting the total variation distance. Recall that the total variation distance between two measures $\mu_1(\cdot)$ and $\mu_2(\cdot)$ on $\Theta$ is defined as $\|\mu_1(\cdot)-\mu_1(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}=\sup_{A\subset\Theta}|\mu_1(A)-\mu_2(A)|$. In a simulation setup, the most important consequence of convergence property (\[limitingproperty\]) is, of course, that the sample mean converges to the expectation of a measurable function of interest almost surely: $$\label{convergencetothemean}
\lim_{N_j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N_j}\sum_{i=1}^{N_j}h(\theta_j^{(i)})=\int_{\Theta}h(\theta)\pi_j(\theta)d\theta$$
Convergence (\[limitingproperty\]) ensures the proper behavior of the AIMS chain $\theta_j^{(1)},\theta_j^{(2)},\ldots$ regardless of the initial state $\theta_j^{(1)}$. A more detailed description of convergence properties involves the study of the speed of convergence of $\mathcal{K}_j^n(\cdot|\theta)$ to $\pi_j(\cdot)$. Evaluation (or estimation) of this speed is very important for any MCMC algorithm, since it relates to a stopping rule for this algorithm: the higher the speed of convergence $\mathcal{K}_j^n(\cdot|\theta)\rightarrow\pi_j(\cdot)$, the less samples are need to obtain an accurate estimate in (\[convergencetothemean\]). Recall, following [@MeynTweedie], that a chain $\theta^{(1)},\theta^{(2)},\ldots$ is called *uniformly ergodic* if $$\label{uniform ergodicity}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\|\mathcal{K}^n(\cdot|\theta)-\pi(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}=0$$ The property of uniform ergodicity is stronger than (\[limitingproperty\]), since it guarantees that the speed of convergence is uniform over the whole space. Moreover, a Markov chain is uniformly ergodic if and only if there exist $r>1$ and $R<\infty$ such that for all $\theta\in\Theta$ $$\label{uniformgeometricrate}
\|\mathcal{K}^n(\cdot|\theta)-\pi(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}\leq
Rr^{-n},$$ that is, the convergence in (\[uniform ergodicity\]) takes place at uniform geometric rate [@MeynTweedie].
If there exists a constant $M$ such that for all $\theta\in\Theta^*_j$ $$\label{condition}
\pi_j(\theta)\leq M \hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta),$$ then the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j$ produces a uniformly ergodic chain and $$\label{speed of convergence}
\|\mathcal{K}_j^n(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}\leq
\left(1-\frac{1}{M}\right)^{n}$$
To prove the first part of the theorem we will need the notion of a *small set* [@MeynTweedie]. A set $A\subset\Theta$ is called a small set if there exists an integer $m>0$ and a non-trivial measure $\mu_m$ on $\Theta$, such that for all $\theta\in A$, $B\subset\Theta$: $$\label{small set}
\mathcal{K}^m(B|\theta)\geq \mu_m(B)$$ In this case we say that $A$ is $\mu_m$-small. It can be shown [@MeynTweedie] that a Markov chain is uniformly ergodic if and only if its state space is $\mu_m$-small for some $m$. Thus, to prove the theorem, it is enough to show that $\Theta^*_j$ is a small set.
If (\[condition\]) is satisfied, than the following holds for transition kernel (\[AIMStransitionkernel\]) for $\theta\in\Theta^*_j$ and $B\subset\Theta^*_j$: $$\label{bound for kernel}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{K}_j(B|\theta)&\geq\int_B\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\xi|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}d\xi\\
&=\int_B
\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}d\xi\\
&=\int_B\min\left\{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi),\pi_j(\xi)\frac{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)}\right\}d\xi\\
&\geq\int_B\min\left\{\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\xi),\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{M}\right\}d\xi=\frac{1}{M}\int_B\pi_j(\xi)d\xi=\frac{1}{M}\pi_j(B)
\end{split}$$ The sample space $\Theta^*_j$ is therefore $\frac{\pi_j}{M}$-small, and the corresponding Markov chain is uniformly ergodic.
To prove bound (\[speed of convergence\]), first observe, using (\[bound for kernel\]), that $$\label{n=1}
\|\mathcal{K}_j(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}=\sup_A|\mathcal{K}_j(A|\theta)-\pi_j(A)|\leq\sup_A|\pi_j(A)-\frac{1}{M}\pi_j(A)|=1-\frac{1}{M}$$ For $n>1$, using the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation $\mathcal{K}^{m+n}(A|\theta)=\int_\Theta
\mathcal{K}^m(A|\xi)\mathcal{K}^n(d\xi|\theta)$ and stationarity of $\pi_j(\cdot)$ with respect to $\mathcal{K}_j(\cdot|\cdot)$, we have: $$\label{n>1}
\begin{split}
\|\mathcal{K}_j^n(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}&=\sup_A|\mathcal{K}_j^n(A|\theta)-\pi_j(A)|\\
&=\sup_A\left|\int_{\Theta_j^*}\mathcal{K}_j(A|\xi)\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(d\xi|\theta)-\int_{\Theta_j^*}\mathcal{K}_j(A|\xi)\pi_j(\xi)d\xi\right|\\
&=\sup_A\left|\int_{\Theta_j^*}\mathcal{K}_j(A|\xi)\left[\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(d\xi|\theta)-\pi_j(\xi)d\xi\right]\right|\\
&=\sup_A\left|\int_{\Theta_j^*}\left[\mathcal{K}_j(A|\xi)-\pi_j(A)\right]\left[\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(d\xi|\theta)-\pi_j(\xi)d\xi\right]\right|,
\end{split}$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that $\int_{\Theta_j^*}\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(d\xi|\theta)=\int_{\Theta_j^*}\pi_j(\xi)d\xi=1$. Finally, we obtain: $$\label{final}
\begin{split}
\|\mathcal{K}_j^n(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}&
\leq\sup_B\sup_A\left|\int_{B}\left[\mathcal{K}_j(A|\xi)-\pi_j(A)\right]\left[\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(d\xi|\theta)-\pi_j(\xi)d\xi\right]\right|\\
&\leq\sup_B\left|\int_B\sup_A|\mathcal{K}_j(A|\xi)-\pi_j(A)|\left[\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(d\xi|\theta)-\pi_j(\xi)d\xi\right]\right|\\
&=
\|\mathcal{K}_j(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}\cdot\|\mathcal{K}_j^{n-1}(\cdot|\theta)-\pi_j(\cdot)\|_{\mathrm{TV}}\leq
\left(1-\frac{1}{M}\right)^{n}
\end{split}$$
Note that if there exists a constant $M$ such that (\[condition\]) holds for all $\theta\in\Theta_j^*$, then $M>1$ automatically.
If $\Theta\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ is a compact set and $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$ is a Gaussian distribution centered at $\xi$, then the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j$ produces a uniformly ergodic chain and (\[speed of convergence\]) holds with $M$ given by $$\label{M}
M=\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}\frac{\min_{\theta\in\Theta}q_j(\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}{\max_{\theta\in\Theta}\pi_j(\theta)}\right)^{-1}$$\[corollary\]
Let us show that in this case condition (\[condition\]) is always fulfilled. For any $\theta\in\Theta_j^*$ we have: $$\label{pi hat}
\begin{split}
\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)&=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}} \bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}{\pi_j(\theta)}\right\}\\
&\geq \pi_j(\theta) \sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}\frac{\min_{\theta\in\Theta}q_j(\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}{\max_{\theta\in\Theta}\pi_j(\theta)}\right\}\\
&=\pi_j(\theta) \sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}\frac{\min_{\theta\in\Theta}q_j(\theta|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}{\max_{\theta\in\Theta}\pi_j(\theta)}
\end{split}$$ Thus, (\[condition\]) holds with $M$ given by (\[M\]).
Note than the assumption of compactness of the sample space $\Theta$ is not very restrictive and is typically satisfied in most Bayesian statistics problems. Indeed, to fulfill this condition, it is enough to take a prior distribution $\pi_0(\cdot)$ with compact support. Next, it is clear from the proof, that the conclusion of Corollary \[corollary\] holds for different “reasonable” (not only Gaussian) proposal distributions $q_j(\cdot|\xi)$. Therefore, the AIMS algorithm will produce a uniformly ergodic Markov chain in many practical cases.
It has been recognized for a long time that, when using an MCMC algorithm, it is useful to monitor its acceptance rate $\mathcal{\bar{A}}$, i.e. expected probability of having a proper Markov jump $\theta^{(i)}$ to $\theta^{(i+1)}\neq\theta^{(i)}$. While in the case of the RWMH algorithm, the finding of the optimal acceptance rate is a difficult problem: neither high nor low $\mathcal{\bar{A}}$ is good [@Gelman]; for IMH the picture is rather simple: the higher $\mathcal{\bar{A}}$, the better [@RobCas]. Since AIMS is based on the IMH algorithm, their properties are very similar. In particular, one should aim for the highest possible acceptance rate of the global candidate state $\xi_g$ when implementing AIMS.
We finish this section with a result that provides bounds for the acceptance rate of the AIMS algorithms. These bounds can be useful for finding the optimal implementation parameters.
\[theorem3\] Let $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j$ be the expected probability of having a proper Markov transition associated with the AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j$. Then $$\label{<}
\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j\leq
\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}\bar{w}_{j-1}^{(i)}a_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)}),$$ where $a_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})$ is probability (\[acceptProb\]) associated with having a proper transition under the RWMH transition kernel (\[RWMHkernel\]). If (\[condition\]) holds, then $$\label{>}
\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j\geq \frac{1}{M}$$
For every $\theta\in\Theta_j^*$, the probability $\mathcal{A}_j(\theta)$ of transition $\theta$ to $\Theta_j^*\setminus\{\theta\}$ is given by (\[AIMSacceptanceprob\]). For its expected value we have: $$\label{1stbound}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j&=\int_{\Theta_j^*}\pi_j(\theta)\mathcal{A}_j(\theta)d\theta\\
&=\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}\pi_j(\theta)\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\xi|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}d\xi
d\theta\\
&\leq\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}\pi_j(\theta)\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}
q_j(\xi|\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\pi_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})}\right\}d\xi
d\theta\\
&=\int_{\Theta_j^*}\pi_j(\theta)\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}a_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})d\theta=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{j-1}}
\bar{w}^{(i)}_{j-1}a_j(\theta_{j-1}^{(i)})
\end{split}$$ To prove the lower bound (\[>\]), we use (\[formaldefinition\]) in the equation defining $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j$: $$\label{2ndbound}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{\bar{A}}_j&=\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)
\min\left\{1,\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\right\}
d\xi d\theta\\
&=\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}
\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)I\left(
\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\geq1\right)d\xi
d\theta\\
&+
\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}
\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)I\left(
\frac{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}\geq1\right)\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}d\xi
d\theta\\
&=2\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}
\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)I\left(
\frac{\pi_j(\xi)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}{\pi_j(\theta)\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}\geq1\right)d\xi
d\theta\\
&\geq2\int_{\Theta_j^*}\int_{\Theta_j^*}
\pi_j(\theta)\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{M}I\left(
\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}
\geq\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}\right)d\xi
d\theta\\
&=\frac{2}{M}P\left(\frac{\pi_j(\xi)}{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\xi)}
\geq\frac{\pi_j(\theta)}{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}(\theta)}\right)=\frac{1}{M},
\end{split}$$ where the last probability is equal to $1/2$, because $\theta$ and $\xi$ are i.i.d. according to $\pi_j(\cdot)$, and hence the result.
The AIMS algorithm at annealing level $j$ has two accept/reject steps: one is for the local candidate $\xi_l$ (step 1c) and another is for the global candidate $\xi_g$ (step 2). The right-hand side of (\[<\]) is nothing else but the local acceptance rate, i.e. expected probability of generating a proper local candidate state $\xi_l\notin\{\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}\}$. Basically, (\[<\]) says that the global acceptance rate $\bar{\mathcal{A}}_j$ can never exceed the local acceptance rate. In fact, it can be deduced directly from the description of the algorithm, since if the local candidate $\xi_l$ is rejected, then the global candidate $\xi_g$ is automatically rejected and we have a repeated sample $\theta_j^{(i+1)}=\theta_j^{(i)}$.\[globallocalAR\]
Illustrative Examples {#examples-section}
=====================
In this section we illustrate the use of AIMS with three examples: 1) mixture of ten Gaussian distributions in two dimensions (a multi-modal case); 2) sum of two multivariate Gaussian distributions in higher dimensions; and 3) Bayesian updating of a neural network model.
Multi-modal mixture of Gaussians in 2D {#example-multimodal}
--------------------------------------
To demonstrate the efficiency of AIMS for sampling from multi-modal distributions, consider simulation from a truncated two-dimensional mixture of $M$ Gaussian densities: $$\label{mixture}
\pi(\theta)\propto \pi_0(\theta)\cdot L(\theta)=\mathcal{U}_{[0,a]\times[0,a]}(\theta)\cdot\sum_{i=1}^M w_i \mathcal{N}(\theta|\mu_i,\sigma^2\mathbb{I}_2),$$ where $\mathcal{U}_{[0,a]\times[0,a]}(\cdot)$ denotes the uniform distribution on the square $[0,a]\times[0,a]$. In this example, $a=10$, $M=10$, $\sigma=0.1$, $w_1=\ldots=w_{10}=0.1$, and the mean vectors $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{10}$ are drawn uniformly from the square $[0,10]\times[0,10]$. Because of our interest in Bayesian updating, we refer to $\pi(\cdot)$ in (\[mixture\]) as a posterior distribution.
Figure \[posterior samples\](a) displays the scatterplot of $10^3$ posterior samples obtained from AIMS. Notice there are two clusters of samples that overlap significantly near $\theta=(4,4)$ that reflect two closely spaced Gaussian densities but the other $8$ clusters are widely spaced. The parameters of the algorithm were chosen as follows: sample size $N=10^3$ per annealing level; the threshold for the ESS $\gamma=1/2$; the local proposal density $q_j(\cdot|\xi)=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|\xi,c^2\mathbb{I}_2)$, with $c=0.2$. The trajectory of the corresponding posterior Markov chain, i.e. the chain generated at the last annealing level with stationary distribution $\pi(\cdot)$, is shown in Figure \[posterior samples\](b). Black crosses $\times$ represent the mean vectors $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{10}$. As expected, the chain does not exhibit a local random walk behavior and it moves freely between well-separated modes of the posterior distribution.
The described implementation of AIMS leads to a total number of $m=6$ intermediate distributions in the annealing scheme. Figure \[beta\] shows how annealing parameter $\beta_j$ changes as a function of $j$ for $50$ independent runs of the algorithm. It is found that in all considered examples, $\beta_j$ grows exponentially with $j$.
Let us now compare the performance of AIMS with the Random Walk Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. For a fair comparison, the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm was implemented as follows. First, a sample of $N_0=10^3$ points $\theta_0^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_0^{(N_0)}$ was drawn from the prior distribution $\pi_0(\cdot)=\mathcal{U}_{[0,a]\times[0,a]}(\cdot)$ and the corresponding values of the likelihood function $L(\theta)=\sum_{i=1}^M w_i \mathcal{N}(\theta|\mu_i,\sigma^2\mathbb{I}_2)$ were calculated, $L_i=L(\theta_0^{(i)})$. Then, starting from the point with the largest likelihood, $\theta^{(1)}=\theta^{(k)}_0$, $k=\arg\max L_i$, a Markov chain $\theta^{(1)},\ldots,\theta^{(N)}$, with stationary distribution $\pi(\cdot)$ was generated using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The proposal distribution used was $q(\cdot|\xi)=N(\cdot|\xi,c^2\mathbb{I}_2)$ with $c=0.2$, and the length of the chain was $N=5\cdot10^3$. Thus, the total number of samples used in both AIMS and RWMH was $N_{t}=6\cdot10^3$. The scatterplot of posterior samples obtained from RWMH and the trajectory of the corresponding Markov chain are show in Figures \[posterior samples\](c) and \[posterior samples\](d), respectively. While the AIMS algorithm successfully sampled all $10$ modes with the approximately correct proportion of total samples, RWHM completely missed $7$ modes.
Suppose that we are interested in estimating the posterior mean vector, $\mu^{\pi}=(\mu^{\pi}_1,\mu^{\pi}_2)$, and the components $(\sigma_1^{\pi})^2, (\sigma_2^{\pi})^2, \sigma_{12}^{\pi}$ of the posterior covariance matrix $\Sigma^{\pi}$. Their true values are given in Table \[true values\] along with the AIMS estimates in terms of their means and coefficients of variation averaged over 50 independent simulations, all based on $10^3$ posterior samples.
Figure \[Mean\_square\_error\] displays the mean square error (MSE) of the AIMS estimator for the posterior mean and covariance matrix for different values of the scaling factor $c$. The MSE was estimated based on $50$ independent runs of the algorithm. An interesting observation is that the MSE as a function of $c$ is nearly flat around the optimal, $c_{\mathrm{opt}}\approx0.15$, i.e. the one that minimizes the MSE.
Mixture of two higher-dimensional Gaussians {#multGauss}
-------------------------------------------
To demonstrate the efficiency of AIMS for higher dimensionality, consider simulation from a truncated sum of two multivariate Gaussian densities: $$\label{sum of two Gaussian}
\pi^d(\theta)\propto \pi_0^d(\theta)\cdot L^d(\theta)=\mathcal{U}_{[-a,a]^d}(\theta)\cdot
\left(\mathcal{N}(\theta|\mu_1,\sigma^2\mathbb{I}_d) + \mathcal{N}(\theta|\mu_2,\sigma^2\mathbb{I}_d)\right),$$ where $a=2$, $\mu_1=(0.5,\ldots,0.5)$, $\mu_2=(-0.5,\ldots,-0.5)$, and $\sigma=0.5$. Thus, $\pi^d(\cdot)$ is a bimodal distribution on a $d$-dimensional cube $[-a,a]^d$. Suppose that a quantity of interest is the function $h: [-a,a]^d\rightarrow[-a,a]$ that gives the largest component of $\theta=(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d)\in[-a,a]^d:$ $$\label{h}
h(\theta)=\max\{\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d\}$$ and we want to estimate its expectation with respect to $\pi^d(\cdot)$ using posterior samples $\theta^{(1)},\ldots,\theta^{(N)}\sim\pi^d(\cdot)$ as follows: $$\label{estimator}
\bar{h}=\mathbb{E}_{\pi^d}[h]\approx \hat{h}_N=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N h(\theta^{(i)})$$ This example is taken from [@Ching], where the Transitional Markov chain Monte Carlo method (TMCMC) for sampling from posterior densities was introduced.
Here, we consider five cases: $d=2,4,6,10,$ and $20$. The performance of TMCMC was examined for only the first three cases in [@Ching]. The last two cases are higher dimensional, and, therefore, more challenging.
The details of implementation and simulation results from 50 independent runs are summarized in Table \[AMIS vs TMCMC\]. First of all, observe that AIMS outperforms TMCMC, when $d=2,4,6$. Both methods are capable of generating samples from both modes of the posterior; however, the probabilities of the modes (each is $1/2$ in this example) are found more accurately by AIMS.
In addition to the first three cases, five other scenarios with different probabilities of modes and different values of $\sigma$ were examined in [@Ching]. It is found that AIMS outperforms TMCMC in all these cases too.
Results presented in Table \[AMIS vs TMCMC\] help to shed some light on the properties of the optimal scaling parameter $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$ for the proposal density $q_j(\cdot|\xi)=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|\xi,c^2\mathbb{I}_d)$. It appears $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$ depends not only on the dimension $d$, which is expected, but also on $N$, the number of samples used per each annealing level. The latter dependence is explained by the fact that the global proposal distribution $\hat{\pi}_j^{N}(\cdot)$ for the AIMS Markov chain depends both on $N$ and $c$: $\hat{\pi}_j^{N}(\cdot)$ is a weighted sum of $N$ RWMH transition kernels with Gaussian proposal distributions, whose spread is controlled by $c$. When $N$ is fixed, $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$ is a monotonically increasing function of $d$, since in higher dimensions, for optimal local exploration of the neighborhoods of $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N)}$, we have to be able to make larger local jumps from $\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$ to $\xi_l$. When $d$ is fixed, $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $N$, since the more samples $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N)}$ that have been generated at the previous level, the more we can focus on local exploration of their neighborhoods without worrying too much about regions that lie far away. If we think of the support of $q_j(\cdot|\theta_{j-1}^{(k)})=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|\theta_{j-1}^{(k)},c^2\mathbb{I}_d)$ as lying mostly in a $d$-dimensional ball of radius $c$ centered at $\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$, then we can explain the dependence of $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$ on $N$ as follows: the more $d$-dimensional balls of radius $c$ we have, the smaller $c$ we can use for covering the sample space.
It is interesting to look at how the local and global acceptance rates (see Remark \[globallocalAR\]) depend on the scaling parameter $c$. Figures \[fig1\], \[fig2\], and \[fig3\] display these acceptance rates along with the coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimator for the first three cases: $d=2,4$ and $6$, based on 50 independent runs. As expected, the global acceptance rate is always smaller than the local acceptance rate, and the minimum value of $\delta$ corresponds to the maximum value of the global acceptance rate. Observe also that the peak of the global acceptance rate slides to the left, when $j$ increases. This suggests that it is more efficient to use smaller values of $c$ at higher annealing levels. Indeed, it is natural to expect that $c_{j}^{\mathrm{opt}}>c_{j+1}^{\mathrm{opt}}$, since the intermediate distribution $\pi_{j+1}(\cdot)$ is more concentrated than $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$.
Finally, we draw attention to Case $4$ in Table 2 where $d=10$ with $N=10^3$ and $N=2\cdot10^3$ samples per annealing level. Usually for Monte Carlo based methods, the coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the estimator is proportional to $1/\sqrt{N_t}$, where $N_t$ is the total number of samples. Thus, the doubling of sample size will result in the reduction of $\delta$ by the factor of $1/\sqrt{2}\approx0.71$. For AIMS, however, the decrease of $\delta$ is more significant: from $\delta=26.7\%$ to $\delta=12.2\%$, i.e. approximately by the factor of $0.46$. This is because, as explained in Subsection \[impl issues\], the increase of $N$ affects not only the total sample size, but also improves the global proposal distribution $\hat{\pi}_j^N(\cdot)$. This improvement of $\hat{\pi}_j^N(\cdot)$ results in the generation of less correlated samples at each annealing level and, therefore, leads to an additional reduction of the coefficient of variation $\delta$.
Bayesian updating of a neural network {#BNN}
-------------------------------------
To illustrate the use of AIMS for Bayesian updating, consider its application to a feed-forward neural network model, one of the most popular and most widely used models for function approximation. The goal is to approximate a (potentially highly nonlinear) function $f:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, where $X\subset\mathbb{R}^p$ is a compact set, based on a finite number of measurements $y_i=f(x_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, by using a finite sum of the form $$\label{FFNN1}
\hat{f}(x,\theta)=\sum_{j=1}^M\alpha_j\Psi(\langle x,\beta_j\rangle+\gamma_j)$$ where $\theta$ denotes the model parameters $\alpha_j,\gamma_j\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\beta_j\in\mathbb{R}^p$, $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is the standard scalar product in $\mathbb{R}^p$, and $\Psi$ is a sigmoidal function, the typical choice being either the logistic function or the $\tanh$ function that is used in this example: $$\label{FFNN2}
\Psi(z)=\frac{e^z-e^{-z}}{e^z+e^{-z}}.$$ Model (\[FFNN1\]) is called a feed-forward neural network (FFNN) with activation function (\[FFNN2\]), $p$ input units, one hidden layer with $M$ hidden units, and one output unit. The parameters $\beta_j$ and $\alpha_j$ are called the connection weights from the input units to the hidden unit $j$ and the connection weights from the hidden unit $j$ to the output unit, respectively. The term $\gamma_j$ is a designated bias of the hidden unit $j$ and it can be viewed as a connection weight from an additional constant unit input. Schematically, the FFNN model is shown in Figure \[FFNNmodel\].
The rationale behind the FFNN approximation method follows from the universal approximation property of FFNN models [@Cybenko; @Hornik]; that is, a FFNN with sufficient number of hidden units and properly adjusted connection weights can approximate most functions arbitrarily well. More precisely, finite sums (\[FFNN1\]) over all positive integers $M$ are dense in the set of real continuous functions on the $p$-dimensional unit cube.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the FFNN architecture, i.e. the input-output model (\[FFNN1\]) together with information about the type of activation function $\Psi$, number of input units $p$, and number of hidden units $M$. In this example, we use $p=1$, $M=2$, and $\Psi$ is given by (\[FFNN2\]), so the model parameters $\theta=(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \beta_{1}, \beta_{2}, \gamma_{1}, \gamma_{2})\in\Theta=\mathbb{R}^6$. *Deterministic model* $\mathcal{A}$ of function $f$ given by $\hat{f}(x,\theta)$ in (\[FFNN1\]) can be used to construct a *Bayesian (stochastic) model* $\mathcal{M}$ of function $f$ by *stochastic embedding* (see the details in [@Beck1; @Beck2]). Recall, that by definition, a Bayesian model $\mathcal{M}$ consists of two components:
1. An input-output probability model $y\sim p(y|x,\theta,\mathcal{M})$, which is obtained by introducing the prediction-error $$\label{error}
\varepsilon=y-\hat{f}(x,\theta),$$ which is the difference between the true output $y=f(x)$ and the deterministic model output $\hat{f}(x,\theta)$. A probability model for $\varepsilon$ is introduced by using the Principle of Maximum Entropy [@Jaynes1; @Jaynes2], which states that the probability model should be selected to produce the most uncertainty subject to constraints that we wish to impose (the selection of any other probability model would lead to an unjustified reduction in the prediction uncertainty). In this example, we impose the following constraints: $\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon]=0$ and $\mbox{var}[\varepsilon]=\sigma^2$ with $\varepsilon$ unbounded. The maximum entropy PDF for the prediction-error is then $\varepsilon\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$. This leads to the following input-output probability model: $$\label{iomodel}
p(y|x,\theta,\mathcal{M})=\mathcal{N}\left(\left.y \hspace{1mm} \right|\hat{f}(x,\theta), \sigma^2\right)$$ Here, the prediction-error variance $\sigma^2$ is included in the set of model parameters where, for convenience, we define $\theta_7=\log\sigma^{-2}$, so the parameter space is now $\Theta=\mathbb{R}^7$.
2. A prior PDF $\pi_0(\theta|\mathcal{M})$ over the parameter space which is chosen to quantify the initial relative plausibility of each value of $\theta$ in $\Theta$. In this example, the prior distributions are assumed to be: $$\label{priors}
\alpha_j\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\alpha}^2), \hspace{3mm} \beta_j\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2_{\beta}), \hspace{3mm} \gamma_j\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2_{\gamma}), \hspace{3mm}\theta_7=\log\sigma^{-2}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\theta_7}^2),$$ with $\sigma_{\alpha}=\sigma_{\beta}=\sigma_{\gamma}=\sigma_{\theta_7}=5$. Thus, the prior PDF in our case is $$\label{priorPDFex}
\pi_0(\theta|\mathcal{M})=\mathcal{N}(\theta_7|0,\sigma_{\theta_7}^2)\prod_{j=1}^M\mathcal{N}(\alpha_j|0,\sigma_{\alpha}^2)
\mathcal{N}(\beta_{j}|0,\sigma^2_{\beta})\mathcal{N}(\gamma_{j}|0,\sigma^2_{\gamma}).$$
Let $\mathcal{D}$ denote the training data, $\mathcal{D}=\{(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_n,y_n)\}$, treated as independent samples, then the likelihood function which expresses the probability of getting data $\mathcal{D}$ based on the probability model (\[iomodel\]) is given by $$\label{likelihoodfunction}
L(\theta)=p(\mathcal{D}|\theta,\mathcal{M})=\prod_{i=1}^n p(y_i|x_i,\theta,\mathcal{M})$$ In this example, data are synthetically generated from (\[iomodel\]) with $\alpha_1=5$, $\alpha_2=-5$, $\beta_1=-1$, $\beta_2=-3$, $\gamma_1=5$, $\gamma_2=2$, $\sigma=0.1$, and the input $x_i=i/10$, for $i=1,\ldots,n=100$.
Finally, using Bayes’ theorem, we can write the posterior PDF $\pi(\theta|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M})$ for the uncertain model parameters: $$\label{posteriorPDFBNN}
\begin{split}
\pi(\theta|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M})&\propto \pi_0(\theta|\mathcal{M})\cdot L(\theta)\\
&=\mathcal{N}(\theta_7|0,\sigma_{\theta_7}^2)\prod_{j=1}^M\mathcal{N}(\alpha_j|0,\sigma_{\alpha}^2)
\mathcal{N}(\beta_{j}|0,\sigma^2_{\beta})\mathcal{N}(\gamma_{j}|0,\sigma^2_{\gamma})
\cdot \prod_{i=1}^n p(y_i|x_i,\theta,\mathcal{M})
\end{split}$$
Under the Bayesian framework, the mean prediction of $y=f(x)$ from observable $x$ can be obtained by integrating out the nuisance parameters: $$\label{prediction}
\mathbb{E}_{\pi}[y|x,\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M}]=\int_\Theta \hat{f}(x,\theta)\pi(\theta|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M})d\theta$$
To demonstrate the efficiency of AIMS for the mean prediction problem, we use it to sample from the posterior PDF (\[posteriorPDFBNN\]) and use Monte Carlo simulation in (\[prediction\]). The parameters of the AIMS algorithm are chosen as follows: sample size $N=3\times10^3$ per annealing level; the threshold for the ESS $\gamma=1/2$; the proposal density $q_j(\cdot|\xi)=\mathcal{N}(\cdot|\xi,c^2\mathbb{I}_7)$, with $c=0.5$. This implementation of AIMS leads to a total number of $m=10$ intermediate distributions in the annealing scheme. The obtained posterior samples $\theta_m^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_m^{(1)}$ are then used to approximate the integral on the right-hand side of (\[prediction\]): $$\label{approximatedprediction}
\int_\Theta \hat{f}(x,\theta)\pi(\theta|\mathcal{D},\mathcal{M})d\theta\approx \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{f}(x,\theta_m^{(i)})\overset{\underset{\mathrm{def}}{}}{=}
\bar{\hat{f}}_m(x)$$ The true function $y=f(x)$ as well as its AIMS approximation $\bar{\hat{f}}_m(x)$ are shown in Figure \[FFNNexample\]. A few “intermediate approximations” $\bar{\hat{f}}_j(x)$, which are based on $\theta_j^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_j^{(1)}\sim\pi_j$, are plotted to show how $\bar{\hat{f}}_j(x)$ approaches $f(x)$ when $j\rightarrow m$. To visualize the uncertainty for the AIMS approximation, we plot its $5$th and $95$th percentiles in Figure \[FFNNexample2\].
Concluding Remarks {#finish}
==================
In this paper, a new scheme for sampling from posterior distributions, called Asymptotically Independent Markov Sampling (AIMS), is introduced. The algorithm is based on three well-established and widely-used stochastic simulation methods: importance sampling, MCMC, and simulated annealing. The key idea behind AIMS is to use $N$ samples drawn from $\pi_{j-1}(\cdot)$ as an importance sampling density to construct an approximation $\hat{\pi}_{j}^N(\cdot)$ of $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$, where $\pi_0(\cdot),\ldots,\pi_m(\cdot)$ is a sequence of intermediate distributions interpolating between the prior $\pi_0(\cdot)$ and posterior $\pi(\cdot)=\pi_m(\cdot)$. This approximation is then employed as the independent proposal distribution for sampling from $\pi_{j}(\cdot)$ by the independent Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. When $N\rightarrow\infty$, the AIMS sampler generates independent draws from the target distribution, hence the name of the algorithm.
Important ergodic properties of AIMS are derived. In particular, it is shown that, under certain conditions (that are often fulfilled in practice), the AIMS algorithm produces a uniformly ergodic Markov chain. The choice of the free parameters of the algorithm is discussed and recommendations are provide for their values, both theoretically and heuristically based. The efficiency of AIMS is demonstrated with three examples, which include both multi-modal and higher-dimensional target posterior distributions.
Acknowledgements {#Acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under award number EAR-0941374 to the California Institute of Technology. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
[99]{}
Au S. K. and Beck J. L. (2001) “Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation”, *Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics*, vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 263–277.
Au S. K. and Beck J. L. (2003) “Importance sampling in high dimensions”, *Structural Safety*, vol. 25, No. 2, pp 139-163.
Beck J. L. (2008) “Probability Logic, Information Quantification and Robust Predictive System Analysis”, Technical Report EERL 2008-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.
Beck J. L. (2010) “Bayesian system identification based on probability logic”, *Structural Control and Health Monitoring*, vol. 17, pp. 825-847.
Beck J. L. and Au S. K. (2002) “Bayesian updating of structural models and reliability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation”, *Journal of Engineering Mechanics*, vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 380–391.
Cheung S. H. and Beck J. L. (2010) “Calculation of posterior probabilities for Bayesian model class assessment and averaging from posterior samples based on dynamic system data”, *Journal of Computer-aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering*, vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 304-321.
Černý V. (1985) “A thermodynamical approach to the travelling salesman problem: an efficient simulation algorithm” *Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*, vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Ching J. and Chen Y-C (2007) “Transitional Markov chain Monte Carlo method for Bayesian model updating, model class selection, and model averaging”, *Journal of Engineering Mechanics*, vol. 133, No. 7, pp. 816-832.
Cowles M. K. and Carlin B. P. (1996) “Markov chain Monte Carlo convergence diagnostics: a comparative review”, *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, Vol. 91, No. 434, pp. 883-904.
Cybenko G. (1989) “Approximations by superpositions of a sigmoidal functions”, *Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems*, vol. 2, pp. 303-314.
Geweke J. (1989) “Bayesian inference in econometric models using Monte Carlo integration”, *Econometrica*, vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 1317-1339.
Geman S. and Geman D. (1984) “Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images”, *IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*, vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 721-741.
Gelman A., Roberts G.O., and Gilks W.R. (1996) “Efficient Metropolis Jumping Rules”, *Bayesian Statistics*, vol. 5, pp. 599-607.
Gilks W. R., Richardson S., and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996) *Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice*, Chapman and Hall, London.
Geyer C. J. and Thompson E. A. (1995) “Annealing Markov chain Monte Carlo with applications to ancestral inference”, *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, vol. 90, No. 431, pp. 909-920.
Hastings W. K. (1970) “Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications”, *Biometrika*, vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 97–109.
Hornik K., Stinchcombe M., and White H. (1989) “Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators”, *Neural Networks*, vol. 2, pp. 359-366.
Jaynes E. T. (1957) “Information theory and statistical mechanics”, *Physical Review*, vol. 106, pp. 620-630.
Jaynes E. T. (2003) *Probabiity Theory: The Logic of Science*, (Ed. G.L. Bretthorst), Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick S., Gelatt C. D., and Vecchi M. P. (1983) “Optimization by simulated annealing”, *Science*, vol. 220, No. 4598, pp. 671–680.
Kong A., Liu J. S., and Wong W. H. (1994) “Sequential imputations and Bayesian missing data problems”, *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, vol. 89, No. 425, pp. 278–288.
Kahn H. and Marshall A. W. (1953) “Methods of reducing sample size in Monte Carlo computations”, *Journal of the Operations Research Society of America*, vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 263-278.
Liu J. S. (1996) “Metropolized independent sampling with comparison to rejection sampling and importance sampling” *Statistics and Computing*, vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 113–119.
Liu J. S. (2001) *Monte Carlo Strategies in Scientific Computing*, Springer Series in Statistics.
Marinari E. and Parisi G. (1992) “Simulated tempering: A new Monte Carlo scheme”, Europhysics Letters, vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 451-458.
Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A. W., Rosenbluth M. N., Teller A. H., and Teller E. (1953), “Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines”, *J. Chemical Physics*, vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1087–1092.
Meyn S. and Tweedie R. L. (2009) *Markov chains and Stochastic Stability*, Cambridge University Press.
Metropolis, N. and Ulam, S. (1949) “The Monte Carlo method”, *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, vol. 44, pp. 335-341.
Neal R. M. (1993) “Probabilistic Inference Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods”, Technical Report CRG-TR-93-1, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto.
Neal R. M. (1996) “Sampling from multimodal distributions using tempered transitions”, *Statistics and Computing*, vol. 6, pp. 353-366.
Neal R. M. (2001) “Annealed importance sampling”, *Statistics and Computing*, vol. 11, pp. 125-139.
Robert C. P. and Casella G. (2004) *Monte Carlo Statistical Methods*, 2nd ed. Springer Texts in Statistics.
Rubinstein R. (1981) *Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method*, John Wiley, New York.
Tierney L. (1994) “Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions”, *The Annals of Statistics*, vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 1701-1762.
Parameter $\mu^{\pi}_1$ $\mu^{\pi}_2$ $(\sigma_1^{\pi})^2$ $(\sigma_2^{\pi})^2$ $\sigma_{12}^{\pi}$
------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------
True value 5.23 5.75 4.51 3.37 -1.30
AIMS mean 5.20 5.73 4.56 3.32 -1.25
AIMS cov 2.4% 2.0% 8.2% 8.2% 27.7%
: True values of the posterior parameters and the AIMS estimates in terms of their means and coefficients of variation averaged over 50 simulations \[Example \[example-multimodal\]\].[]{data-label="true values"}
Case $d$ $\bar{h}$ TMCMC: $\hat{h}_N, (\delta$) AIMS: $\hat{h}_N, (\delta$) $N$ $\gamma$ $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$ $\bar{m}$
------ ----- ----------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- -----------
1 2 0.29 0.28 (12.3%) 0.29 (8.8%) $10^3$ 1/2 $0.2$ 3
2 4 0.51 0.54 (10.0%) 0.51 (6.9%) $10^3$ 1/2 $0.4$ 4
3 6 0.64 0.65 (15.7%) 0.64 (10.4%) $10^3$ 1/2 $0.6$ 4.95
4 10 0.76 — 0.76 (26.7%) $10^3$ 1/2 0.7 5.84
10 0.76 — 0.76 (12.2%) $2\cdot10^3$ 1/2 0.6 5.98
5 20 0.92 — 0.95 (42.1%) $4\cdot10^3$ 1/2 $0.5$ 5.58
: Summary of the simulation results: $d$ is the dimension of the sample space; $\bar{h}$ and $\hat{h}_N$ are the exact value of $\mathbb{E}_{\pi^d}[h]$ and its estimated value, respectively; $\delta$ in parentheses is the corresponding coefficient of variation; $N$, $\gamma$, $c_{\mathrm{opt}}$, and $\bar{m}$ are the number of samples used per annealing level, the threshold for the ESS, the (nearly) optimal value of the scaling parameter, and the average number of distributions in the annealing scheme, respectively. The AIMS results are based on $50$ independent runs. The TMCMC results are taken from [@Ching] and are based on 50 independent runs \[Example \[multGauss\]\]. []{data-label="AMIS vs TMCMC"}
![The top panels show the distribution $\pi_j(\cdot)$ (solid lines) and its approximation $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$, for $N_{j-1}=5$ (left) and $N_{j-1}=50$ (right). Dashed lines and bars correspond to the continuous and discrete parts of $\hat{\pi}_j^{N_{j-1}}(\cdot)$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the convergence of $h_1^*(N_{j-1})=\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}}[h_1]$ and $h_2^*(N_{j-1})=\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\pi}_{j}^{N_{j-1}}}[h_2]$ to the true values, $0$ and $1$, respectively \[Example 2.1\].[]{data-label="example1"}](example1.eps)
![AIMS at annealing level $j$: disks $\bullet$ and circles $\circ$ represent $\theta_{j-1}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j-1}^{(N_{j-1})}$ and $\theta_{j}^{(1)},\ldots,\theta_{j}^{(N_{j})}$, respectively; concentric circles show the correspondence between $\theta_{j-1}^{(k)}$ that has been chosen in step 1a and the corresponding local candidate $\xi_l\sim
q(\cdot|\theta_{j-1}^{(k)})$ that has been generated in step 1b. In this schematic picture, all shown candidate states are accepted as new states of the Markov chain.[]{data-label="scheme"}](scheme2.eps)
![(a) Scatterplots of $10^3$ posterior samples; (b) the trajectories of the corresponding posterior Markov chain obtained from AIMS; and (c), (d) corresponding plots from RWMH. Black crosses $\times$ represent the modes $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{10}$ of $\pi(\cdot)$ \[Example 4.1\].[]{data-label="posterior samples"}](Mixture_AIMS_Met5.eps)
![Annealing parameter $\beta_j$ as a function of annealing level $j$ for $50$ independent runs of AIMS \[Example 4.1\].[]{data-label="beta"}](Beta.eps)
![Mean square error of the AIMS estimator for the mean and covariance matrix as a function of the scaling factor $c$ showing the optimal value is $c_{\mathrm{opt}}\approx0.15$ \[Example \[example-multimodal\]\].[]{data-label="Mean_square_error"}](Mean_square_error.eps)
![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 1 ($d=2$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig1"}](case1_cov.eps "fig:") ![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 1 ($d=2$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig1"}](case1_AR2_vs_c.eps "fig:") ![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 1 ($d=2$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig1"}](case1_AR1_vs_c.eps "fig:")
![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 2 ($d=4$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig2"}](case3_cov.eps "fig:") ![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 2 ($d=4$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig2"}](case3_AR2_vs_c.eps "fig:") ![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 2 ($d=4$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig2"}](case3_AR1_vs_c.eps "fig:")
![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 3 ($d=6$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig3"}](case5_cov.eps "fig:") ![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 3 ($d=6$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig3"}](case5_AR2_vs_c.eps "fig:") ![Coefficient of variation $\delta$ of the AIMS estimate (top panel), global acceptance rate (middle panel), and local acceptance rate (bottom panel) as functions of $c$ for Case 3 ($d=6$) \[Example \[multGauss\]\].[]{data-label="fig3"}](case5_AR1_vs_c.eps "fig:")
![The feed-forward neural network model with one hidden layer (shown by hatching) \[Example 4.3\].[]{data-label="FFNNmodel"}](FFNNmodel)
![The true function $f(x)$ (solid curve), its posterior approximation $\bar{\hat{f}}_{10}(x)$ (dashed curve) which is constructed using AIMS, and “intermediate annealing approximations”: $\bar{\hat{f}}_0(x)$ (dotted curve) which is based on prior samples, $\bar{\hat{f}}_2(x)$ and $\bar{\hat{f}}_3(x)$ (dashed-dotted curves) \[Example 4.3\].[]{data-label="FFNNexample"}](FFNNexample)
![The true function $f(x)$ (solid curve), its AIMS approximation $\bar{\hat{f}}_{10}(x)$ (dashed curve), and 5th and 95th percentiles of $\bar{\hat{f}}_{10}(x)$ (dotted curves) \[Example 4.3\].[]{data-label="FFNNexample2"}](FFNNexample2)
[^1]: Both authors contributed equally to this work. Corresponding author’s email: [email protected].
[^2]: Unless otherwise stated, all probability distributions are assumed to have densities with respect to Lebesgue measure, $\pi(d\theta)=\pi(\theta)d\theta$. For simplicity, the same symbol will be used to denote both the distribution and its density, and we write $\theta\sim\pi(\cdot)$ to denote that $\theta$ is distributed according to $\pi(\cdot)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recently, there has been considerable effort to understand periodic and stochastic homogenization of elliptic equations and integral functionals with degenerate growth, as well as related questions on the effective behavior of conductance models in degenerate, random environments. In the present paper we prove stochastic homogenization results for nonconvex energy functionals with degenerate growth under moment conditions. In particular, we study the continuum limit of discrete, nonconvex energy functionals defined on crystal lattices in dimensions $d\geq 2$. We consider energy functionals with random (stationary and ergodic) pair interactions; thus our problem corresponds to a stochastic homogenization problem. In the non-degenerate case, when the interactions satisfy a uniform $p$-growth condition, the homogenization problem is well-understood. In this paper, we are interested in a degenerate situation, when the interactions neither satisfy a uniform growth condition from above nor from below. We consider interaction potentials that obey a $p$growth condition with a random growth weight $\lambda$. We show that if $\lambda$ satisfies the moment condition $\mathbb E[\lambda^\alpha+\lambda^{-\beta}]<\infty$ for suitable values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, then the discrete energy $\Gamma$converges to an integral functional with a non-degenerate energy density. In the scalar case, it suffices to assume that $\alpha\geq 1$ and $\beta\geq\frac{1}{p-1}$ (which ensures the non-degeneracy of the homogenized energy density). In the general, vectorial case, we additionally require that $\alpha>1$ and $\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{\beta}\leq \frac{p}{d}$.'
author:
- 'Stefan Neukamm[^1]'
- 'Mathias Schäffner[^2]'
- 'Anja Schlömerkemper[^3]'
date:
-
- 'January 24, 2017'
title: Stochastic homogenization of nonconvex discrete energies with degenerate growth
---
[**Keywords:** ]{}stochastic homogenization, nonconvex energy functionals, degenerate growth, $\Gamma$-convergence
Introduction
============
Stochastic homogenization of uniformly elliptic systems and integral functionals with uniform growth is classic and well understood. In contrast, homogenization of systems and (vectorial) integral functionals with degenerate growth is more recent and the level of understanding is still incomplete, see discussion below. Gaining a deep understanding of the degenerate case is of mathematical interest in its own and moreover important for problems and applications in different fields: For example, discrete (convex & quadratic) integral functionals with degenerate growth are intensively studied in stochastic analysis, namely, as Dirichlet forms associated with random conductance models (see [@Biskup] for a survey). In that context homogenization corresponds to the validity of an invariance principle for a random walk in a random environment. Another application is atomistic modelling of materials, where homogenization of discrete integral functionals corresponds to an ansatz-free derivation of a continuum model via a discrete-to-continuum limit; in particular, models for rubber may lead to integral functionals with degenerate growth properties, e.g. see [@Gloria; @KuhnGrun].
In this contribution we study stochastic homogenization of discrete energy functionals with nonconvex random pair interactions of degenerate $p$-growth and finite range of dependence. For simplicity, in the introduction we restrict to the lattice graph ${\mathcal L}={\mathbb{Z}}^d$ with edge set ${\mathcal E}=\{{{\operatorname{e}}}=[z,z+e_i]\ |\ z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d, i=1,\dots,d\}$ and $e_1,\ldots,e_d$ being the canonical basis in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Later we consider complex hyper-cubic lattices and interactions of finite range. For $0<{\varepsilon}\ll1$ consider the energy functional $$\label{minproblem}
H_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A):={\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}\cap A}\!\!\! V\left(\omega;\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon},\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}})\right),$$ where $A$ denotes a domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a state variable, $\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}})$ denotes a discrete directional derivative, cf. , $V(\omega;\cdot,\cdot): {\mathcal E}\times {\mathbb{R}}^n \to [0,\infty)$ denotes a random interaction potential, and $\omega$ stands for a configuration sampled from a stationary and ergodic law.
In [@ACG11], a general $\Gamma$-convergence result for functionals of the form is proven under the assumption that the interaction potential $V(\omega;\cdot,\cdot)$ is non-degenerate, i.e., satisfies a uniform $p$-growth condition (see also [@AC04; @BS13] for the non-random case). The key point and novelty of the present paper is to consider random potentials with degenerate growth: We suppose that $$\lambda(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})(\tfrac1c|r|^p-c) \leq V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},r)\leq c(\lambda(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})|r|^p+1),$$ where $\lambda(\omega;\cdot):{\mathcal E}\to[0,\infty)$ denotes a (stationary and ergodic) random weight function that satisfies certain moment conditions, cf. Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\]. Roughly speaking, we assume that for exponents $\alpha,\beta$ satisfying $$\label{intro:ass0}
\alpha\geq 1,\quad\beta\geq\frac1{p-1}$$ we have $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{{\varepsilon}^d}{|Q|}\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}\cap Q}\left(\lambda(\omega;\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})^\alpha+\lambda(\omega;\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})^{-\beta}\right)<\infty,$$ where $Q$ denotes an arbitrary cube in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Note that this allows for interactions that are degenerate in the sense that we might have $\inf_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}}\lambda(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})=0$ and $\sup_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}}\lambda(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})=\infty$ with positive probability.
Our main result proves that $H_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\cdot,A)$ $\Gamma$-converges (for almost every $\omega$) to a deterministic, homogeneous integral functional, whose limiting energy density (thanks to ) is non-degenerate and satisfies a standard $p$-growth condition, cf. Theorem \[T:1\] and Corollary \[C:1\]. For the convergence result in the scalar case (i.e. $n=1$), it suffices to combine the moment condition with an additional mild “convexity at infinity” assumption on the interaction potential $V(\omega;\cdot,\cdot)$, cf. Assumption \[A:2T\] (b). In the vectorial case (i.e. $n>1$), we need additional moment conditions, namely $$\label{intro:ass2}
\alpha>1,\quad\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta\leq\frac{p}d.$$ On a technical level, the main difference between the scalar and the vectorial case shows up in a gluing construction (see Lemmas \[L:glue\] and \[L:glue:convex\]), which we use e.g. to modify boundary values in the construction of recovery sequences. In the scalar case, the gluing construction relies on a truncation argument, which is a variant of a construction in [@CS79], where periodic homogenization is studied. In the vectorial case the truncation argument is not available. Instead, we impose relation from which we deduce a Rellich-type compact embedding, see Lemma \[L:interpolation2\]. In the critical case $\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{\beta}=\frac{p}{d}$ the Rellich-type argument is subtle. Its proof combines a weighted Poincaré inequality, a two-scale argument and input from ergodic theory.
The study of homogenization problems of differential equations (see e.g. the classical monograph [@Bensoussan] and the references therein) and integral functionals has a long history. Periodic (continuum) homogenization of convex and nonconvex integral functionals was studied in the seminal works [@Braides86; @Marcellini77; @Mueller87]. In [@DMM86; @MM94] these results were extended to the stationary and ergodic, random case by appealing to the subadditive ergodic theorem in [@AK81]. The interest in discrete-to-continuum $\Gamma$-limits for energies with nonconvex interactions is more recent, see e.g. [@AC04; @ACG11; @BC; @Braides-Gelli-2000; @BS13; @KLR; @SSZ11; @SS15b].
Homogenization of divergence form elliptic equations and of integral functionals with degenerate growth in the above sense have basically been studied in two situations:
(i) The weight functions are of *Muckenhoupt* class, see e.g. [@BT04; @DASC92; @DASC94; @EPPW06]. These works exploit the existence of Sobolev inequalities in spaces with Muckenhoupt weights.
(ii) The weight functions satisfy moment conditions, see e.g. [@CS79] where periodic, scalar, convex integral functionals are studied under the assumption that the periodic weight function $\lambda$ satisfies $\lambda,\lambda^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\in L_{{{\operatorname{loc}}}}^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. This matches precisely our assumptions in the random and discrete setting, cf. . The analysis in [@CS79] (and related results for degenerate elliptic equations in divergence form, e.g. [@ZP08], or for unbounded integral functionals with convex growth [@DG15]) relies on truncation methods.
Recently, (discrete) elliptic equations with degenerate growth have also been extensively studied in the context of invariance principles for random walks in degenerate random environments, see e.g. [@ADS15; @BM15; @CD15], or on percolation clusters, see e.g. [@BB07; @MP07; @SS04]; see also [@Biskup] for an overview. In particular, in [@ADS15; @CD15] a quenched invariance principle is obtained under the moment condition $\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta<\frac2d$, cf. with $p=2$. The latter is used to establish a weighted Sobolev inequality, which is needed to implement a Moser iteration. The same moment condition and the topic of regularity is also addressed in [@Bella-Otto], which discusses a Liouville property for elliptic systems with degenerate, stationary and ergodic coefficients. A similar problem is addressed in [@LNO16], where regularity results for the corrector in stochastic homogenization are proven in a percolation like situation. In the very recent work [@AD16], quantitative homogenization and large scale regularity results have been established for (discrete) elliptic equations on the supercritical (Bernoulli bond) percolation cluster.
In a wider context, homogenization of non-convex vectorial problems with degenerate growth is studied in [@BG95], where soft and stiff inclusion are considered in a periodic setting, see also the monograph [@JKO94] for more on this and other ’non-standard’ (periodic and stochastic) homogenization problems.
The results of the present paper are novel in various aspects.
- To our knowledge it is the first stochastic homogenization result for nonconvex vectorial (discrete) energy functionals with degenerate growth from below and above. We are not aware of any analogous result in the continuum case; we will extend the proofs of this paper to the continuum case in an upcoming work.
- As mentioned above, in the convex/monotone operator case stochastic homogenization with degenerate growth is considered under the assumption that the weight functions are of Muckenhoupt class for every realization, cf. [@EPPW06]. Notice that the moment assumptions considered in our paper are less restrictive in the scalar case while they cannot directly be compared in the vectorial setting.
- We would like to emphasize that similar to [@ADS15; @ADS16; @CD15] and [@Bella-Otto], we use the relation $\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta\leq \frac{p}{d}$, cf. , in order to obtain a weighted Poincaré inequality with a constant which can be controlled by the ergodic theorem. It turns out that in order to show the invariance principles in [@ADS15; @ADS16; @CD15] or the regularity result of [@Bella-Otto] the strict inequality is needed, but, as we prove, equality is sufficient to prove our homogenization result.
The main focus of our paper is to understand the general stationary and ergodic case in stochastic homogenization of nonconvex discrete energies. In the scalar case our moment conditions are optimal for homogenization towards a *non-degenerate* integral functional, see Remark \[rem:optimal\]. If we replace ergodicity by the strong assumption of independent and identically distributed weight functions $\lambda(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})$, then the moment condition on $\lambda(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-1}$ can be significantly weakened by appealing to ideas from [@MO16] and [@ADS16]. We describe this for a rather particular case in Section \[sec:iid\].
This article is organized as follows: In the next section we give the precise definition of our discrete energy. In Section 3 we state our main result, cf. Theorem \[T:1\] and Corollary \[C:1\], and present a detailed summary of its proof. In Section 4 we present the proof of Theorem \[T:1\] and several auxiliary results.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
For convenience of the reader we list some of the notation used in the paper:
- $d\geq2$ dimension of the domain of $u$; $n\geq 1$ dimension of the codomain.
- ${\mathcal L}$ (and ${\mathcal E})$ stand for the set of vertices $x,y,z,\ldots$ (and edges ${{\operatorname{b}}}, {{\operatorname{e}}},\ldots$), see Section \[sec:2\].
- ${\mathcal{NN}}$ stands for the subset of ${\mathcal E}$ for which we impose moment conditions on the growth from below, see Section \[sec:2\].
- ${\mathcal E}_0$ and ${\mathcal{NN}}_0$ are defined in and .
- $[x_{{\operatorname{e}}},y_{{\operatorname{e}}}]$ our notation for an (oriented) edge ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}$.
- For $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and ${\mathcal E}'\subset{\mathcal E}$ we write ${{\operatorname{e}}}=[x_{{\operatorname{e}}},y_{{\operatorname{e}}}]\in{\mathcal E}'\cap A$ if ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}'$ and $x_{{\operatorname{e}}},y_{{\operatorname{e}}}\in A$.
- $Y=[0,1)^d$ denotes the fundamental region of the lattice.
- ${\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}, {\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(A), {\mathcal{A}}_{\#}(kY)$ denote function spaces of piecewise affine functions (subordinate to ${\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}$ or ${\mathcal L}$, respectively), see , and .
- $\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}$ stands for a discrete directional derivative, see .
- For every $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\delta>0$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
(A)_{\delta}:=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\ |\ {\operatorname{dist}}(x,A)<\delta\},\qquad (A)_{-\delta}:=\{x\in A\ |\ {\operatorname{dist}}(x,{\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A)>\delta\}.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we use this notation in connection with a parameter $R\geq 1$, the *range of interaction* defined in .
- For $A,B\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we write $A\Subset B$ if $\bar A$ is compact and contained in the open interior of $B$.
- We follow the convention that $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p=(1-\frac{1}{\beta+1})p=p$ if $\beta=\infty$.
Setting of the problem {#sec:2}
======================
#### The graph $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal E})$ and the edge set ${\mathcal{NN}}$
Fix $d\geq2$. We consider locally finite, connected, ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$-periodic graphs with oriented edges. More precisely, we assume that:
- The vertex set ${\mathcal L}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ has the form ${\mathcal L}=\bigcup_{i=1}^k(q_i+{\mathbb{Z}}^d),$ where $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $q_1,\dots,q_k\in Y:=[0,1)^d$ with $q_1=0$ and $q_i\neq q_j$ for $i\neq j$, (i.e. ${\mathcal L}$ is a crystal lattice).
- The edge set ${\mathcal E}\subset \{[x,y] | x,y\in {\mathcal L},x\neq y\}$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$-periodic and locally finite, i.e. ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}$ implies ${{\operatorname{e}}}+{\mathbb{Z}}^d\subset{\mathcal E}$ and for all $x\in{\mathcal L}$ the set $\{[x,y]\in {\mathcal E}\}$ is finite.
For examples see the end of Section \[sec:2\]. Given a subset ${\mathcal E}'\subset\cal E$ and two vertices $x,y$, we say $(x,y)$ are connected in $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal E}')$, if there exists a path $\ell=(x_0,\ldots,x_m)$ of finite length $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $x_0=x$, $x_m=y$ and for all $i=1,\ldots,m$ we have either $[x_{i-1},x_i]\in{\mathcal E}'$ or $[x_{i},x_{i-1}]\in\cal E'$ (i.e. we ignore the orientation of the edges when speaking about connectedness). We say that $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal E}')$ is connected, if any two distinct vertices $x,y\in{\mathcal L}$ are connected in $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal E}')$. We assume that:
- $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal E})$ is connected.
The edge set ${\mathcal E}$ can be written as a direct sum of the lattice ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and the generating edge set $$\label{def:E0}
{\mathcal E}_0:=\{[x,y]\in{\mathcal E}\ |\ x\in Y\}.$$ Indeed, for every ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}$ there exists a unique pair $(z_{{\operatorname{e}}},{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\times {\mathcal E}_0$ such that ${{\operatorname{e}}}=z_{{\operatorname{e}}}+{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}$.
In addition to ${\mathcal E}$ we consider another, possibly smaller set of edges, which we denote by ${\mathcal{NN}}$ and which is fixed from now on. Let us anticipate that we are going to assume moment conditions on the growth from below only for the potentials associated with edges in ${\mathcal{NN}}$. We suppose that
- ${\mathcal{NN}}\subset{\mathcal E}$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$-periodic and the subgraph $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal{NN}})$ is connected.
A typical choice of ${\mathcal{NN}}$ is the set of nearest-neighbour edges. Note that our assumptions allow for more general choices of ${\mathcal{NN}}$. We set $$\label{def:NN0}
{\mathcal{NN}}_0:={\mathcal E}_0\cap{\mathcal{NN}}.$$
#### Discrete derivative
We introduce discrete derivatives for state variables defined on the scaled lattice ${\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}$ with scaled edge set ${\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}$. For a function $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}$, we define the discrete directional derivative as $$\label{def:findif}
\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}}):=\frac{u(y_{{\operatorname{e}}})-u(x_{{\operatorname{e}}})}{|y_{{\operatorname{e}}}-x_{{\operatorname{e}}}|},$$ where $x_{{\operatorname{e}}},y_{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}$ are the unique vertices with ${{\operatorname{e}}}=[x_{{\operatorname{e}}},y_{{\operatorname{e}}}]$. Note that $\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}})\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$. For $z\in{\varepsilon}\mathcal L$, ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ and $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ we introduce the notation $$\label{def:findif2}
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z):=\nabla u(z+{\varepsilon}{{\operatorname{b}}}).$$ For our purpose it is convenient to identify $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with a canonical piecewise affine interpolation. To that end, we fix a triangulation of ${\mathcal L}\cap\overline Y$ and denote by ${\mathcal T}$ its ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$-periodic extension. We set $$\label{def:calA}
{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}:=\{u\in C({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n):u\mbox{ is affine on $T$ for each element $T\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal T}$}\}.$$ In this paper we tacitly identify $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with its unique interpolation in ${\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$. As usual, $\nabla u$ denotes the weak derivative of a function $u: {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with $\nabla u: {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$. Note that we have the following elementary relation between norms of discrete gradients and the corresponding norms of the associated piecewise affine interpolation:
\[L:sumint\] For $1\leq q<\infty$ there exists $c_0\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:AB}
\forall u\in{\mathcal{A}}^1:\, \int_Y|\nabla u|^q\,dx\leq c_0\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}\cap B_{\frac{R}4}(0)}|\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}})|^q\end{aligned}$$ and for all bounded Lipschitz domains $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:sumint}
\forall u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}:\, \int_{(A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}}|\nabla u|^q\,dx \leq c_0{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^q,$$ with $R\geq 1$ defined in below.
(For the convenience of the reader we present the elementary proof in Appendix \[appendix\].)
At various places in the paper we consider functions $u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ defined on a Lipschitz domain $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ subject to *Dirichlet boundary conditions*. With the latter we mean that $u\in\mathcal A^{\varepsilon}$ is prescribed on all vertices outside of $A$ and in a boundary layer of thickness proportional to ${\varepsilon}$ (i.e. on all vertices that “interact” with vertices outside of $A$). For the precise definition we introduce the *range of interaction,* $$\label{def_of_R}
R\text{ defined as the smallest number with the following properties:}$$
(a) the graph with vertex set ${\mathcal L}\cap[0,1]^d$ and edge set ${\mathcal{NN}}\cap B_{\frac{R}{4}}(0):=\{[x,y]\in{\mathcal{NN}}\,:\,|x|,|y|<\frac{R}{4}\,\}$ is connected,
(b) $R\geq \max\{|y|\,:\,[x,y]\in{\mathcal E}_0\}$.
For $g\in W^{1,\infty}_{{\operatorname{loc}}}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ we set $$\label{def:Aepsg}
\mathcal A^{\varepsilon}_g(A):=\{\,u\in\mathcal A^{\varepsilon}\,:\,u=g\text{ in }{\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus(A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}\,\}.$$
\[Remark:finiterange0\] Note that $R$ is a finite number that only depends on $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal{NN}})$. By (a), we have $R\geq 4\sqrt d >1$. Furthermore, by and (b) we have for any $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $u,v\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$: $$\label{rem:finiterange}
u= v\quad\mbox{in $B_{{\varepsilon}R}(z)$}\quad\Rightarrow\quad \partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)=\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v(z)\mbox{ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$.}$$
#### Stationary and ergodic interaction potentials
We consider random interaction potentials $\{V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},\cdot)\}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}}$, $V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},\cdot):{\mathbb{R}}^n\to[0,\infty)$, that are *statistically homogeneous and ergodic*, and *continuous in their last argument*. We phrase this assumption by appealing to the language of ergodic, measure preserving dynamical systems (which is a standard in the theory of stochastic homogenization, see e.g. the seminal paper [@PV79]): Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal F},\mathbb P)$ denote a probability space and $\tau=(\tau_z)_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$ a family of measurable mappings $\tau_z:\Omega\to\Omega$ satisfying
- (group property) $\tau_0\omega=\omega$ for all $\omega\in\Omega$ and $\tau_{x+y}=\tau_x\tau_y$ for all $x,y\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
- (stationarity) For every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $B\in{\mathcal F}$ it holds $\mathbb P(\tau_z B)=\mathbb{P}(B)$.
- (ergodicity) All $B\in{\mathcal F}$ with $\tau_z B=B$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ satisfy $\mathbb P(B)\in\{0,1\}$.
For each ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ let the potential $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}:\Omega\times {\mathbb{R}}^n\to[0,\infty)$, $(\omega,r)\mapsto V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}}(\omega;r)$ be measurable in $\omega$ and continuous in $r$. We assume that the random interaction potentials $\{V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},\cdot)\}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}}$ take the form $$V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},\cdot)=V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}}(\tau_{z_{{\operatorname{e}}}}\omega;\cdot)\qquad\text{for }{{\operatorname{e}}}=z_{{\operatorname{e}}}+{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}\text{ and all }\omega\in\Omega.$$ Note that by this construction, for any finite set of edges ${{\operatorname{e}}}_1,\ldots,{{\operatorname{e}}}_m\in{\mathcal E}$ and all $r\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ the joint distribution of the random variables $V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}}_1+z,r),\ldots, V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}}_m+z,r)$ does not depend on the shift $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$. See the end of this section for examples.
#### Energy functional
For given ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we define the energy of the discrete system $E_{\varepsilon}(\cdot;\cdot,A):\Omega\times L_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^1({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)\to[0,\infty]$ by $$\label{ene:pair}
E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A):=\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in {\mathcal E}_0}}V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z))&\mbox{if $u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$,}\\
\infty&\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Note that coincides with $E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A)$ for $u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ up to a small difference at the boundary: In we sum over all edges in ${\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}$ that connect vertices in $A$, while in the definition of $E_{\varepsilon}$ we sum over all edges ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}$ of the form ${{\operatorname{e}}}=z+{\varepsilon}{{\operatorname{b}}}$ with $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A$ and ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$. For the upcoming analysis it is more convenient to work with $E_{\varepsilon}$. However, as shown in Corollary \[C:1\] our results also hold for $H_{\varepsilon}$.
#### Moment conditions
We will prove a homogenization result for the energy $E_{\varepsilon}$ defined above under the following growth conditions on the interaction potentials $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}$:
\[H\] There exist $1<p<\infty$, a finite constant $c_1>0$, exponents $$\label{alphabeta0}
1 \leq \alpha \leq \infty,\quad\tfrac1{p-1}\leq \beta \leq \infty,$$ and random variables $\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}:\Omega\to[0,\infty)$ (for ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$) such that the following properties hold:
- ($p$-growth condition) $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega) (\frac1{c_1}|r|^p-{c_1})\leq V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;r)\leq {c_1}(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega) (|r|^p+1)),\label{ass:V:1}\end{aligned}$$
- (moment condition) $$\begin{aligned}
\forall{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0\,:\,&
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^\alpha]&<\infty&&\text{if }\alpha<\infty,\\
\sup_{\Omega}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}&<\infty&&\text{if }\alpha=\infty,
\end{aligned}\right.\\
\forall{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0\,:\,&
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E[(\tfrac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}})^{\beta}]&<\infty&&\text{if }\beta<\infty,\\
\sup_{\Omega}\tfrac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}}&<\infty&&\text{if }\beta=\infty,
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{aligned}
\label{ass:X0}$$ where $\mathbb E$ denotes the expected value.
Note that in particular implies $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p\geq 1$, where here and below we follow the convention that $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p=(1-\frac{1}{\beta+1})p=p$ if $\beta=\infty$. We do not assume any quantitative continuity of the interaction potentials (like Lipschitz continuity), see Remark \[R:lipschitz\] for a further discussion. Moreover, in the moment conditions on the growth from below are only imposed for edges in ${\mathcal{NN}}_0$. The above assumptions ensure coercivity of the energy $E_{\varepsilon}$ and that the homogenized energy density defined below satisfies a non-degenerate $p$-growth condition, see Lemma \[L:indwhom\] and Lemma \[L:coercivity\]. However, we need some additional assumptions on the interaction potentials for our homogenization result: either we impose stronger moment conditions than or we consider the scalar case only and impose some mild *convexity at infinity* condition on the interaction potentials $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}$.
\[A:2T\] One of the following statements are true:
- (vectorial case) The exponents $\alpha,\beta$ in satisfy also .
- (scalar case) $n=1$ and for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ there exists a function $f_{{\operatorname{b}}}:\Omega\times {\mathbb{R}}\to[0,\infty)$ and constants $c_2<\infty$, $q\in(1,p)$ such that $$ \begin{split}
\forall {{\operatorname{b}}}\in {\mathcal E}_0:\quad&V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;\cdot)+f_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;\cdot):{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,+\infty)\mbox{ is convex},\\
&f_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;r)\leq c_2(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega)(|r|^q+1)).
\end{split}$$
#### Examples
- *(Lattices)*. A typical example for a graph $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal E})$ satisfying the above assumptions is given by the hyper-cubic lattice with finite range interactions, i.e. ${\mathcal L}={\mathbb{Z}}^d$, ${\mathcal E}=\{[x,y]\, |\, x,y\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d,\, 0<|x-y|<R'\}$ for some $R'\geq1$, and ${\mathcal{NN}}=\{[x,x+e_i]\, |\, x\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d,i=1,\dots,d\}$ the set of nearest-neighbour edges. Notice that, by a change of variables, we may treat arbitrary Bravais lattices, see e.g. [@Braides-Gelli-2000 Example 5.1 and Example 5.2].
We also allow for more complicated lattices: For example, up to an affine transformation, the *Kagome-lattice* in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is given by the set of vertices ${\mathcal L}=\cup_{i=1}^3(q_i+{\mathbb{Z}}^2)$ where $q_1=0$, $q_2=\frac12e_1$ and $q_3=\frac12e_2$, and ${\mathcal E}_0:=\{[0,\frac12 e_1],[\frac12e_1,e_1],[0,\frac12 e_2],[\frac12e_2,e_2],\frac12[e_1,e_2],[\frac12e_2,e_2-\frac12e_1]\}$.
- *(Potentials)*. For a given graph $({\mathcal L}, {\mathcal E})$ we can introduce a canonical probability space as follows: Let $(\widetilde\Omega,\widetilde{\mathcal B})$ denote the open interval $\widetilde\Omega:=(0,\infty)\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ together with its Borel-$\sigma$-algebra $\widetilde {\mathcal B}:=\mathcal B((0,\infty))$. We denote by $(\Omega,{\mathcal F})=(\widetilde\Omega^{\mathcal E},\widetilde{\mathcal B}^{\otimes {\mathcal E}})$ the ${\mathcal E}$-fold product measure space. Then for $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ the maps $\tau_z:\Omega\to\Omega$, $(\tau_z\omega)({{\operatorname{e}}}):=\omega({{\operatorname{e}}}+z)$ form a group of measurable mappings. A simple example of a probability measure on $(\Omega,{\mathcal F})$ that turns $\tau$ into a stationary and ergodic dynamical system is the product measure ${\mathbb P}=\widetilde{\mathbb P}^{\otimes{\mathcal E}}$, where $\widetilde{\mathbb P}$ is an arbitrary probability measure on $(\widetilde\Omega,\widetilde{\mathcal B})$. In that case, the coordinate projections $\{\omega\mapsto\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})\}_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}}$ are independent and identically distributed random variables.
A model family of random potentials $\{V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},\cdot)\}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}}$ is given by $$V(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}},\cdot):=\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}}(\cdot)=(\tau_{z_{{\operatorname{e}}}}\omega)({{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}})V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}}(\cdot),$$ where $(z_{{\operatorname{e}}},{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\times{\mathcal E}_0$ is uniquely defined by ${{\operatorname{e}}}=z_{{\operatorname{e}}}+{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}}$ and where we assume that the finite set of potentials $\{V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}}\}_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}$ satisfies $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}\in C({\mathbb{R}}^n,[0,\infty))$ and a standard $p$-growth condition for some $p>1$. Note that in this model case incidentally we have $\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega)=\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})$ for ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$.
Let us mention some more specific examples for $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ and conditions that ensure Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\].
- Set $n=1$ and $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(r)=r^2$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$. This corresponds to a random conductance model, cf. [@Biskup]. In this case, the Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] (B) are satisfied for $p=2$ if $\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ and $\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})^{-1}]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$.
- Set $n=1$ and $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(r)=(r^2-1)^2$. These potentials are not convex but satisfy Assumption \[A:2T\] (B) for $p=4$ (choose $f_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;r):=2\omega({{\operatorname{b}}}) r^2$ for ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$). Hence, the Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] (B) are satisfied for $p=4$ if $\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})],\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})^{-\frac13}]<\infty$ for ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$.
- Set $n=d=2$ and consider the lattice graph $({\mathbb{Z}}^2,{\mathcal E})$ with the generating edge set ${\mathcal E}_0=\{\pm e_1,\pm e_2,\pm (e_1+e_2),\pm (e_1-e_2)\}$. Choosing $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(r)=(|r|-1)^2$, $r\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, the energy $E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A)$ corresponds to the elastic energy of a deformation $u$ of the weighted lattice ${\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A$. The Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] (A) are satisfied for $p=2$ if $\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^\alpha]<\infty$ and $\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\beta}]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ where $\alpha>1$, $\beta\geq1$ and $\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta\leq 1$.
In this work, we consider ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$-periodic graphs, but the analysis directly extends to general Bravais (multi) lattices. An interesting extension of our analysis is to consider stationary and ergodic random lattices as in [@ACG11]. In this context, two settings might be distinguished: If the geometry of the random lattice is regular in the sense of approximation theory (e.g. in the sense of [@ACG11 Definition 13]), we expect that the analysis of this paper can be adapted without major difficulties. On the other hand, it is an interesting and open question to which extend our result is valid for random lattices with “degenerate geometry”, which e.g. might feature regions with a low or very high density of vertices.
Main result
===========
The main theorem of this paper is a homogenization result for the energy $E_{\varepsilon}$, cf. .
\[T:1\] Suppose that Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] are satisfied. Then there exists a continuous energy density $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}\to[0,\infty)$ satisfying the standard $p$-growth condition $$\exists {c_1}'>0\,\forall F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}\,:\qquad
\frac1{{c_1}'}|F|^p-{c_1}'\leq W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(F)\leq {c_1}'(1+|F|^p),$$ and there exists a set $\Omega'\subset\Omega$ with $\mathbb P(\Omega')=1$ such that for all $\omega\in\Omega'$ the following properties hold:\
For all bounded Lipschitz domains $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ the sequence of functionals $(E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\cdot,A))_{\varepsilon}$ $\Gamma$-converges with respect to the $L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)$-topology as ${\varepsilon}\downarrow0$ to the functional $E_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(\cdot,A)$ given by $$ E_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(u,A):=\begin{cases}\displaystyle{\int_A} W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(\nabla u(x))\, dx&\mbox{if $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$,}\\ \infty&\mbox{else.}\end{cases}$$
In Section \[S:outline\] below we outline the proof of Theorem \[T:1\], which is split into several lemmas and propositions. In particular, Theorem \[T:1\] directly follows from Proposition \[P:inf\], which yields the $\Gamma$-liminf inequality, and \[P:sup\], which asserts the existence of a recovery sequence.
The homogenized energy density $W_{\hom}$ can be characterized by means of asymptotic formulas.
\[L:Whomper\] Consider the situation of Theorem \[T:1\]. For all $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ we have $$ W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(F)=\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\mathbb E\left[W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\cdot;F)\right],$$ where $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}:\Omega\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}\to[0,\infty)$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, is defined by $$\label{Whomperkdef}
W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F):=\inf\left\{\frac1{k^d}E_1(\omega;g_F+\phi,kY)\ |\ \phi\in{\mathcal{A}}_\#(kY)\right\},$$ with $g_F(x)=Fx$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $$\label{def:Aper}
{\mathcal{A}}_\#(kY)=\{\phi\in{\mathcal{A}}^1\, |\, \mbox{$\phi$ is $k{\mathbb{Z}}^d$-periodic}\}.$$
(For the proof see Section \[S:Whomper\].)
Theorem \[T:1\] comes in hand with a compactness statement (cf. Corollary \[C:1\] and Lemma \[L:coercivity\]), saying that the sequence of energies $E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\cdot, A)$ (when restricted to functions with prescribed Dirichlet boundary value or functions with prescribed mean) is equicoercive in the weak topology of $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)$. Hence, the convergence in Theorem \[T:1\] holds for any $L^q$ into which $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}$ *compactly* embeds. In fact, we can further improve the convergence, by appealing to the fact that our energy controls a weighted $L^p$-norm of the gradient with a weight that is stationary and ergodic. The upcoming lemma is of particular interest in the critical case $\frac1q=\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}\frac{1}{p}-\frac1d$, i.e. when $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)$ is not compactly (but only continuously) embedded into $L^q_{{{\operatorname{loc}}}}(A)$:
\[L:compactness\] Suppose Assumption \[H\] is satisfied. Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$, which is a set of full measure that is introduced below, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Fix a bounded Lipschitz domain $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and consider a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ satisfying $$\label{ass:coer}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},A)<\infty.$$ Then $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $L^1(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ implies $u_{\varepsilon}\to u$ strongly in $L^q_{{{\operatorname{loc}}}}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for all $1\leq q< \infty$ satisfying $$\label{ass:on:q}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{q}&\geq \frac{\beta+1}{\beta}\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{d}&&\text{if }\beta<\infty,\\
\frac{1}{q}&> \frac1p-\frac{1}{d}&&\text{if }\beta=\infty.
\end{aligned}\right.$$
(For the proof see Section \[S:comp\].)
As it is well-known, $\Gamma$-convergence is stable under perturbations by continuous functionals and implies convergence of minima and minimizers under suitable coercivity properties. In the following we make this explicit and establish a compactness and $\Gamma$-convergence result for discrete energies subject to Dirichlet data and with additional *body forces* of the form $$F_{\varepsilon}(u):={\varepsilon}^{d}\sum_{x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A}f_{\varepsilon}(x)\cdot u(x).$$ We assume that the sequence $f_{\varepsilon}:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ weakly converges to a limit $f\in L^{\frac{q}{q-1}}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in the sense that $$\label{def:w-conv}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}{\varepsilon}^{d}\sum_{x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A}f_{\varepsilon}(x)\cdot\varphi(x)=\int_A f(x)\cdot\varphi(x)\qquad\text{for all }\varphi\in C(\overline A,{\mathbb{R}}^n),\\
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}{\varepsilon}^{d}\sum_{x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A}|f_{\varepsilon}(x)|^{\frac{q}{q-1}}<\infty.
\end{aligned}\right.$$
\[C:1\] In the situation of Theorem \[T:1\], fix $\omega\in\Omega'$, a Lipschitz domain $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and an exponent $1\leq q<\infty$ satisfying . Consider the functional $$ J_{{\varepsilon}}(u):=
\begin{cases}
H_{\varepsilon}(u)-F_{\varepsilon}(u)&\mbox{if $u\in\mathcal A^{\varepsilon}_g(A)$}\\
+\infty&\mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ where $$ H_{{\varepsilon}}(u):={\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0\atop z+{\varepsilon}{{\operatorname{b}}}\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}\cap A} V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)).$$ We assume weak convergence of the body forces in the sense of . Then the following properties hold:
(a) (Coercivity) Any sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ with finite energy, i.e. $$\label{ene:bounded:bc}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}J_{{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})<\infty,$$ admits a subsequence that strongly converges in $L^q(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ (and weakly converges in $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$) to a limit $u\in g+W^{1,p}_0(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
(b) ($\Gamma$-convergence) The sequence $(J_{{\varepsilon}})$ $\Gamma$-converges with respect to strong convergence in $L^q(A)$ to the functional $J_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}$ given by $$ J_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}(u):=\begin{cases}\displaystyle{\int_A} W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(\nabla u(x))-f(x)\cdot u(x)\, dx&\mbox{if $u\in g+W_0^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$,}\\ \infty&\mbox{otherwise,}\end{cases}$$ and it holds $$ \liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\min J_{{\varepsilon}}=\min J_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}.$$ Moreover, every minimizing sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ strongly converges (up to a subsequence) in $L^q(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ (and weakly in $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$) to a minimizer $u$ of $J_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}$.
(For the convenience of the reader, we give a proof in Appendix \[appendix\].)
In Corollary \[C:1\], $H_{\varepsilon}$ can be replaced by $E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\cdot,A)$ without changing the limit, since both energies only differ close to the boundary. We phrase Corollary \[C:1\] in terms of $H_{\varepsilon}$, since this allows an easier comparison with existing results in the discrete-to-continuum literature, see [@AC04; @ACG11].
If the potentials $V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}}(\omega;r)$ are strictly convex and smooth in $r$, then the minimizer of $J_{\varepsilon}$ can be characterized as the unique solution $u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(A)$ to the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0\atop z+{\varepsilon}{{\operatorname{b}}}\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal E}\cap A}V_{{\operatorname{b}}}'(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v(z)=\sum_{x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A}f_{\varepsilon}(x)\cdot v(x)\qquad\forall v\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^{\varepsilon}(A).$$ Hence, Corollary \[C:1\] can be rephrased as a homogenization result for the discrete elliptic equation above. In the following, we consider the quadratic case, i.e. $V_{{{\operatorname{b}}}}(\omega;r)=\lambda_{{{\operatorname{b}}}}(\omega)r^2$, only. In this situation, the homogenized energy density turns out to be quadratic; i.e. it can be written in the form $W_{\hom}(F)=\frac{1}{2}F\cdot\mathbb LF$ for some symmetric, strongly elliptic fourth order tensor $\mathbb L$. By Corollary \[C:1\] we conclude that $u_{\varepsilon}\to u$ strongly in $L^q(A)$ where $u\in g+W^{1,2}_0(A)$ is the unique weak solution to $$-\nabla\cdot\mathbb L\nabla u=f\qquad\text{in }A.$$ Elliptic systems with degenerate random coefficients are considered in [@Bella-Otto] in a continuum setting. In that paper sublinearity of the (extended) corrector (and thus the homogenization result) is established under the assumption $\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta<\frac2d$, which is stronger than $\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta\leq \frac2d$ (our assumption of Corollary \[C:1\]). As mentioned earlier, in the scalar case, the continuum and periodic analogue of the above statement is contained in [@CS79; @ZP08], but we are not aware of an extension to the random setting. An exception is the scalar case in dimension $d=2$: In this situation the invariance principle proven in [@Biskup] implies the above homogenization result.
\[rem:optimal\] Assumption \[H\] is optimal in the following sense: If condition , i.e. $\alpha\geq1$ and $\beta\geq\frac1{p-1}$, is violated, then the homogenized energy density $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}$ might become degenerate. To illustrate this fact we consider the integer lattice $({\mathbb{Z}}^d,\mathbb B^d)$, where $\mathbb B^d=\{[z,z+e_i]\, |\, i\in\{1,\dots,d\},\, z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\}$, and consider for $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}$ the quadratic energy functional $$\label{example:energy}
E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A):={\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{i=1}^d\omega(\tfrac{z\cdot e_1}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^2,$$ where $\{\omega(x)\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ are independent and identically distributed $(0,\infty)$-valued random variables. Note that the energy describes a layered medium that is constant in any direction different from $e_1$. Since the energy is convex and quadratic, and the medium is layered, the auxilliary energy densities $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)$, see , can be calculated explicitly (e.g. by appealing to the associated Euler-Lagrange equation, which factorizes to one-dimensional equations). Indeed, one can show that for all $\omega\in\Omega$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;\ell e_j)=
\begin{cases}
\ell^2\left(\frac{1}{k}\sum_{z=0}^{k-1}\frac{1}{\omega(z)}\right)^{-1}&\text{if }j=1,\\
\ell^2\frac{1}{k}\sum_{z=0}^{k-1}\omega(z)&\text{else.}
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ If $\mathbb E[\omega(0)]+\mathbb E[\tfrac{1}{\omega(0)}]<\infty$, then Theorem \[T:1\] can be applied. In particular, Assumption \[H\] is satisfied (note that $p=2$). On the other hand, if $\mathbb E[\tfrac{1}{\omega(0)}]=\infty$, then $$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\mathbb E[W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\cdot;\ell e_1)]=0,$$ and we deduce that $W_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}(\ell e_1)=0$ for all $\ell$. Hence, $W_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}$ is degenerate from below. Likewise, if $\mathbb E[\omega(0)]=\infty$, then $$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\mathbb E[W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\cdot;e_2)]=\infty,$$ and we deduce that $W_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}(e_2)=\infty$, which means that $W_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}$ does not satisfy the growth condition from above.
To check optimality of the exponent $\beta=\frac1{p-1}$ for general $p>1$, it suffices to replace the quadratic term $|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^2$ in by the $p$-th power $|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^p$. For all $\omega\in\Omega$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb{R}}$, it follows $$0\leq W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;\ell e_1)\leq \ell^p \left(\frac{1}{k}\sum_{z=0}^{k-1}\omega(z)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\right)^{-(p-1)}.$$ Indeed, choose $\phi(z)=\varphi_k(z\cdot e_1)$ in , where $\varphi_k$ is the $k{\mathbb{Z}}$-periodic function satisfying $\varphi_k(x)=\ell (\frac1k\sum_{z=0}^{k-1}\omega(z)^{-\frac1{p-1}})^{-1}\sum_{z=0}^{x-1}\omega(z)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}-\ell x$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{Z}}\cap[0,k)$. As above, we obtain that $\mathbb E[\omega^{-\frac1{p-1}}]=\infty$ implies $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(\ell e_1)=0$ for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
Outline of the proof of Theorem \[T:1\] {#S:outline}
---------------------------------------
A key ingredient in any result on stochastic homogenization is ergodic theory. We rely on two types of ergodic theorems. The first one is Birkhoff’s individual ergodic theorem:
\[T:Birk\] For all $f\in L^1(\Omega)$ there exists a set of full measure $\Omega_f\subset\Omega$ such that for any Lipschitz domain $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $0<|A|<\infty$ we have $$\label{eq:T:Birk}
\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in A\cap{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d}f(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega)=|A|\,\mathbb E[f]\qquad\text{for all }\omega\in\Omega_f.$$
Another ingredient is an ergodic theorem for subadditive quantities. Similarly to the continuum case (cf. [@DMM86; @MM94]), we define for all $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ and measurable $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $|A|<\infty$ $$ m_F(\omega;A):=\inf\left\{E_1(\omega;g_F+\phi,A)\ |\ \phi\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^1(A)\right\},$$ where $g_F$ denotes the linear map $g_F(x)=Fx$. It turns out that $m_F(\omega;\cdot)$ is subadditive and we derive from a variant of the Ackoglu-Krengel subadditive ergodic theorem, cf. [@ACG11; @AK81]:
\[L:indwhom\] Suppose Assumption \[H\] is satisfied. For every $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ there exists a set $\Omega_F\subset\Omega$ of full measure such that for all cubes $Q$ satisfying $\bar Q=[a,b]$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\omega\in\Omega_F$: $$\label{lim1}
W_0(F):=\inf_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{\mathbb E \left[m_F(\cdot;kY)\right]}{k^d}=\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\frac{\mathbb E \left[m_F(\cdot;kY)\right]}{k^d}=\lim_{t\uparrow\infty}\frac{m_F(\omega;tQ)}{|tQ|}.$$
The proof of this statement is rather standard. For the convenience of the reader we present the argument in Appendix \[appendix\].
\[Remark:finiterange\]
The small non-locality of the discrete energy (i.e. $E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A)$ potentially depends on the values of $u$ on the larger set $(A)_{{\varepsilon}R}$ with $R$ defined in ) makes the construction of suitable subadditive quantities slightly more subtle than in the continuum case. Note that by definition , we have $$ {\mathcal{A}}_0^{\varepsilon}(A)=\left\{u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}\, :\, u=0\mbox{ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$}\,\right\}.$$ Hence, functions in ${\mathcal{A}}_0^1(A)$ vanish in a “safety zone” close to $\partial A$. This takes care of the small non-locality of the energy $E_{\varepsilon}$. In particular, we have the following *additive* structure: For all $A_1,A_2\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ Lipschitz domains and $u_i\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^{\varepsilon}(A_i)$ for $i=1,2$, we have $$A_1\cap A_2=\emptyset\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_1+u_2,A_1\cup A_2)=E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_1,A_1)+E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_2,A_2).$$
For future reference we state a rescaled version of , which is proven in Section 4:
\[C:rep\_Whom\] Suppose Assumption \[H\] is satisfied. Let $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ and let $g:{\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ denote an affine function with $\nabla g\equiv F$. Then for all $\omega\in\Omega_F$ and all cubes $Q$ satisfying $\bar Q=[a,b]$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we have $$\label{lim1e}
W_0(F)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left(\frac{1}{|Q|}\inf\left\{E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\varphi,Q)\ |\ \varphi\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(Q)\,\right\}\right).$$
We are going to prove our main theorem with $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}$ replaced by $W_0$ and show a posteriori that $W_0=W_{{{\operatorname{hom}}}}$ (cf. proof of Lemma \[L:Whomper\]).
Before we outline the proof of the main theorem, we comment on the exceptional sets in the two ergodic theorems, since this is a slightly subtle issue.
\[R:Omega0\] Both “good” sets $\Omega_f$ and $\Omega_F$ in Theorem \[T:Birk\] and Lemma \[L:indwhom\] depend a priori on $f$ (resp. $F$), but not on $A$ (resp. $Q$). In the proof of Theorem \[T:1\] we apply to a finite number of different functions, which are all related to the weight functions $\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}$. Therefore, a posteriori we may find a common “good” set $\Omega_0$ of full measure. We denote this set by $\Omega_0$. For the set $\Omega_F$ appearing in the subadditive ergodic theorem, the situation is more subtle. Clearly we can find a common “good” set $\Omega_1$ of full measure such that is valid for all $F$ with rational entries. Yet, since we do not assume any Lipschitz continuity of the potentials (which is in contrast to the analysis in [@DMM86 Theorem 1], [@MM94 Corollary 3.3]), we cannot directly conclude that there exists a set of full measure such that holds for all $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$. Note that the latter would directly imply continuity of $W_0$, cf. Remark \[R:lipschitz\]. In our case we prove continuity of $W_0$ by a different argument (cf. Proposition \[P:condwhom\] below). We set $\Omega_1:=\bigcap_{F\in{\mathbb{Q}}^{n\times d}}\Omega_F\cap\Omega_0$, so that for all $\omega\in\Omega_1$
- is valid for the finite family of functions $f$ mentioned above,
- holds true for all $F\in{\mathbb{Q}}^{n\times d}$.
We outline the proof of Theorem \[T:1\] and refer to Section 4 for details and the proofs of the lemmas and propositions below. We first observe that thanks to the moment condition in Assumption \[H\] the energy density $W_0$ is non-degenerate:
\[L:indwhom2\] Suppose Assumption \[H\] is satisfied. Then there exists $c_1'>0$ such that $$\frac1{{c_1}'}|F|^p-{c_1}'\leq W_0(F)\leq {c_1}'(1+|F|^p)\quad\mbox{for all $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$.}\label{cond:Whom1}$$
By exploiting the boundedness of $\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}]$ for ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$ we obtain equicompactness of the energy:
\[L:coercivity\] Suppose Assumption \[H\] is satisfied. Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\], and a bounded Lipschitz domain $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Let $(u_{\varepsilon})$ denote a sequence with finite energy, i.e. satisfying . Then $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $L^1(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ implies $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $W_{{{\operatorname{loc}}}}^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
The previous lemma combined with a two-scale argument allows to construct recovery sequences for affine limits:
\[L:affine\] Suppose Assumption \[H\] is satisfied. Consider an affine function $g:{\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with $\nabla g=F$ and fix $\omega\in\Omega_F\cap \Omega_0$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Then for all bounded Lipschitz domains $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ there exists a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ such that $$ \lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{\varepsilon}-g\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A)}=0~\mbox{ and }~\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},A)= |A|W_0(F).$$
Up to this point our argument only relied on the general moment condition of Assumption \[H\]. To proceed further, we require localization arguments that are based on gluing constructions for which we additionally need to suppose Assumption \[A:2T\], see Lemmas \[L:glue\] and \[L:glue:convex\] below. In addition to these gluing contructions, the generalization of Lemma \[L:affine\] to non-affine limits crucially relies on some mild regularity properties of $W_0$, which we state next:
\[P:condwhom\] Suppose Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] are satisfied. Then the function $W_0:{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}\to[0,\infty)$ is continuous.
The proof of the continuity of $W_0$ combines the recovery sequence constructions for affine functions, cf. Lemma \[L:affine\], and the already mentioned gluing constructions in Lemma \[L:glue\] and Lemma \[L:glue:convex\].
\[R:lipschitz\] If we assume in addition that the potential $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ is $p$-Lipschitz continuous, i.e. that there exists a constant $L>0$ such that for all $r,s\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ it holds $$\label{Vplipschitz}
|V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;r)-V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega;s)|\leq L\left(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega)|s|^{p-1}+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega)|r|^{p-1}\right)|r-s|,$$ our proof simplifies. Indeed, adapting arguments of [@DMM86; @MM94], where the unweighted continuum case is considered, we deduce from directly that $W_0$ is $p$-Lipschitz continuous and that there exists a set of full measure such that holds true for all $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$.
In the continuum case, might be considered to be a mild assumption: Since quasiconvex integrands with $p$-growth automatically satisfy , the $p$-Lipschitz condition already would follow from the growth condition and lower semicontinuity of $E_{\varepsilon}$. This observation fails in the discrete case considered here. We therefore do not assume .
We prove the liminf inequality by appealing to the blow-up technique, introduced in [@FM91], cf. [@BMS08; @DG15] for similar applications to homogenization:
\[P:inf\] Suppose Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] are satisfied. Fix $\omega\in \Omega_1$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain. Let $(u_{\varepsilon})$ denote a sequence in $L^1(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ that weakly converges in $L^1(A)$ to a limit $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Then $$ \liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},A)\geq \int_AW_0(\nabla u(x))\,dx.$$
With the continuity of $W_0$ (Proposition \[P:condwhom\]) and the liminf inequality (Proposition \[P:inf\]) at hand, the existence of a recovery sequence for arbitrary functions in $W^{1,p}$ can be easily deduced from the existence of a recovery sequence for affine functions (Lemma \[L:affine\]) as outlined in Section \[S:P\]:
\[P:sup\] Suppose Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] are satisfied. Fix $\omega\in \Omega_1$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Let $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a Lipschitz domain and $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Then there exists a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})\subset W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{\varepsilon}-u\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A)}=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad \lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},A)=\int_A W_0(\nabla u(x))\,dx.$$
We finally state the (somewhat technical) gluing constructions that we apply in the proofs of Proposition \[P:condwhom\], \[P:inf\] and \[P:sup\]. In the vectorial case our construction is based on a compact embedding in weighted spaces. It relies on the following weighted Poincaré inequality:
\[L:interpolation\] Let Assumption \[H\] be satisfied and let $1\leq q<\infty$ satisfy $$\label{alphabetaqp}
\alpha>1,\quad \left(1-\frac1\alpha\right)\frac{1}q\geq \left(1+\frac1\beta\right)\frac{1}p-\frac1d.$$ Then there exists a constant $C<\infty$ such that for every cube $Q\in\mathcal Q_{\varepsilon}:=\{[a,b)\,:\,a,b\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\}$, every $u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ and all $\omega\in\Omega$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:interpolation}
&\left(\fint_{Q}|u(x)-\fint_Qu(y)\,dy|^q\bigg(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\lfloor\frac{x}{{\varepsilon}}\rfloor}\omega)\bigg)\,dx\right)^\frac1q\notag\\
&\,\leq C|Q|^{\frac1d}\left(m_{{\varepsilon},Q,\alpha}(\omega)\right)^\frac1q \left(\tilde m_{{\varepsilon},Q,\beta}(\omega)\right)^\frac1p \left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^d}{|Q|}\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q)_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}u(z)|^p\right)^{\frac{1}p},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
m_{{\varepsilon},Q,\alpha}(\omega)
&:=&
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\bigg(\frac{{\varepsilon}^d}{|Q|}\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap Q}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)^\alpha\bigg)^{\frac1\alpha}&&\text{for }\alpha<\infty,\\
&\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\sup_{\Omega}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}&&\text{for }\alpha=\infty,
\end{aligned}\right.\\
\tilde m_{{\varepsilon},Q,\beta}(\omega)
&:=&
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\bigg(\frac{{\varepsilon}^d}{|Q|}\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q)_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}(\tfrac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)})^{\beta}\bigg)^{\frac1\beta }&&\text{for }\beta<\infty,\\
&\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\sup_\Omega\frac1{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}}&&\text{for }\beta=\infty.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{aligned}$$
Combined with a two-scale argument we obtain:
\[L:interpolation2\] Let Assumption \[H\] be satisfied and suppose with $\frac1q>\frac1p-\frac1d$. Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\], and a bounded Lipschitz domain $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Let $(u_{\varepsilon})$ denote a sequence with $u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon}$ satisfying $$\label{ass:interpolation}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^p<\infty.$$ Then, $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $L^1(A)$ implies for all $A'\Subset A$ $$\label{claim:interpolation}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{A'}|u_{\varepsilon}(x)|^q\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\lfloor\frac{x}{{\varepsilon}}\rfloor}\omega)\Big)\,dx\leq \left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]\right) \int_{A}|u(x)|^q\,dx.$$
In the proof of Theorem \[T:1\], we use Lemma \[L:interpolation\] and Lemma \[L:interpolation2\] in the case $p=q$, where coincides with . If we assume $p=q$ and the strict inequality $\frac1\alpha+\frac1\beta<\frac{p}d$, we obtain from and $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ in $L^1(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ rather directly using Hölder’s inequality, Birkhoff’s Theorem \[T:Birk\] and the Rellich compact embedding. Finally, we state the gluing constructions.
\[L:glue\] Let Assumption \[H\] and Assumption \[A:2T\] (A) be satisfied. Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Then there exists a constant $C<\infty$ such that the following statement holds:\
Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a Lipschitz domain, $\overline u\in W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and $(u_{\varepsilon})$ a sequence with $u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:0}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{\varepsilon}-u\|_{L^1(A)}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Set $E:=\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{{\varepsilon}},A)$. Then for all $\delta>0$ sufficiently small and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exists $(v_{\varepsilon})$ with $v_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon}$ and $v_{\varepsilon}=\overline u$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-\frac{\delta}{4}}$ such that $$\label{L:glue:st0}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;v_{\varepsilon},A)\leq& \left(1+\tfrac{C}{m}\right)E+C\left|A\setminus (A)_{-\delta}\right| \left(1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p\right)\\
&+C\frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{m}{\delta}\right)^p \|u-\overline u\|_{L^p(A)}^p
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:lq}
\forall q\in[1,\infty]:~ \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|v_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^q(A)}\leq \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^q(A)}.\end{aligned}$$
In the scalar case, i.e. $n=1$, we provide a different gluing construction that relies on a truncation argument and allows for weaker moment-conditions.
\[L:glue:convex\] Suppose that Assumption \[H\] and Assumption \[A:2T\] (B) are satisfied. Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Then there exists a constant $C<\infty$ and a sequence $(O_M)_{M\in{\mathbb{N}}}\subset [0,\infty)$ with $\lim_{M\uparrow\infty}O_M=0$ such that the following statement holds:\
Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a Lipschitz domain, $\overline u\in W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $u\in W^{1,p}(A)$, and $(u_{\varepsilon})$ a sequence with $u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon}$ satisfying . Set $E:=\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{{\varepsilon}},A)$. Then for all $\delta>0$ sufficiently small, $m,M\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $s>0$, there exists $(v_{\varepsilon})$ with $v_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon}$, $v_{\varepsilon}=\overline u$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-\frac{\delta}{4}}$ such that holds, and $$\label{L:glue:st0:convex}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;v_{\varepsilon},A)
&\leq \left(1+\tfrac{C}{m}\right)E+C\left|A\setminus (A)_{-\delta}\right| \left(h\left(\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}\right)+\left(\tfrac{ms}{\delta }\right)^p\right)\\
&\quad+Ch\!\left(\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}\right) \left(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|\right)\\
&\quad+C\left(E+|A|\right)^\frac{q}{p} \left(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|\right)^\frac{p-q}{p},
\end{split}$$ where $h(a)=1+a^p+a^q$, and $1<q<p$ as in Assumption \[A:2T\] (B).
Moment conditions under independence {#sec:iid}
------------------------------------
The moment condition imposed on the growth from below can be weakened if we replace ergodicity by the assumption of independent and identically distributed (iid) weights. Below, we discuss the argument for the lattice graph $({\mathbb{Z}}^d,\mathbb B^d)$, where $\mathbb B^d:=\{[z,z+ e_i]\,|\,i=1,\dots,d\}$ with iid potentials. In this case the moment condition $\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\beta}]<\infty$ in the Assumptions \[H\] and \[A:2T\] can be replaced by the weaker condition $\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\gamma}]<\infty$ for some $\gamma>\frac{\beta}{2d}$. Notice that the gain of a factor $\frac1{2d}$ in the integrability is related to the geometry of the graph $({\mathbb{Z}}^d,\mathbb B^d)$.
Indeed, a careful inspection of the proof of Theorem \[T:1\] shows that the moment condition $\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\beta}]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$ is only used to ensure existence of a random variable $f\in L^1(\Omega)$, namely $f(\omega)=\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\omega)^{-\beta}$, such that for all bounded Lipschitz domains $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\right)^{\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}}\\
&\leq \left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}f(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta}} \left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega)|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^p\right),\end{aligned}$$ cf. the proofs of Lemma \[L:Whomper\], Lemma \[L:indwhom\] Step 4, Lemma \[L:coercivity\] and Lemma \[L:affine\] Step 2. We argue that this estimate extends to the specific random environment that we introduce next: Set $\widetilde\Omega:=(0,\infty)$ and fix a probability measure $\widetilde{\mathbb P}$ on $(\widetilde\Omega,\widetilde{\mathcal B})$, where $\widetilde{\mathcal B}=\mathcal B((0,\infty))$. Set $\Omega=\widetilde\Omega^{\mathbb B^d}$ and let ${\mathbb P}:=\widetilde{\mathbb P}^{\otimes\mathbb B^d}$ denote the $\mathbb B^d$-fold product measure on $\Omega$. For every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ the shift $\tau_z:\Omega\to\Omega$ is defined, as in the examples at the end of Section \[sec:2\], by $(\tau_z\omega)({{\operatorname{b}}})=\omega(z+{{\operatorname{b}}})$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in \mathbb B^d$. By construction, we have that $\{\Omega\ni\omega\mapsto \omega({{\operatorname{b}}})\}_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\mathbb B^d}$ are independent and identically distributed random variables. We show that a variant of the above inequality holds in this situation under weaker moment conditions:
\[Prop:iid\] Let $(\widetilde\Omega,\widetilde{\mathbb P})$ be defined as above and suppose that $$\forall {{\operatorname{b}}}\in\mathbb B^d\qquad \mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})]<\infty\quad\mbox{and}\quad\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\gamma}]<\infty\quad\mbox{for some $\gamma>\frac1{2d(p-1)}$}.$$ Then, for all $\frac{1}{p-1}\leq\beta<2d\gamma$ there exists a random variable $f\in L^1(\Omega)$ such that for every bounded Lipschitz domain $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$, $v\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ and $\omega\in\Omega$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:iid:claim}
&\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{i=1}^d|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\right)^{\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}}\notag\\
&\qquad\leq \left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A)_{\varepsilon}}f(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega)\right)^\frac1\beta\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A)_{4{\varepsilon}}}\sum_{i=1}^d(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega)(e_i)|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^p\right).\end{aligned}$$
With Proposition \[Prop:iid\] at hand, it is straightforward to adapt the proof of Theorem \[T:1\] in the situation of Proposition \[Prop:iid\] and to obtain the following:
Assume $$\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^\alpha]+\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\gamma}]<\infty\quad\mbox{for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in\mathbb B^d$},$$ and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
- $1<\alpha<\infty$, $\frac{1}{2d(p-1)}<\gamma$ and $\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{2d\gamma}<\frac{p}{d}$,
- $1\leq\alpha<\infty$, $\frac{1}{2d(p-1)}<\gamma$ and Assumption \[A:2T\] (B).
Then the conclusions of Theorem \[T:1\] and Corollary \[C:1\] (with $\frac1q>(1+\frac1{2d\gamma})\frac1p-\frac1d$) hold for energies of the form $$E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A)={\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{i=1}^d(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega)(e_i)V(\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}u(z)),$$ where $V\in C({\mathbb{R}}^n,[0,\infty))$ satisfies standard $p$-growth.
An interesting, open question is whether the assumptions on the exponents $\alpha,\gamma$ are critical for the above conclusion or not. In the following, we discuss the special case of scalar problems with quadratic potentials (i.e. $p=2$), $\Gamma$-convergence in $L^2$ (i.e. $q=2$), and $\alpha=1$. This case corresponds to a random conductance model on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ with independent and identically distributed conductances. In this situation our results yield $\Gamma$-convergence (in $L^2$) provided $\gamma>\frac{1}{4}=:\gamma_c$ ($\Leftrightarrow$ $\frac1q:=\frac12>(1+\frac1{2d\gamma})\frac12-\frac1d$). For this conclusion the threshold $\gamma_c$ is critical: In a very recent work [@FF16], localization of the first Dirichlet eigenvectors of the associated discrete elliptic equation is studied. It is shown that in the subcritical regime $\gamma<\gamma_c$ localization (and thus failure of homogenization in $L^2$) of the first eigenvector occures. On the other hand, for $\gamma>\gamma_c$, our results imply $\Gamma$-convergence of the corresponding quadratic form w.r.t. strong $L^2$-convergence (and thus homogenization of the first eigenvectors, see [@FF16 Section 1.3] for further discussions). Moreover, it is interesting to note that the exponent $\gamma_c=\frac14$ is also critical for the validity of a *local central limit theorem* for the associated *variable speed random walk*, see [@BKM15 Remark 1.10], and [@ADS16; @MO16] for related results. In particular, in [@BKM15] it is shown that in the subcritical case $\gamma<\gamma_c$ the associated heat kernel features an anomalous decay due to trapping of the random walk, while this is not the case for $\gamma>\gamma_c$.
Proofs {#S:P}
======
We tacitly drop the dependence on $\omega$ in our notation, e.g. we simply write $E_{\varepsilon}(u,A)$ instead of $E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u,A)$ or $m_F(A)$ instead of $m_F(\omega;A)$. Furthermore, we shall use the shorthand notation $$ \lambda_{{{\operatorname{b}}}}(x)=\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\lfloor x\rfloor}\omega)\qquad\text{and}\qquad V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(x;\cdot)=V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\lfloor x \rfloor}\omega;\cdot),$$ where $\lfloor \cdot\rfloor$ denotes the lower Gauss bracket extended component-wise to ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
Compactness and recovery sequence in the affine case: Corollary \[C:rep\_Whom\] and Lemmas \[L:indwhom2\], \[L:coercivity\] and \[L:affine\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of $m_F$ and a change of variables yield $${\varepsilon}^dm_F(\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q)=\inf\left\{E_{\varepsilon}(\varphi,Q)\ |\ \varphi\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(Q)\,\right\},$$ where we have used that the right-hand side does not change if we add a constant to $g$. On the other hand, we have by Lemma \[L:indwhom\] $$|Q|W_0(F)\stackrel{\eqref{lim1}}{=}|Q|\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{m_F(\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q)}{|\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q|}
=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^dm_F(\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q).$$
The upper bound is a direct consequence of the upper bound in and $\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]<\infty$. To prove the lower bound, we fix $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ and $\omega\in\Omega_0\cap \Omega_F$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Denote by $g_F$ the linear function $g_F(x)=Fx$. Let $(\phi_k)_k$ be such that $\phi_k\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^1(kY)$ and $$\label{lim:whom}
\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\frac1{k^d}E_1(g_F+\phi_k,kY)= W_0(F).$$ Consider $k\gg R$. Using , $\int_{(kY)_{-R}}\nabla \phi_k\,dx=0$, and Hölder’s inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|F|^p=&\left|\fint_{(kY)_{-R}}\left(F+\nabla \phi_k(y)\right)\,dy\right|^p\\
\leq& \left(\frac{c_0}{|(kY)_{-R}|}\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1(g_F+\phi_k)(z)|\right)^p\\
\leq&{c_0}^p\frac{|k Y|^p}{|(kY)_{-R}|^p}\left(\frac{1}{k^d}\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z)|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1(g_F+\phi_k)(z)|^p\right)\\
&\quad\times\left(\frac{1}{k^d}\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\right)^{p-1}\\
\leq& {c_0}^p{c_1}\frac{|k Y|^p}{|(kY)_{-R}|^p}\left(\frac1{k^d}E_1(g_F+\phi_k,kY)+\frac{{c_1}}{k^d}\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z)\right)\\
&\quad\times\left(\frac{1}{k^d}\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\right)^{p-1}. \end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[T:Birk\] and yield $$\begin{aligned}
|F|^p \leq&{c_0}^p{c_1}\left(W_0(F)+{c_1}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]\right)\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}]\right)^{p-1},
\end{aligned}$$ and thus the lower bound for $W_0$ by Assumption \[H\].
Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$.
[*Step 1.* ]{} ($L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}$ boundedness of $\nabla u_{\varepsilon}$). We claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:coer:u:0}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{(A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}}|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}\,dx<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ In the case $\beta<\infty$, Hölder’s inequality with exponents $(\frac{\beta+1}{\beta},\beta+1)$ yields $$\label{est:coer:u:00001}
\begin{aligned}
& {\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\\
&\quad\leq\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap
A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})^{-\beta}\right)^{\frac1{\beta+1}}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap
A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\right)^{\frac\beta{\beta+1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Two applications of Theorem \[T:Birk\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\beta}=|A|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\beta}],\\
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\\ &\qquad\stackrel{\eqref{ass:V:1}}{\leq} \limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}c_1E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},A)+c_1^2|A|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]=:\overline E\stackrel{\eqref{ass:coer}}{<}\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:coer:u}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} {\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\leq \overline E^{\frac\beta{\beta+1}}\left(|A|\ \sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\beta}]\right)^{\frac1{\beta+1}}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we obtain the claim .
If $\beta=\infty$ (and thus $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p=p$), the previous argument simplifies, since we can use the trivial estimate $|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\leq\sup_\Omega(\frac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$.
[*Step 2.* ]{} (Equi-integrability). We claim that $$\label{est:equiint}
\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{(A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}\cap\{|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}|\geq k\}}|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}|\,dx=0.$$ We only need to consider the case $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p=1$ (i.e. $\beta=\frac{1}{p-1}$), since for $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p>1$ estimate directly follows from . Fix $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. A calculation similar to the one in the previous step yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A }\!\!\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0 \atop |\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|\geq k }\!\!|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|
\leq \overline E^\frac1p\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0\atop |\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|\geq k}\!\!\!\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ By appealing to the decomposition $\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac1{p-1}}=(1-\chi)\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac1{p-1}}+\chi\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac1{p-1}}$ with $\chi$ denoting the indicator function of the peak level set $\{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-1}>k^{\frac{p-1}2}\}$, we deduce that $${\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0\atop |\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|\geq k}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}
\leq
{\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0 }\left(\frac{|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|}{k^\frac12}+\chi(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\right).$$ Thanks to and $\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}]<\infty$ we have $$\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0 }\left(\frac{|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|}{k^\frac12}+\chi(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\right)
=0.$$ The combination of the previous three estimates yields $$ \limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A }\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0 \atop |\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|\geq k}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|=0,$$ which implies the asserted estimate , as can be seen by an argument similar as in the proof of Lemma \[L:sumint\].
[*Step 3.* ]{} We claim that $u\in W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ in $W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
Fix $U\Subset A$. Since $U\subset (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$ for ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small, we have by the equi-integrability and that $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ in $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(U,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Moreover, yields $\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(U)}\leq C<\infty$, where $C$ is independent of $U\Subset A$. Hence, $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ in $W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $\nabla u\in L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d})$ by the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm. Thus $u\in W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ by Poincaré’s inequality.
[*Step 4.* ]{} We prove $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ by a duality argument (similar to [@EPPW06 Theorem 5.1]).
By Poincaré’s inequality it suffices to show $\nabla u\in L^p(A,{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d})$. Fix $j=1,\dots,d$, $k=1,\dots,n$ and a test function $\varphi\in C_c^\infty(A)$. Set $U=\operatorname{spt}\varphi\Subset A$ and $\overline \varphi(z)=\sup_{x\in z+{\varepsilon}Y}|\varphi(x)|$ for $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d$. We get for ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\varphi\partial_j u_{\varepsilon}^k\|_{L^1(A)}=\|\varphi\partial_j u_{\varepsilon}^k\|_{L^1(U)}\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{est:sumint}}{\leq} c_0{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\overline \varphi(z)||\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|\\
&\leq c_0\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)|^p\right)^{\frac1{p}}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\!\!\!\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{\frac{-1}{p-1}}|\overline \varphi(z)|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\eta>0$ set $I(\eta):=\{i\in\eta{\mathbb{Z}}^d:i+\eta Y\cap A\neq\emptyset\}$, $Q_i=i+\eta Y$ and $\varphi_i=\max_{x\in \bar Q_i} |\varphi(x)|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}$ for $i\in\eta{\mathbb{Z}}^d$. The lower semicontinuity of the norm and Theorem \[T:Birk\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\int_A\varphi\partial_j u^k\,dx\leq&\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|\varphi\partial_j u_{\varepsilon}^k\|_{L^1(A,{\mathbb{R}})}\\
\leq&c_0\overline E^\frac1p\left(\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}|\overline \varphi(z)|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\\
\leq&c_0\overline E^\frac1p\left(\sum_{i\in I(\eta)}\varphi_i\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap Q_i}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\\
\leq&c_0\overline E^\frac1p\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac1{p-1}}]\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\left(\sum_{i\in I(\eta)}\varphi_i|Q_i|\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline E:=\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}c_1 E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},A)+c_1^2|A|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]<\infty$ as in Step 1. Since $\varphi$ is smooth, we get by taking a sequence $(\eta_m)_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ with $\eta_m\downarrow0$ as $m\uparrow\infty$: $$\int_A \partial_j u^k\varphi\,dx\leq c_0\overline E^\frac1p\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\frac1{p-1}}]\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\|\varphi\|_{L^\frac{p}{p-1}(A)}\quad\mbox{for all $\varphi\in C_c^\infty(A)$.}$$ Since $C_c^\infty(A)\subset L^\frac{p}{p-1}(A)$ is dense, we obtain that $\partial_j u^k\in L^p(A)$ for $k=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,d$ by duality.
Recall that $F=\nabla g$. We fix $\omega\in\Omega_F\cap\Omega_0$, cf. Lemma \[L:indwhom\] and Remark \[R:Omega0\]. Our argument relies on a two-scale construction (that is similar to [@MM94 Lemma 4.2 Step 1] where the non-degenerate continuum case is discussed). We introduce an additional length scale $\eta\in(0,1)$ (with ${\varepsilon}\ll\eta\ll 1$), and cover $A$ into disjoint cubes $Q_z$ with side length $\eta$: For $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ set $Q_z:=\eta(z+Y)$ and denote by $$\begin{aligned}
I&:=\{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\ :\ Q_z\subset (A)_{-\eta}\},\\
\intertext{the set of labels associated with cubes inside $A$ (with some safety distance to $\partial A$), and by}
J&:=\{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\setminus I\ :\ Q_z\cap A\neq\emptyset\},\end{aligned}$$ the labels of “boundary” cubes. Set $\partial_\eta A:=\bigcup_{z\in J}Q_z$ and note that $$\label{ieta}
\bigcup_{z\in I}Q_z\subset A\subset \bigcup_{z\in I\cup J}Q_z~\mbox{ and }~\lim_{\eta\downarrow0}|\partial_\eta A|=0,$$ where the last identity holds, since $A$ has a Lipschitz boundary. Based on this partition we construct a doubly indexed sequence $u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$ which perturbs the affine map $g$ by functions in $\mathcal A^{\varepsilon}_0(Q_z)$, $z\in I$. This is done in Step 1. In Step 2 and Step 3 we estimate the perturbation and in Step 4 we conclude by extracting a suitable diagonal sequence.
1 Construction of $u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$.
For each $z\in I$ choose $(\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z})_{\varepsilon}\subset{\mathcal{A}}^1$ with $\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}\in\mathcal A_0(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z)$ such that $$\label{L2.11:phi}
|Q_z|W_0(F)\stackrel{\eqref{lim1}}{=}\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^dm_F(\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z)= \lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z},\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z),$$ and define $u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}\in\mathcal A_{\varepsilon}$ via $$u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}(x)=g(x)+{\varepsilon}\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}}),\qquad\text{where }\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta}=\sum_{z\in I}\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}.$$ We claim that $$\label{L:affine:claim:2}
(|A|-O(\eta))W_0(F) \leq\liminf\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},A)
\leq \limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},A)\leq |A|W_0(F)+O(\eta),$$ where $O(\eta)$ denotes a (non-negative) function with $\limsup_{\eta\downarrow0}O(\eta)=0$.\
This can be seen as follows: A direct consequence of and $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}\geq0$ is $$\sum_{z\in I}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},Q_z)\leq E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},A)\leq \sum_{z\in I\cup J}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},Q_z).$$ Since $\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}\in\mathcal A_0^1(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z)$, we obtain by the definition of $\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$, $u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$ and the arguments in Remark \[Remark:finiterange\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{z\in I}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},Q_z)=&\sum_{z\in I}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta},\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q_z)=\sum_{z\in I}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z},\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q_z).\end{aligned}$$ With the lower bound in follows: $$\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},A)\geq \sum_{z\in I}|Q_z|W_0(F)\geq (|A|-|\partial_\eta A|)W_0(F).$$ Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{z\in I\cup J}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},Q_z)=&\sum_{z\in I\cup J}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta},\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q_z)\\
=&\sum_{z\in I}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z},\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q_z)+\sum_{z\in J}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g,\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q_z).\end{aligned}$$ The second term can be estimated by and Theorem \[T:Birk\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{j\in J}{\varepsilon}^dE_1(g,\tfrac1{\varepsilon}Q_j)\leq& \sum_{j\in J}\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap\frac1{\varepsilon}Q_j}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_z\omega)(|F|^p+1))\\
=&|\partial_\eta A|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(1+\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the upper bound of follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},A)\leq |A|W_0(F)+|\partial_\eta A|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(1+\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1)).\end{aligned}$$
2 Estimate on $\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}$.
We claim that $$\label{L2.11:step2}
\max_{z\in I}\left(\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\fint_{\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z} |\nabla\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\right)\lesssim 1,$$ where $\lesssim$ stands for $\leq$ up to a constant that is independent of $\eta$. Next we provide the argument: Since $\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}\in\mathcal A_0^1(\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}} Q_z)$, the function $\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}$ vanishes outside $(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z)_{-R}$, and thus $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}^d\int_{\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z}|\nabla\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx&\lesssim |Q_z||F|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}+{\varepsilon}^d\int_{(\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z)_{-R}}|F+\nabla\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx.
\end{aligned}$$ For $\beta<\infty$, the second term on the right-hand side above can be estimated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\varepsilon}^d\int_{(\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z)_{-R}}|F+\nabla\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx\stackrel{\eqref{est:sumint}}{\leq} c_0{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z'\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap \frac1{\varepsilon}Q_z}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z})(z'))|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\\
&\leq c_0\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z'\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap \frac1{\varepsilon}Q_z}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z')^{-\beta}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta+1}}\\
&\qquad \times\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z'\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap \frac1{\varepsilon}Q_z}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z')|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1(g+\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z})(z'))|^p\right)^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The combination of the previous two estimates, , and Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, cf. Theorem \[T:Birk\], yields $$\begin{gathered}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}{\varepsilon}^d\int_{\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z}|\nabla\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx
\lesssim|Q_z||F|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\\+|Q_z|\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{-\beta}]\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta+1}}
\left(W_0(F) + 1 + \sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]\right)^\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}.\end{gathered}$$ Thanks to this implies . If $\beta=\infty$ (and thus $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p=p$), the previous argument simplifies, since we can smuggle in the weight with the trivial estimate $|\cdot|^p\leq\sup_\Omega(\frac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}|\cdot|^p$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$.
3 Estimate on $u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$.
We claim that $$\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_A |g-u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx \leq O(\eta).$$ Indeed, due to the definition of $u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}$ and by the Poincaré-Friedrich inequality we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_A |g-u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx &=& \int_A |{\varepsilon}\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta}(\tfrac{\cdot}{{\varepsilon}})|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx=\sum_{z\in I}\int_{Q_z}|{\varepsilon}\phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}(\tfrac{\cdot}{{\varepsilon}})|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx\\
&\leq& C\eta^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p} \sum_{z\in I}\int_{Q_z}|\nabla \phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}(\tfrac{\cdot}{{\varepsilon}})|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx\\
&=& C\eta^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p} \sum_{z\in I}{\varepsilon}^d\int_{\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}Q_z}|\nabla \phi_{{\varepsilon},\eta,z}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx\end{aligned}$$ which combined with and yields $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_A |g-u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx
&\leq& C \eta^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p} |A|,\end{aligned}$$ and thus the asserted estimate.
4 Conclusion.
Set $$f({\varepsilon},\eta):=\big|E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\eta},A)-|A|W_0(F)\big|+\|g-u_{{\varepsilon},\eta}\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)}.$$ Then by Step 1 and Step 3, we have $$\limsup\limits_{\eta\downarrow0}\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}f({\varepsilon},\eta)=0.$$ Hence, by Attouch’s diagonalization argument there exists a diagonal sequence $\eta=\eta({\varepsilon})$ such that $f({\varepsilon},\eta({\varepsilon}))\to 0$ for ${\varepsilon}\downarrow0$ and we deduce that $u_{\varepsilon}:=u_{{\varepsilon},\eta({\varepsilon})}$ defines the sought after recovery sequence.
Compactness and embeddings in weighted spaces: Lemmas \[L:compactness\], \[L:interpolation\] and \[L:interpolation2\] {#S:comp}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first prove Lemma \[L:interpolation\] and Lemma \[L:interpolation2\], and then Lemma \[L:compactness\], which is a variant of Lemma \[L:interpolation2\].
Since $\beta\geq\frac1{p-1}$, we have $\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p\geq1$. Hence, by the Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality and $(1-\frac1\alpha)\frac1q\geq(1+\frac1\beta)\frac1p-\frac1d$ there exists $C<\infty$ such that for all cubes $Q\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $v\in W^{1,\infty}(Q,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{loc:poinc}
\left(\fint_Q |v-(\overline v)_Q|^{\frac{{\alpha}}{{\alpha}-1}q}\,dx\right)^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha} \frac1q}\leq C|Q|^{\frac1d}\left(\fint_Q |\nabla v|^{\frac{{\beta}}{{ \beta}+1}p}\,dx\right)^{\frac{ \beta+1}{\beta} \frac1p},\end{aligned}$$ where $(\overline v)_Q:=\fint_{Q}v(x)\,dx$ and the convention $\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}=1$ for $\alpha=\infty$ and $\frac{\beta+1}\beta=1$ for $\beta=\infty$. Fix $Q\in\mathcal Q_{\varepsilon}$ and $v\in {\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$. By Hölder’s inequality with exponent $\alpha\in(1,\infty)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\fint_Q(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}}))|v(x)-(\overline v)_Q|^q\,dx\leq (\#{\mathcal E}_0)^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}}m_{{\varepsilon},Q,\alpha}\left(\fint_{Q}|v(x)-(\overline v)_Q|^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}q}\,dx\right)^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ From , , and a further application of Hölder’s inequality with exponent $\beta+1\in(1,\infty)$, we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\fint_{Q}|v(x)-(\overline v)_Q|^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}q}\,dx\right)^{\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\frac1q}\leq C|Q|^\frac1d\left(\fint_{Q}|\nabla v(x)|^{\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}+1}p}\,dx\right)^{\frac{{\beta}+1}{{ \beta }}\frac{1}{p}}\\
&\leq C|Q|^\frac1d\left(c_0\frac{{\varepsilon}^d}{|Q|}\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q)_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^{\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}+1}p}\right)^{\frac{{\beta}+1}{{ \beta}}\frac1p}\\
&\leq C{c_0}^{\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}\frac1p}|Q|^\frac1d\left(\tilde m_{{\varepsilon},Q,\beta}\right)^\frac1p\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^d}{|Q|}\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q)_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^p\right)^\frac1{p}.\end{aligned}$$ Inequality follows from the previous two estimates.\
If $\alpha=\infty$ or $\beta=\infty$, we may put in the weights not by appealing to Hölder’s inequality, but with help of the elementary pointwise estimates $|\cdot|^q\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}\leq |\cdot|^q\sup_\Omega \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ and $|\cdot|^q\leq \sup_\Omega (\frac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}|\cdot|^q$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$.
Fix $\omega\in\Omega_0$ and $A'\Subset A$. We show that implies by a two-scale argument similar to the one in the proof of Lemma \[L:affine\]: We introduce an additional length scale $\eta\in (0,1)$ (with ${\varepsilon}\ll \eta\ll \delta$), and cover $A'$ with cubes of side-length $\eta$. For $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ set $Q_i:=\eta(i+Y)$ and define $$I:=\{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\,:\,Q_i\cap A'\}\neq\emptyset.$$ Moreover, we denote by $Q^{\varepsilon}_i$ the smallest cube in $\mathcal Q_{\varepsilon}:=\{\,[a,b)\,:\,a,b\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\,\}$ which contains $Q_i$. Choosing $\eta$ sufficiently small we have $\cup_{i\in I}(Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon}\Subset A$, and thus $$\# I\leq |A|\eta^{-d}.$$ We claim that for every $f\in L^1(\Omega)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{birk:variant}
\forall i\in I\,:\,\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}} f(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)\leq \eta^d\mathbb E[f].\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, for given $\rho>0$, we have $(Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}\subset (Q_i)_\rho$ for ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small and thus by Theorem \[T:Birk\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}} f(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)\leq \lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i)_\rho} f(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)=(\eta+2\rho)^d\mathbb E[f].\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho>0$ can be chosen arbitrarily small, we get . Since $\#I<\infty$, we have $\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sup_{i\in I} c_{{\varepsilon},i}\leq \sup_{i\in I}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}c_{{\varepsilon},i}$ for $c_{{\varepsilon},i}:={\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}} f(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)$ and thus yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{birk:variant2}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sup_{i\in I}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}} f(\tau_{\frac{z}{{\varepsilon}}}\omega)\leq \eta^d\mathbb E[f].\end{aligned}$$
Since $A'\subset\bigcup_{i\in I}Q_i^{\varepsilon}$, we have with $\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}:=\fint_{Q_i^{\varepsilon}} u_{\varepsilon}(x)\,dx$ the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\int_{A'}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)|u_{\varepsilon}(x)|^q\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}
\leq \left(\sum_{i\in I}|\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}|^q\int_{Q^{\varepsilon}_i}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)\right)^\frac1q \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\left(\sum_{i\in I}\int_{Q_i^{\varepsilon}}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}|^q\,dx\right)^{\frac1q} ,\end{aligned}$$ Since $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $L^1$ we have $\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}\to \fint_{Q_i}u\,dx$. Moreover, implies $\int_{Q^{\varepsilon}_i}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)\to \eta^d\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]$. The combination of both yields $$\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0} \sum_{i\in I}|\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}|^q\int_{Q^{\varepsilon}_i}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)
\leq \sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]\,\int_A |u|^q\,dx.$$ We claim that $$\label{ineq:00001}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0} \sum_{i\in I}\int_{Q_i^{\varepsilon}}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}|^q\,dx\leq C\eta^{q+d\min\{ 1-\frac{q}{p},0\}},$$ where here and below $C$ denotes a finite constant that might change from line to line but can be chosen independent of ${\varepsilon}$ and $\eta$. Note that the right-hand side vanishes as $\eta\downarrow 0$, since the exponent is always positive thanks to our assumption $\frac{1}{q}> \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{d}$. Hence, the proof of the lemma follows from the combination of and the previous estimates by taking the limit $\eta\downarrow 0$. We start our argument for with an application of Lemma \[L:interpolation\], which combined with and the moment condition , yields $$\label{ineq:00002}
\begin{aligned}
& \limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0} \sum_{i\in I}\int_{Q_i^{\varepsilon}}\Big(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\Big)|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-\overline u_{{\varepsilon},i}|^q\,dx\\
&\leq C\eta^{q+d(1-\frac{q}{p})}\,\mathbb E[(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}})^\alpha]^{\frac{q}{\alpha}}\,\mathbb E[\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}(\frac{1}{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}})^\beta]^{\frac{q}{p\beta}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\times \limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0} \sum_{i\in I}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\right)^{\frac{q}{p}}\\
&\leq
C\eta^{q+d(1-\frac{q}{p})}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\underbrace{\sum_{i\in
I}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\right)^{\frac{q}{p}}}_{=:(\star)},
\end{aligned}$$ with the convention that $\mathbb E[(\mu)^\gamma]^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}=\sup_\Omega \mu$ for $\gamma=\infty$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
(\star)&\leq& (\# I)^{\max\{1-\frac{q}{p},0\}} \left({\varepsilon}^d\sum_{i\in I}\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\right)^{\frac{q}{p}}\\
&\leq& C\eta^{-d\max\{1-\frac{q}{p},0\}} \left({\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\right)^{\frac{q}{p}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, the first estimate follows from Hölder’s inequality if $q<p$ and from the discrete $\ell^{\frac{q}{p}}-\ell^1$ estimate if $q\geq p$. The second estimate holds due to the fact that (for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}\ll 1$) any point $z\in {\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ is contained in at most $2^d$ cubes $(Q^{\varepsilon}_i)_{{\varepsilon}R}$ with $z\in (Q^{\varepsilon}_i)_{{\varepsilon}R}$, and thus the double sum $\sum_{i\in I}\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (Q_i^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}R}}$ on the right-hand side can be reduced to $\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}$. Combined with and the claimed inequality follows.
Since $(u_{\varepsilon})$ has finite energy, cf. , we obtain by Lemma \[L:coercivity\] that $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}_{{{\operatorname{loc}}}}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Hence, Rellich’s Theorem yields strong convergence in $L^q_{{{\operatorname{loc}}}}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, provided the strict inequality $\frac{1}{q}>(1+\frac{1}{\beta})\frac1p-\frac1d$ holds. We argue that the conclusion remains valid in the critical case by appealing to Lemma \[L:interpolation2\]. We first notice that still implies $u\in L^q(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ by the Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality. Hence, for any $\delta>0$ we find $v\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with $$\int_A|u-v|^q\,dx\leq \delta.$$ We would like to apply Lemma \[L:interpolation2\] with $\alpha=\infty$. In order to do so we need to modify the weight functions: Set $\overline \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}:=\min\{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}},1\}$ for ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$ and $\overline \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}:=1+ \min\{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}},1\}$ for ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0\setminus{\mathcal{NN}}_0$. Without loss of generality we might assume that ${\mathcal E}_0\setminus {\mathcal{NN}}_0\neq\emptyset$, otherwise we simply add an additional edge. Note that:
- The weights $\overline \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ satisfy the moment conditions with $\overline \alpha=\infty$, $\overline \beta= \beta$ and we have $\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\overline \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]\leq 2\#{\mathcal E}_0$.
- From $\bar\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}\leq\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0$ and we deduce that $$\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\overline \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)-\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^p<\infty.$$
- We have $$1\leq \sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0\setminus{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\overline\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\overline\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}]\leq 2\#{\mathcal E}_0.$$
Hence, by Lemma \[L:interpolation2\] applied with exponents $p,\bar\alpha,\bar\beta$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{A'}|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-u(x)|^q\,dx&\leq& \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{A'}|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-v(x)|^q\,dx+\delta\\
&\leq& \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{A'}|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-v(x)|^q (\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\overline \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}}))\,dx + \delta\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{claim:interpolation}}{\leq}&(2\#{\mathcal E}_0) \int_A|u(x)-v(x)|^q\,dx+\delta\leq (2\#{\mathcal E}_0+1)\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\delta>0$ is arbitrary, the conclusion follows.
Gluing construction: Lemmas \[L:glue\] and \[L:glue:convex\]
------------------------------------------------------------
We adapt the classical averaging argument of De Giorgi [@DG75], see also [@Mueller87 Proof of Lemma 2.1(b)], to the present discrete and degenerate setting. The sought after functions $v_{\varepsilon}$ differ from $u_{\varepsilon}$ only close to the boundary of $A$ in a thin layer of thickness proportional to $\delta$. In this layer $v_{\varepsilon}$ is defined (with help of suitable cut-off functions $\phi^k$) as a convex combination of $\overline u$ and $u_{\varepsilon}$, see Step 1 below. In the main part of the proof (see Step 2 and Step 3) we estimate the (asymptotic) energy increment $\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}E_{\varepsilon}(v_{\varepsilon},A)-\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)$, e.g. by appealing to Lemma \[L:interpolation2\].
Without loss of generality we may assume that $$E=\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon}},A)<\infty.$$ Fix parameters $\delta>0$ and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. In the following $\lesssim$ stands for $\leq$ up to a multiplicative constant which is independent of $\delta,{\varepsilon},k,m$ and $\overline u$.
1 Construction of the modified sequence.
For $k=0,\ldots,m$ we introduce the sets $$\begin{aligned}
A^k&:=&\Big\{\,x\in A\,:\,{\operatorname{dist}}(x,\partial
A)>\delta\tfrac{2m-k}{2m}\,\Big\},\\
A_+^k&:=&\Big\{\,x\in A\,:\,{\operatorname{dist}}(x,\partial
A)>\delta \tfrac{2m-k-\tfrac{1}{4}}{2m}\,\Big\},\\
A^k_-&:=&\Big\{\,x\in A\,:\,{\operatorname{dist}}(x,\partial
A)>\delta \tfrac{2m-k+\tfrac{1}{4}}{2m}\,\Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $(A)_{-\delta }=A^0\Subset A_+^0\Subset A_-^1\Subset A^1\Subset A_+^1\Subset\cdots\Subset A_+^m\Subset (A)_{-\frac{\delta}{4}}$. Moreover, the minimal distance between the boundary of consecutive sets, say $A_-^1$ and $A^1$, is at least $\frac{\delta }{8m}$. For $k=0,\dots,m-1$, we consider scalar functions $\phi^k\in C_0^\infty(A)$ such that $$0\leq \phi^k\leq1,\quad\phi^k=\begin{cases}1&\mbox{in $A_+^k$}\\0&\mbox{in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A_-^{k+1}$}
\end{cases},\quad \|\nabla \phi^k\|_{L^\infty(A)}\lesssim \frac{m}{\delta}.$$ We define $u_{\varepsilon}^k\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ by $$u_{\varepsilon}^k(x):=\overline u(x)+\phi^k(x)(u_{{\varepsilon}}(x)-\overline u(x)),\quad\mbox{$x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}$}.$$ Note that for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ and for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small compared to $\frac{\delta}m$ we have $$\label{uek:decomp}
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)=\begin{cases}
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)&\mbox{for $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k$}\\
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)&\mbox{for $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\setminus A^{k+1}$}.
\end{cases}$$ Furthermore, thanks to $\|\nabla \phi^k\|_{L^\infty(A)}\lesssim \frac{m}{\delta}$ and the discrete product rule (recall that ${{\operatorname{b}}}=[x_{{\operatorname{b}}},y_{{\operatorname{b}}}]$): $$\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}(uv)(z)=v(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)+u(z+{\varepsilon}y_{{\operatorname{b}}})\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v(z),$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uek:est}
|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}^k(z)|\lesssim&|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|+\frac{m}{\delta}|(u_{{\varepsilon}}-\overline u)(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})|+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}(z)|.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:claim1}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\left(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)-E\right)\lesssim& \frac{E}{m}+|A\setminus A^0|(1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p)\notag\\
&+\frac{1}{m}\|\tfrac{m}{\delta}(u-\overline u)\|_{L^p(A)}^p.\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, from and $A^0=(A)_{-\delta}$ we conclude that $\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)$ is bounded by the right-hand side of . Since $\frac{1}{m}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)$ is an arithmetric mean of non-negative numbers, we find a sequence $(\hat k_{\varepsilon})$ satisfying $\hat k_{\varepsilon}\in \{1,\dots,m-1\}$ and $E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^{\hat k_{\varepsilon}},A)\leq \frac1m\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)$ for every ${\varepsilon}>0$. Thus, the claim follows by $u_{\varepsilon}^k=\overline u$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-\frac{\delta}{4}}$ and $\|u_{\varepsilon}^k-\overline u\|_{L^q(A)}\leq \|u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^q(A)}$ for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, $q\in[1,\infty]$ and $k\in\{0,\dots,m-1\}$.
[*Step 2.* ]{} Estimates on $A^k$ and $A\setminus A^{k+1}$.\
The starting point for the proof of is a decomposition of an energy difference: For $S^k:=A^{k+1}\setminus A^k$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\left(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)-E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)\right)\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{uek:decomp}}{=}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\left(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A^k)+E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,S^k)+E_{\varepsilon}(\overline u,A\setminus A^{k+1})-E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}\geq0$ and $A^k\subset A$ we have $E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A^k)-E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)\leq 0$. Combined with the definition of $E$ we get $$ \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)-E)\leq \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\left(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,S^k)+E_{\varepsilon}(\overline u,A\setminus A^{k+1})\right).$$ Since $\overline u\in W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we have for ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small $$\sup_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sup_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|\leq \|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}.\label{eq:L:glue:est0001}$$
Hence, we obtain by , $A^0\subset A^{k+1}$ and Theorem \[T:Birk\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:est1}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\overline u,A\setminus A^{k+1})\leq&\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A\setminus A^0)}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}\Big(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})(\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+1)\Big)\notag\\
=& |A\setminus A^0|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}\Big(1+\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+1)\Big).\end{aligned}$$
[*Step 3.* ]{} Estimates on $S^k$.
We claim that $$\label{L:glue:claim2}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon}}^k,S^k)\lesssim E+|A\setminus A^0|(1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p) +\|\tfrac{m}{\delta}(u-\overline u)\|_{L^p(A)}^p.$$ By and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:est2}
E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon}}^k,S^k)\lesssim&{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\bigg(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\big(1+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^p+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}(z)|^p\notag\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{m^p}{\delta^p}|(u_{{\varepsilon}}-\overline u)(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})|^p\big)\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $$\label{slices}
S^i\cap S^j=\emptyset\mbox{ if $i\neq j$ and }\bigcup_{k=0}^{m-1}S^k\subset A^m\setminus A^0.$$ Hence, similar calculations as for yield $$\label{L:glue:est3}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\left(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon}\right) \left(1+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^p)\right)
\lesssim |A\setminus A^0| (1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p).$$ Next, we estimate the term involving $|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}|^p$ in . Using , and Theorem \[T:Birk\], we obtain $$\label{L:glue:est5}
\begin{split}
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}(z)|^p\\
&\qquad\lesssim\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\left(V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}(z))+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon})\right)\\
&\qquad\lesssim \limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon}},A)+|A\setminus A^0|=E+|A\setminus A^0|.
\end{split}$$ Finally, we consider the term involving $u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u$. We claim that $$\label{L:glue:claim3}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|(u_{{\varepsilon}}-\overline u)(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})|^p\lesssim \|u-\overline u\|_{L^p(A)}^p.$$ Indeed, by the definition of ${\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ there exists a constant $c_4>0$ depending only on ${\mathcal T}$ and $1\leq q<\infty$ (and not on ${\varepsilon}>0$) such that for all $u\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ and $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ $$\label{lpequiv}
{\varepsilon}^d\max_{x\in z+{\varepsilon}Y}|u(x)|^p\leq c_4\int_{z+{\varepsilon}Y}|u(x)|^p\,dx.$$ Hence, from , , $A^m\Subset (A)_{-\frac{\delta}4}$, $x_{{\operatorname{b}}}\in Y$ (see ), and Lemma \[L:interpolation2\] (with $q=p$) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|(u_{{\varepsilon}}-\overline u)(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})|^p\\
&\qquad\lesssim \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\int_{(A)_{-\frac{\delta}{4}}}\bigg(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{x}{{\varepsilon}})\bigg)|u_{\varepsilon}(x)-\overline u(x)|^p\,dx\\
&\qquad\lesssim \int_A |u(x)-\overline u(x)|^p\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ Combining , , and , we obtain .
Without loss of generality we may assume that $$E=\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0} E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon}},A)<\infty.$$ Fix parameters $\delta>0$, $m,M\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $s>0$. In the following we write $\lesssim$ if $\leq$ holds up to a multiplicative constant which is independent of $\delta,{\varepsilon},m,M,\overline u,s$ and the additional index $k$ that will show up in the construction below.
The argument is a modification of the proof of Lemma \[L:glue\]. It additionally invokes a truncation argument that truncates peaks at level $s>0$ of the scalar function $\overline u-u_{\varepsilon}$: We define $w_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ via $$ w_{\varepsilon}(x)=\max\{\min\{s,u_{\varepsilon}(x)-\overline u(x)\},-s\},\quad x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}.$$ In contrast to Lemma \[L:glue\] the estimate of $\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}E_{\varepsilon}(v_{\varepsilon},A)-\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)$ is not based on Lemma \[L:interpolation2\], but exploits the good interplay between the truncation and Assumption \[A:2T\] (B), see Step 3 below.
[*Step 1.* ]{} Construction of the modified sequences.
For $k=0,\dots,m$ let $A_-^k,A,A_+^k$ and $\phi^k$ be defined as in the proof of Lemma \[L:glue\]. Let $u_{\varepsilon}^k\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ be defined by $u_{\varepsilon}^k(x)=\overline u(x)+\phi^k(x)w_{\varepsilon}(x)$ for $x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}$, and set $O_M:=\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}\chi_{\{\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}>M\}}]$. We claim that it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:convex:final}
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\left(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A)-E\right)\lesssim E+ m|A\setminus A^0|(1+\|\nabla \overline{u}\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+(\tfrac{ms}{\delta })^p)\notag\\
&\quad+m(\|\nabla \overline{u}\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+\|\nabla \overline{u}\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^q)(\tfrac{M}s\|u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|)\notag\\
&\quad+m(E+|A|)^\frac{p}{q}\left(\tfrac{M}s\|u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|\right)^\frac{p-q}{q}.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, combining the argument below in the proof of Lemma \[L:glue\] and the definition of $h$ in the statement of Lemma \[L:glue:convex\], we arrive at .
As in the proof of Lemma \[L:glue\], we prove by splitting the energy into its contributions associated with $A\setminus A^k$ and $A^k$.
[*Step 2.* ]{} Estimate on $A\setminus A^k$.
We claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:convex:aohneak}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^k,A\setminus A^k)\lesssim E+m|A\setminus A^0|(1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+(\tfrac{ms}{\delta })^p).\end{aligned}$$ The argument is similar to the proof of Lemma \[L:glue\]. In particular, on the subdomain $A\setminus A^{k+1}$ the argument remains unchanged, since the sequences coincide on this set – as can be seen by comparing with the identity $$ \partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)=\begin{cases}
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)+\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}w_{\varepsilon}(z)&\mbox{for $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k$},\\
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)&\mbox{for $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\setminus A^{k+1}$},
\end{cases}$$ which holds for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small. On $S^k:=A^{k+1}\setminus A^k$ we replace with the estimate $$\label{L:glue:est2:scalar}
E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon}}^k,S^k) \lesssim {\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\left(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\big(1+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^p+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}(z)|^p+\tfrac{m^ps^p}{\delta^p}\big)\right),$$ the proof of which we postpone to the end of this step. Then, as in the proof of Lemma \[L:glue\] the asserted inequality follows from , , and $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap S^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\frac{m^ps^p}{\delta^p}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\leq \left(\frac{ms}{\delta}\right)^p|A\setminus A^0|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\mathbb{E}[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}],
\end{aligned}$$ which follows from Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem. Finally, we prove . Note that by construction we have $$\label{eq:nablatrunc}
\forall z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\,\forall {{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0\,\exists t\in[0,1]\,:\,\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}w_{\varepsilon}(z)=t(\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)-\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)).$$ Combined with $\|\nabla \phi^k\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)}\lesssim\frac{m}{\delta}$ we get $$|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}^k(z)|\lesssim|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|+\frac{m}{\delta}|w_{\varepsilon}(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})|+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}w_{\varepsilon}(z)|
\lesssim |\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{{\varepsilon}}(z)|+\frac{ms}{\delta},$$ which together with the growth condition yields .
[*Step 3.* ]{} Estimate on $A^k$.
We claim that $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}^{k},A^k)-E\notag\\
&\lesssim (1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^q)(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|)\notag\\
&\quad+\left(E+|A|\right)^\frac{q}{p}\left(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|\right)^{\frac{p-q}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the proof define the indicator function $$\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}}):=\begin{cases}
0&\mbox{if $\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}w_{\varepsilon}(z)=\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}(z)-\overline u(z))$},\\
1&\mbox{if $\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}w_{\varepsilon}(z)\neq\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}(z)-\overline u(z))$},
\end{cases}$$ and note that the claim follows from the following three estimates:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:scalar:est001}
&E_{\varepsilon}(u^k_{\varepsilon},A^k) - E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A^k)\\
\notag &\qquad\quad\lesssim {\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap
A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\Big(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\big(1+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^p
+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^q+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^q\big)\Big),\\
\label{L:glue:scalar:est003}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\Big(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\big(|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^p+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^q\big)\Big)\\
\notag&\qquad\quad \lesssim (1+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+\|\nabla \overline u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^q)(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|),\\
\label{L:glue:scalar:est004}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap
A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^q \\
\notag&\qquad\quad\lesssim
\left(E+|A|\right)^\frac{q}{p}\left(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline
u\|_{L^1(A)}+|A|C_m\right)^\frac{p-q}{q}.
\end{aligned}$$
[*Argument for .*]{} Since $\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\phi^k=0$ on $A_k$ we have $\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u^k_{\varepsilon}=\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u+\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}w_{\varepsilon}$ on $A_k$. Hence, thanks to the definition of $\chi_{\varepsilon}$ we have $$\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u^k_{\varepsilon}= (1-\chi_{\varepsilon}) \partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}+\chi_{\varepsilon}\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k
\qquad\text{on }{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A_k\text{ for all }{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0,$$ and thus $$\label{eq:glue:scalar:est001:1}
\Big(V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)) -V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))\Big)=\chi_{\varepsilon}\Big(V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)) - V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))\Big).$$ Furthermore, yields the representation $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k &=& \Big(t\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}+(1-t)\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u\Big),\end{aligned}$$ for some $t=t(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\in[0,1]$. Hence, by convexity and non-negativity of $W_{{\operatorname{b}}}:=V_{{\operatorname{b}}}+f_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ we obtain (for all $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A_k$): $$\begin{aligned}
V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)) &\leq& W_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)) \leq \Big(\,t W_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))+(1-t)W_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z))\Big)\\
&\leq& \Big(\,V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))+f_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))+W_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ We combine this estimate with and appeal to and Assumption \[A:2T\] (B). We get $$\begin{aligned}
&&V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}^k(z)) -V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))\\
&\leq& \chi_{\varepsilon}\Big(\,f_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))+W_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{\varepsilon};\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)\Big)\\
&\lesssim&\chi_{\varepsilon}\Big(\,
1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\big(1+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^p+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}\overline u(z)|^q+|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^q\big)\Big),\end{aligned}$$ and follows by summation.
[*Argument for .*]{} By definition of $w_{\varepsilon}$ we have $$\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\leq \frac{|(u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u)(z+{\varepsilon}x_{{\operatorname{b}}})|+|(u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u)(z+{\varepsilon}y_{{\operatorname{b}}})|}{s}.$$ For ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small, the endpoints of any edge $z+{{\operatorname{b}}}$ with $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k$ and ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0$ are contained in $A$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:scalar:2}
{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\stackrel{\eqref{lpequiv}}{\lesssim}\tfrac{1}{s}\|u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}.\end{aligned}$$ We combine this estimate with another truncation argument: Let $\chi_{{{\operatorname{b}}},M}:\Omega\to\{0,1\}$ denote the indicator function of $\{\,\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}\leq M\}$ and set $\chi_{{{\operatorname{b}}},M}(x):=\chi_{{{\operatorname{b}}},M}(\tau_{\lfloor x\rfloor}\omega)$. Then and Birkhoff’s Theorem \[T:Birk\] applied to the random variable $\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}\chi_{{{\operatorname{b}}},M}$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L:glue:scalar:1}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\\
\notag&\quad\lesssim \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left(\tfrac{M}s\|u_{\varepsilon}-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\chi_{{{\operatorname{b}}},M}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\right)\\
\notag&\quad=\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|.\end{aligned}$$ Now, follows by combining the previous two estimates with the general bound . [*Argument for .*]{} Since $1<q<p$, we have by Hölder’s inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}|^q\\
&\leq \left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p\right)^\frac{q}{p}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0} \lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\right)^\frac{p-q}{p}\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{ass:V:1}}{\lesssim} \left(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)+|A|\right)^\frac{q}{p}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}})\right)^\frac{p-q}{q}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A^k}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z)|^q\chi_{\varepsilon}(z,{{\operatorname{b}}}) \\
&\qquad\qquad\lesssim \left(E+|A|\right)^\frac{q}{p}\left(\tfrac{M}s\|u-\overline u\|_{L^1(A)}+O_M|A|\right)^\frac{p-q}{q}.\end{aligned}$$
Continuity of $W_0$: Proposition \[P:condwhom\]
-----------------------------------------------
Let $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ and let $(F^N)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$ denote an arbitrary sequence converging to $F$. We denote by $g$ and $g^N$ the linear functions defined by $g(x):=Fx$ and $g^N(x):=F^Nx$. We claim that $$\label{w0cont}
W_0(F)\leq \liminf_{N\uparrow\infty}W_0(F^N)\leq \limsup_{N\uparrow\infty}W_0(F^N)\leq W_0(F).$$ Since $F$ and $(F^N)$ are arbitrary, this implies continuity of $W_0$. We split the proof of into three steps. 1 Proof of the lower bound.
We claim that $W_0(F)\leq \liminf_{N\uparrow\infty}W_0(F^N)$. For the proof fix $\omega\in\Omega_0\cap\Omega_F\cap\bigcap_{N\in{\mathbb{N}}}\Omega_{F^N}$, cf. Lemma \[L:indwhom\] and Remark \[R:Omega0\]. For given $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we find by Lemma \[L:affine\] a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon}^N)$ such that $$\label{whomcontlb}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{\varepsilon}^N-g^N\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(Y)}=0,\quad\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon}^N,Y)=W_0(F^N).$$ We compare $W_0(F^N)$ and $W_0(F)$ on the level of the energy functional $E^{\varepsilon}(\omega;\cdot,Y)$. For this purpose we represent $W_0(F)$ via and we need to fit the boundary values of $u^N_{\varepsilon}$ to the condition in the minimization problem . This is done by appealing to the gluing constructions of Lemma \[L:glue\] and Lemma \[L:glue:convex\]. We first discuss the vectorial case: assume Assumption \[A:2T\] (A). An application of Lemma \[L:glue\] to $u_{\varepsilon}=u^N_{\varepsilon}$, $u=g^N$ and $\overline u=g$ (with $N$ fixed), shows that there exists a constant $C<\infty$ such that for $\delta>0$ sufficiently small and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ we have a sequence $v_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(Y)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;v_{\varepsilon},Y) -(1+\tfrac{C}m)\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon}^N,Y)\\
\leq C|Y\setminus (Y)_{-\delta}|(1+|F|^p)+C\|\tfrac{m}{\delta}(g^N-g)\|_{L^{p}(Y)}^p.\end{gathered}$$ Thanks to and this implies $$\begin{aligned}
W_0(F)-(1+\tfrac{C}m)W_0(F^N)\leq\, C|Y\setminus (Y)_{-\delta}|(1+|F|^p)+C\|\tfrac{m}{\delta}(g^N-g)\|_{L^{p}(Y)}^p.\end{aligned}$$ Taking successively the limits superior $N\uparrow\infty$, $m\uparrow\infty$ and $\delta\downarrow0$, the asserted lower bound follows. In the scalar case, i.e. under Assumption \[A:2T\] (B), we proceed similarly: From Lemma \[L:glue:convex\] and we deduce that there exists $C<\infty$ such that for $\delta>0$ sufficiently small, $m,M\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $s>0$ it holds: $$\begin{aligned}
&W_0(F)-(1+\tfrac{C}m)W_0(F^N)\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{lim1e}}{=}\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\inf\left\{E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\varphi,Y)\ |\ \varphi\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(Y)\right\}-(1+\tfrac{C}m)\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon}^N,Y)\\
&\leq C|Y\setminus (Y)_{-\delta}|(h(|F|)+(\tfrac{ms}{\delta})^p)+Ch(|F|)(\tfrac{M}s\|(g^N-g)\|_{L^{1}(Y)}+O_M)\\
&\qquad+C(W_0(F^N)+1)^\frac{q}{p}(\tfrac{M}s\|(g^N-g)\|_{L^{1}(Y)}+O_M)^\frac{p-q}{p}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking successively the limits superior $N\uparrow\infty$, $s\downarrow0$, $m\uparrow\infty$, $M\uparrow\infty$ (recall $\lim\limits_{M\uparrow\infty}O_M=0$) and $\delta\downarrow0$, we obtain $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(F)\leq \liminf\limits_{N\uparrow\infty}W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(F^N)$.
2 Proof of the upper bound.
The upper bound estimate $\limsup_{N\uparrow\infty}W_0(F^N)\leq W_0(F)$ follows by interchanging the roles of $F$ and $F^N$ in the argument of Step 2: Indeed, by Lemma \[L:affine\], we find a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ such that $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{\varepsilon}-g\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(Y)}=0,\quad\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},Y)=W_0(F).$$ Using Lemma \[L:glue\] and , we find $$\begin{aligned}
&W_0(F^N)-(1+\tfrac{C}m)W_0(F)\\
&=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left\{E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\varphi,Y)\ |\ \varphi\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(Y)\right\}-(1+\tfrac{C}m)\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},Y)\\
&\leq C|Y\setminus (Y)_{-\delta}|(1+|F^N|^p)+\|\tfrac{m}{\delta}(g^N-g)\|_{L^{p}(Y)}^p.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, taking successively the limit superior $N\uparrow\infty$, $m\uparrow\infty$ and $\delta\downarrow0$, we obtain the asserted upper bound estimate. Obviously, we can show the same inequality in the scalar case by appealing to Lemma \[L:glue:convex\].
Lower bound: Proposition \[P:inf\]
----------------------------------
Let $(u_{\varepsilon})$ and $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be such that $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ in $L^1(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. We need to show that $$\label{L:inf:claim}
\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)\geq \int_AW_0(\nabla u(x))\,dx.$$ By passing to a subsequence, we may assume that $$\label{L:inf:sub}
\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)<\infty.$$ From and Lemma \[L:coercivity\], we deduce that $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ in $W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
[*Step 1.* ]{} Localization.
We define a sequence of positive Radon measures $(\mu_{\varepsilon})$ via $$\mu_{\varepsilon}:=\mu_{\varepsilon}(\omega;dz):={\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))\delta_{z},$$ and note that $$\label{inf:0002}
\mu_{\varepsilon}(Q)=E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},Q)\qquad\text{for any cube }Q\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d.$$ implies that $\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\mu_{\varepsilon}(A)<\infty$ and thus there exists a positive Radon measure $\mu$ such that $\mu_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}\mu$ in the sense of measures (up to a subsequence). In particular, it holds $$\label{measureweak}
\begin{split}
&\liminf\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\mu_{\varepsilon}(U)\geq \mu(U)\,\mbox{for all open sets $U\subset A$,}\\
&\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\mu_{\varepsilon}(B)=\mu(B)\,\mbox{for all bounded Borel sets $B\subset A$ with $\mu (\partial B)=0$,}
\end{split}$$ cf. [@EG92 Section 1.9]. By the Lebesgue decomposition theorem, we can decompose the measure $\mu$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure into its absolutely continuous part and its singular part, that is $\mu=\mu_a+\mu_s$ with $\mu_a\ll dx$ and $\mu_s\perp dx$. Moreover, $\mu_a$ and $\mu_s$ are positive Radon measures and there exists a non-negative $f\in L^1(A)$ with $\mu_a=f\,dx$ and $$\label{inf:f(x)}
f(x)=\lim_{\rho\downarrow0}\frac{\mu_a(Q_\rho(x))}{\rho^d}=\lim_{\rho\downarrow0}\frac{\mu(Q_\rho(x))}{\rho^d}\quad\mbox{for a.e. }x\in A,$$ with $Q_\rho(x):=x+\rho (-\tfrac12,\tfrac12)^d$.
For it suffices to show that $$\label{fgeqWhom}
f(x)\geq W_0(\nabla u(x))\quad\mbox{for a.e.\ $x\in A$}.$$ Indeed, we have $$\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\mu_{\varepsilon}(A)\stackrel{\eqref{measureweak}}{\geq} \mu(A)\geq\mu_a(A)=\int_Af(x)\,dx\geq \int_A W_0(\nabla u(x))\,dx.$$ [*Step 2.* ]{} Approximate differentiability.
We claim that for a.e. $x_0\in A$ we can find a sequence $\rho_j\downarrow 0$ and a sequence of affine functions $(g_j)$ with $\nabla g_j\equiv F_j\in\mathbb Q^{n\times d}$ and $g_j(x_0)=u(x_0)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inf:diff2}
&F_j\to \nabla u(x_0)\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\lim_{j}\frac1\rho_j\left(\fint_{Q_{\rho_j}(x_0)}|u-g_j|^{p}\right)^\frac1{p}=0,\\
\label{inf:limfxo}
&f(x_0)=\lim_{j}\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{\mu_{\varepsilon}(Q_{\rho_j}(x_0))}{\rho_j^d}.\end{aligned}$$ This can be seen as follows: Since $u\in W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, by approximate differentiability (cf. [@EG92 Section 6.1]) there exists a set $S\subset A$ of measure zero such that for all $x_0\notin S$ we have $$\label{inf:diff}
\lim_{\rho\downarrow0}\frac1\rho\left(\fint_{Q_\rho(x_0)}|u(y)-u(x_0)-\nabla u(x_0)(y-x_0)|^{p}\,dy\right)^\frac1{p}=0.$$ Evidently, in the line above we might replace $\nabla u(x_0)$ by a suitable sequence $(F_\rho)\subset\mathbb Q^{n\times d}$ converging to $\nabla u(x_0)$. Hence, the affine function $$g_\rho(y):=u(x_0)+F_\rho(y-x_0).$$ satisfies (for any sequence $\rho_j\downarrow 0$).
Next, we prove . Without loss of generality we may assume that for $x\in A\setminus S$ we have , and $f(x)<\infty$. Fix $x_0\in A\setminus S$. Since $A$ is open there exists $\rho_0$ such that $Q_\rho(x_0)\Subset A$ for all $\rho\in(0,\rho_0)$. Moreover, $\mu(A)<\infty$ implies $\mu(\partial Q_\rho(x_0))=0$ for almost every $\rho\in(0,\rho_0)$. In particular, we can find a sequence $\rho_j\downarrow 0$ with $\mu(\partial Q_{\rho_j}(x_0))=0$. Now, follows from and .
[*Step 3.* ]{} Proof of in the vectorial case.
Suppose Assumption \[A:2T\] (A) is satisfied and let $x_0$, $(\rho_j)$, $(g_j)$ and $(F_j)$ be as in Step 2. For convenience, set $Q_j:=Q_{\rho_j}(x_0)$. Since $(F_j)\subset\mathbb Q^{n\times d}$ and $\omega\in\Omega_1$, Corollary \[C:rep\_Whom\] yields $$\label{inf:0001}
W_0(F_j)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left(\frac{1}{|Q_j|}\inf\{E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;\varphi,Q_j)\ :\ \varphi\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_{g_j}(Q_j)\,\}\right)\qquad\text{for all }j,$$ We apply the gluing Lemma \[L:glue\] with $A=Q_j$, $\overline u=g_j$. Hence, for all $\delta=\hat\delta \rho_j$ with $0<\hat \delta \ll1$ and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ there exists a sequence $v_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_{g_j}(Q_j)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;v_{\varepsilon},Q_j)}{|Q_j|} -(1+\tfrac{C}m)\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\frac{E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},Q_j)}{|Q_j|}\\
&\qquad \leq C\left(\frac{|Q_j\setminus (Q_j)_{-\hat\delta\rho_j}|}{|Q_j|}(1+|F_j|^p)+\frac{1}{|Q_j|}\|\tfrac{m}{\hat\delta\rho_j}(u-g_j)\|_{L^{p}(Q_j)}^p\right)\\
&\qquad \leq C\left(2\hat\delta d(1+|F_j|^p)+(\tfrac{m}{\hat\delta})^p\left((\tfrac{1}{\rho_j})^p\fint_{Q_j}|u-g_j|^p\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Above, the constant $C$ is independent of $j$, $m$ and $\hat\delta$. Hence, since $v_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_{g_j}(Q_j)$ and thanks to , and we get $$\begin{aligned}
W_0(F_j)-(1+\frac{C}{m})\frac{\mu (Q_j)}{|Q_j|}\leq C\left(2\hat\delta d(1+|F_j|^p)+(\tfrac{m}{\hat\delta})^p\left((\tfrac{1}{\rho_j})^p\fint_{Q_j}|u-g_j|^p\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ We successively take the limits $j\to\infty$, $m\uparrow\infty$ and $\hat\delta\downarrow 0$ by appealing to the continuity of $W_0$, , , and $f(x_0)<\infty$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
W_0(\nabla u(x_0))-f(x_0)\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Since this is true for a.e. $x_0\in A$, the proof of is complete.
[*Step 4.* ]{} Proof of in the scalar case.
Suppose that Assumption \[A:2T\] (B) is satisfied. We proceed analogously to Step 3 with the only difference that instead of Lemma \[L:glue\] we apply Lemma \[L:glue:convex\]. The latter shows that there exists a constant $C$ such that for all $m,M\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $s>0$ and $j$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
W_0(F_j)-(1+\tfrac{C}{m})\frac{\mu(Q_j)}{|Q_j|}
\leq &C\Bigg(\hat \delta d\,\Big(h(|F_j|)+(\tfrac{ms}{\hat\delta \rho_j })^p\Big)
+h(|F_j|)\big(\tfrac{M}s\fint_{Q_j}|u-g_j|+O_M\big)\\
&\qquad+\big(\tfrac{\mu(Q_j)}{|Q_j|}+1\big)^\frac{q}{p}\big(\tfrac{M}s\fint_{Q_j}|u-g_j|+O_M\big)^{\frac{p-q}{p}}\,\Bigg).\end{aligned}$$ We substitute $s=\frac{\rho_j}{m^2}$. Now, the conclusion follows by taking successively the limits superior $j\to \infty$, $m\uparrow\infty$, $M\uparrow\infty$ and $\hat\delta\downarrow0$.
Recovery sequence: Proposition \[P:sup\]
----------------------------------------
Throughout the proof, we fix $\omega\in\Omega_1$.
[*Step 1.* ]{} Recovery sequence with prescribed boundary values for affine functions.
Let $g$ be an affine function and set $F:=\nabla g$. Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain. We claim that there exists a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ with $$\label{eq:sup:0001}
u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(A),\qquad\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)=|A|W_0(F)\qquad\text{and}\qquad \|u_{\varepsilon}-u\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)}\to 0.$$ We first show that we can find a sequence $v_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ that satisfies (but not necessarily coincides with $g$ on the boundary). To that end let $(F_j)\subset{\mathbb{Q}}^{n\times d}$ be a sequence converging to $F$ and set $g_j(x):=g(0)+F_jx$. By the definition of $\Omega_1$, cf. Remark \[R:Omega0\], and Lemma \[L:affine\] there exists for every $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$ a sequence $u_{{\varepsilon},j}$ such that $u_{{\varepsilon},j}\to g_j$ in $L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},j},A)=|A|W_0(F_j)$. Using the continuity of $W_0$ and the uniform convergence of $g_j\to g$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{j\uparrow\infty}\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left(|E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},j},A)-|A|W_0(F)|+\|u_{{\varepsilon},j}-g\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A)}\right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain the sought after sequence $v_{\varepsilon}$ by passing to a diagonal sequence.
Next, we use the gluing construction of Lemma \[L:glue\] and Lemma \[L:glue:convex\] to fit the boundary values. We only discuss the vectorial case, i.e. we suppose that Assumption \[A:2T\] (A) is satisfied. (The scalar case is similar and left to the reader). Lemma \[L:glue\] applied with $u_{\varepsilon}=v_{\varepsilon}$, $\overline u=g$ shows that for any $\delta>0$ sufficiently small, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exists $v_{\varepsilon}^{\delta,m}$ with $v_{\varepsilon}^{\delta,m}=g$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-\frac{\delta}4}$ such that the quantity $$f({\varepsilon},m,\delta):=\max\left\{0,\left(E_{\varepsilon}(v_{\varepsilon}^{\delta,m},A)-|A|W_0(F)\right)\right\}+\|v_{\varepsilon}^{\delta,m}-g\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1} p}(A)}+\theta_{\delta,{\varepsilon}},$$ with $$\theta_{\delta,{\varepsilon}}=\begin{cases}
0&\mbox{if $(A)_{-\frac{\delta}{4}}\subset (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$,}\\
1&\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ satisfies $$ \limsup_{\delta\downarrow0}\limsup_{m\uparrow\infty}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}f({\varepsilon},m,\delta)\leq 0.$$ Thus there exists a diagonal sequence such that $f({\varepsilon},m({\varepsilon}),\delta({\varepsilon}))\to0$ as ${\varepsilon}\downarrow0$. We conclude that $u_{\varepsilon}:=v_{\varepsilon}^{\delta({\varepsilon}),m({\varepsilon})}$ satisfies $$u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(A),\qquad\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)\leq |A|W_0(F)\qquad\text{and}\qquad \|u_{\varepsilon}-u\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)}\to 0.$$ Combined with the lower bound Proposition \[P:inf\], the claim follows.
[*Step 2.* ]{} The general case.
It is sufficient to show the $\limsup$ inequality for piecewise affine functions of the form: $u\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ $$u=\sum_{j=1}^M\chi_{A^j}g^j + \chi_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A}u,$$ where $A^1,\ldots,A^M$ partition $A$ into disjoint Lipschitz sets and the $g^j$’s are affine functions. The general case follows from the density of piecewise affine functions in $W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, the lower semicontinuity of the $\Gamma$-$\limsup$ and the continuity of $W_0$ and .
To treat the small non-locality of our discrete energy, we introduce an intermediate length scale $0<\rho\ll1$ (which finally will be sent to zero). In the following we assume that ${\varepsilon}>0$ is sufficiently small (relative to $\rho$) such that we have $$\label{limsup:0002}
j\neq k\quad\Rightarrow\quad ((A^j)_{-\rho})_{{\varepsilon}R}\cap ((A^k)_{-\rho})_{{\varepsilon}R} =\emptyset.$$ For ${\varepsilon}>0$ let $v_{\varepsilon}$ denote the unique (piecewise affine) function in ${\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ that satisfies $v_{\varepsilon}=u$ on ${\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}$. Furthermore, we denote by $u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}^j\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_{g_j}((A_j)_{-\rho})$ the recovery sequence for $g^j$ on the set $(A^j)_{-\rho}$ obtained via Step 1, i.e. we have $$\label{limsup:pwaff0}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}^{i},(A^i)_{-\rho})=\int_{(A^j)_{-\rho}}W_0(\nabla g^j(x))\,dx\quad\text{and}\quad \lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\|u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}^j-g^j\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)}=0.$$ We define $u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$ via $$u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}=v_{\varepsilon}+\sum_{j=1}^M\left(u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}^{j}- g^j\right)\qquad\text{on }{\varepsilon}{\mathcal L},$$ and note that $\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\|u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}-u\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)}=0$. Furthermore, it can be checked that for $0<{\varepsilon}\ll \rho$ we have (cf. ):
(i) $v_{\varepsilon}=g_j$ in $((A^j)_{-\rho})_{{\varepsilon}R}$,
(ii) $u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}=u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}^{j}$ in $((A^j)_{-\rho})_{{\varepsilon}R}$,
(iii) $u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}=v_{\varepsilon}$ in $(A^j\setminus (A^j)_{-\rho})_{{\varepsilon}R}$.
Thus, as in Remark \[Remark:finiterange\] we get the decomposition $$E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\rho},A)=\sum_{i=1}^M\bigg(E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}^{i},(A^i)_{-\rho})+E_{\varepsilon}(v_{\varepsilon},A^i\setminus (A^i)_{-\rho})\bigg).$$ By combining with the estimate $$\label{limsup:pwaff2}
\limsup_{\rho\downarrow0}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(v_{\varepsilon},A^i\setminus (A^i)_{-\rho})=0\quad\mbox{for $i=1,\dots,M$},$$ (whose proof we postpone to the end of this step), we deduce that $$ \limsup_{\rho\downarrow0}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}\left(\Big|E_{\varepsilon}(u_{{\varepsilon},\rho},A)-\int_A W_0(\nabla u(x))\,dx\Big|+\|u_{{\varepsilon},\rho}-u\|_{L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A)}\right)\leq 0.$$ Hence, the claim follows by passing to a suitable diagonal sequence.
It remains to prove : For ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small, we have $$\sup_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sup_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v_{\varepsilon}(z)|\leq \|\nabla v_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}\leq \|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}.$$ Using and the Ergodic Theorem \[T:Birk\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(v_{\varepsilon},A^i\setminus (A^i)_{-\rho})\\
&\leq \limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A^i\setminus (A^i)_{-\rho})}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1} \left(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tfrac{z}{{\varepsilon}})(|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}v_{\varepsilon}(z)|^p+1)\right)\\
&= |A^i\setminus (A^i)_{-\rho}|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}\left(1+\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty((A)_1)}^p+1)\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $\rho\downarrow 0$ yields .
Asymptotic formula: Lemma \[L:Whomper\] {#S:Whomper}
---------------------------------------
Fix $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$. It suffices to prove $$\label{whomper:lim}
\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)=W_0(F)\qquad\mbox{for all $\omega\in\Omega_F\cap\Omega_0$}.$$ Indeed, since any $\phi\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^1(kY)$ can be extended to a periodic function in ${\mathcal{A}}_\#(kY)$, we have $$\label{whomper:est1}
W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)\leq \frac{1}{k^d}m_F(\omega;kY).$$ The right-hand side converges almost everywhere and in $L^1(\Omega)$ thanks to the subadditive ergodic theorem, cf. Lemma \[L:indwhom\]. Hence, by dominated convergence yields $$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\mathbb E[W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\cdot;F)-W_0(F)]=0$$ To see note that implies $$W_0(F)=\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\frac1{k^d}m_F(\omega;kY)\geq\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty} W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F).$$ It remains to show $$\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty}W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)\geq W_0(F)\quad\mbox{for all $\omega\in\Omega_F\cap\Omega_0$}.$$ To that end, we fix $\omega\in\Omega_F\cap\Omega_0$ and choose $\phi_k\in{\mathcal{A}}_\#(kY)$ with $\fint_{kY}\phi_k\,dx=0$ such that $$\label{def:phik}
W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)=\frac1{k^d}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}(g_F+\phi_k)(z)),$$ where $g_F$ denotes the linear function $g(x):=Fx$. Note that $\phi_k$ exists, since ${\mathcal{A}}_\#(k Y)$ is a finite dimensional space. We claim that $$\label{whomper:compactness}
\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\fint_{kY}|\nabla \phi_k|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx<\infty.$$ In the following, we write $\lesssim$ if $\leq$ holds up to a multiplicative constant which is independent of $k$. The $kY$-periodicity of $\phi_k$ combined with similar calculations as in Step 2 of the proof of Lemma \[L:affine\] yield for $k\gg R$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac1{k^d}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (kY)_R}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1 \phi_k(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\lesssim\frac1{k^d}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1 \phi_k(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\\
&\lesssim |F|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}+ \frac1{k^d}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1 (g_F+\phi_k)(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\\
&\lesssim|F|^{\frac{\beta }{\beta+1}p}\\
&\quad+ \left(\frac1{k^d}\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\!\!\!\!\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z)^{-\beta}\right)^{\frac{1}{\beta+1}}\!\!\!\left(\frac1{k^d}\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap kY}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(z)|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1 (g_F+\phi_k)(z)|^p\right)^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}}\!\!\!.\end{aligned}$$ The above inequality, , and Theorem \[T:Birk\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\frac1{k^d}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (kY)_R}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}\phi_k(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and thus by .\
Set $\varphi_k(\cdot)=k^{-1}\phi_k(k\cdot)$, so that $$W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)=E_\frac1k(\omega;g_F+\varphi_k,Y).$$ The definition of $\phi_k$ implies $\fint_Y\varphi_k\,dx=0$ and $\varphi_k\in W_{\#}^{1,p}(Y,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, where $W_{\#}^{1,p}(Y,{\mathbb{R}}^n):=\{u\in W_{{\operatorname{loc}}}^{1,p}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n):\mbox{ $u$ is $Y$-periodic}\}$. Hence, Poincaré’s inequality and yield: $$\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\|\varphi_k\|_{W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(Y)}<\infty.$$ Hence, there exists $\varphi\in W_{\#}^{1,p}(Y,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with $\fint_Y \varphi\,dx=0$ such that, up to a subsequence, $\varphi_k{\rightharpoonup}\varphi$ in $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(Y,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and thus Proposition \[P:inf\] yields $$\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty} W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}^{(k)}(\omega;F)=\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty} E_{\frac1k}(\omega;g_F+\varphi_k,Y)\geq \int_Y W_0(F+\nabla \varphi(x))\,dx.$$ The quasiconvexity of $W_0$, the growth condition and the periodicity of $\varphi$ imply (see [@Dac07 Proposition 5.13]) $$\int_Y W_0(F+\nabla \varphi(x))\,dx\geq W_0(F).$$ Altogether, we have shown .
Moments under independence: Proposition \[Prop:iid\]
----------------------------------------------------
The proof follows very closely the arguments of the proof of [@MO16 Proposition 3.7] where the case $p=2$ is considered, see also [@ADS16 Theorem 1.12]. In the following we write ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap A$ if $[x,y]={{\operatorname{e}}}\in {\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d$ and $x,y\in A$.
For every given edge ${{\operatorname{e}}}=[z,z+e_i]\in\mathbb B^d$, it is easy to see that there exist $2d$ disjoint paths $\ell_1({{\operatorname{e}}}),\dots,\ell_{2d}({{\operatorname{e}}})$ in $\mathbb B^d\cap B_4(z)$ connecting $z$ and $z+e_i$ and the length of each path does not exceed $9$. We define random variables $\{\mu(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})\}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in\mathbb B^d}$ by $$ \mu(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-\frac{p}{p-1}}:=\inf_{1\leq i\leq 2d}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in \ell_i({{\operatorname{e}}})}\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}.$$ By definition, we have $\mu(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})=\mu(\tau_{z_{{\operatorname{e}}}}\omega;{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}})$, where $z_{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and ${{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}\in\{e_1,\dots,e_d\}$ are uniquely given by ${{\operatorname{e}}}=z_{{\operatorname{e}}}+{{\operatorname{b}}}_{{\operatorname{e}}}$. We show that:
1. There exists a constant $C=C(d)<\infty$ such that for all $v\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:iid:1}
&\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{i=1}^d|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\right)^{\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}}\notag\\
&\leq C\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A)_{\varepsilon}}\sum_{i=1}^d\mu(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega;e_i)^{-\beta p}\right)^\frac1\beta\left({\varepsilon}^d\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A)_{4{\varepsilon}}}\sum_{i=1}^d(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega)(e_i)|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^p\right).\end{aligned}$$
2. It holds $\mathbb E[\mu(\cdot;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-\beta p}]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in\mathbb B^d$.
Obviously, inequality follows from (i) and (ii) with $f(\omega)=C\sum_{i=1}^d\mu(\omega;e_i)^{-\beta p}$.\
[*Step 1.* ]{} Proof of .
Fix ${{\operatorname{e}}}=[z,z+e_i]\in\mathbb B^d$. Denote by $\ell({{\operatorname{e}}})$ the minimizing path in the definition of $\mu(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})$. The triangular and Hölder inequality yield $$\begin{aligned}
|\nabla v({{\operatorname{e}}})|\leq& \sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\ell({{\operatorname{e}}})}|\nabla v({{\operatorname{b}}})|\leq\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\ell({{\operatorname{e}}})}{\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})}^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\ell({{\operatorname{e}}})}\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})|\nabla v({{\operatorname{b}}})|^p\right)^\frac1p\\
=&\mu(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-1}\left(\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\ell({{\operatorname{e}}})}\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})|\nabla v({{\operatorname{b}}})|^p\right)^\frac1p.\end{aligned}$$ Multiply both sides by $\mu(\omega;{{\operatorname{e}}})$ and take the $p$th power. This shows that there exists $C=C(d)<\infty$ such that for all $v\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap A}\mu(\omega;\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})^p|\nabla v({{\operatorname{e}}})|^p\leq&\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in \ell(\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})}\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})|\nabla v({\varepsilon}{{\operatorname{b}}})|^p\leq C\!\!\!\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap (A)_{4{\varepsilon}}}\omega(\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})|\nabla v({{\operatorname{e}}})|^p,\end{aligned}$$ and thus (by Hölder’s inequality) $$\begin{aligned}
&\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{i=1}^d|\partial_{e_i}^{\varepsilon}v(z)|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\right)^{\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}}\leq\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap (A)_{{\varepsilon}}}|\nabla v({{\operatorname{e}}})|^{\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}+1}p}\right)^\frac{{\beta}+1}{{\beta} }\\
&\leq C\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap (A)_{\varepsilon}}\mu(\omega;\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})^{-\beta p}\right)^\frac1\beta\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in{\varepsilon}\mathbb B^d\cap (A)_{4{\varepsilon}}}\omega(\tfrac{{{\operatorname{e}}}}{\varepsilon})|\nabla v({{\operatorname{e}}})|^p\right)\end{aligned}$$ which implies .
[*Step 2.* ]{} Proof of $\mathbb E[\mu(\cdot;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-\beta p}]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{e}}}\in\mathbb B^d$.
It suffices to show that $$\label{ineq:iid:moment}
\mathbb P[\mu(\cdot;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-1}>t]\lesssim t^{-2d\gamma p},$$ where here and for the rest of the proof $\lesssim$ means $\leq$ up to a multiplicative constant which depends on $\beta,\gamma,d$ and $p$. Indeed, since $\beta p>0$ and $2d\gamma>\beta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb E[\mu(\cdot;{{\operatorname{e}}})^{-\beta p}]=&\frac1{\beta p}\int_0^\infty t^{\beta p-1}\mathbb P[\mu({{\operatorname{e}}})^{-1}>t]\,dt
\lesssim1+\int_1^\infty t^{(\beta-2d\gamma) p-1}\,dt
\lesssim1, \end{aligned}$$ since $(\beta-2d\gamma)p<0$. Finally, we prove : By independence of $\{\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})\}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in\mathbb B^d}$ and disjointness of the paths, we have for $t>0$ that $$\mathbb P[\mu(\cdot;e)^{-1}>t]=\mathbb P\left[\mu(\cdot;e)^{-\frac{p}{p-1}}>t^\frac{p}{p-1}\right]=\prod_{i=1}^{2d}\mathbb P\left[\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\ell_i({{\operatorname{e}}})}\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}>t^\frac{p}{p-1}\right].$$ Since the length of $\ell_i({{\operatorname{e}}})$ is bounded by $9$ and due to stationarity and that $\{\omega({{\operatorname{e}}})\}_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in\mathbb B^d}$ are identically distributed, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{2d}\mathbb P\left[\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in\ell_i({{\operatorname{e}}})}\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}>t^\frac{p}{p-1}\right]\leq&9\mathbb P\left[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\frac1{p-1}}>\frac{t^\frac{p}{p-1}}{9}\right]^{2d}\\
\leq&9\mathbb P\left[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\gamma}> \frac{t^{\gamma p}}{9^{\gamma(p-1)}}\right]^{2d}\\
\leq& 9^{1+2d\gamma(p-1)}\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\gamma}]^{2d}t^{-2d\gamma p}\\
\lesssim& t^{-2d\gamma p},\end{aligned}$$ since $\mathbb E[\omega({{\operatorname{b}}})^{-\gamma}]<\infty$ for all ${{\operatorname{b}}}\in\mathbb B^d$ by assumption.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) SCHL 1706/2-1. SN and AS acknowledge the hospitality of the Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig. Moreover, SN and MS acknowledge the hospitality of the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics, Berlin. They are also grateful for the support by the DFG in the context of TU Dresden’s Institutional Strategy *“The Synergetic University”*. MS is grateful for the support by the University of Würzburg. We would like to thank F. Flegel, M. Heida and M. Slowik for stimulating discussions.
Proof of Lemma \[L:sumint\], Corollary \[C:1\] and Lemma \[L:indwhom\] {#appendix}
======================================================================
Fix $1\leq q<\infty$. In the following we write $\lesssim$ if $\leq$ holds up to a multiplicative constant that only depends on $({\mathcal L},{\mathcal{NN}})$ and $q$. By the definition of ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ we have $$\label{eq:L:sumint:1}
\forall u\in{\mathcal{A}}^1:\quad \int_Y|\nabla u|^q\,dx\lesssim \sum_{x,y\in{\mathcal L}\cap [0,1]^d \atop x\neq y}|u(y)-u(x)|^q.$$ By the definition of ${\mathcal{NN}}$ and of $R$ (cf. ) for any pair $(x,y)\in{\mathcal L}\cap[0,1]^d$ with $x\neq y$ there exists a path $\ell(x,y)$ in ${\mathcal{NN}}\cap B_{\frac{R}{4}}(0)$ that connects $x$ and $y$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
|u(y)-u(x)|^q&\lesssim \sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in\ell (x,y)}|\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}})|^q\leq\sum_{{{\operatorname{e}}}\in {\mathcal{NN}}\cap B_{\frac{R}4}(0)}|\nabla u({{\operatorname{e}}})|^q,\end{aligned}$$ which together with and the definition of ${\mathcal{NN}}$ yields .
Next, we show . By scaling it suffices to consider the case ${\varepsilon}=1$. Since $(A)_{-R}\subset\bigcup_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A)_{-\frac{3}{4}R}}(z+Y)$ (thanks to $R> 4\sqrt d$), estimate yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{(A)_{-R}}|\nabla u|^q\,dx&\leq&
\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap(A)_{-\frac{3}{4}R}}\int_{z+Y}|\nabla u|^q\,dx\\
&\lesssim&
\sum_{z\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap(A)_{-\frac{3}{4}R}}\ \sum_{z'\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap B_{\frac{1}{2}R}(z)}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1 u(z')|^q\\
&\lesssim& \sum_{z''\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal{NN}}_0}|\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1 u(z'')|^q,\end{aligned}$$ where for the last estimate we used that
(i) $\bigcup_{z\in(A)_{-\frac{3}{4}R}}\Big(B_{\frac{1}{2}R}(z)\Big)\subset A$,
(ii) $z''\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A$ is contained in at most $C\lesssim 1$ sets of the form ${\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap B_{\frac{1}{2}R}(z)$ with $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (A)_{-\frac{3}{4}R}$.
[*Step 1.* ]{} Proof of part (a) – coercivity.\
Let $(u_{\varepsilon})$ be a sequence satisfying . We claim that there exists a $u\in g+W^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that, up to a subsequence, $u_{\varepsilon}{\rightharpoonup}u$ weakly in $W^{1,\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and strongly in $L^q(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
Thanks to the boundary condition $u_{\varepsilon}=g$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$ and in view of Lemma \[L:compactness\], it suffices to show that $$\label{C:1:eq:000}
\begin{aligned}
&\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}I_{\varepsilon}<\infty\qquad \text{and}\qquad \limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})<\infty\\
&\text{where }I_{\varepsilon}:=\left(\int_{(A)_1}|\nabla
u_{\varepsilon}|^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}\,dx\right)^{\frac{\beta+1}{\beta}\frac1p}\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}):=E_{\varepsilon}(\omega;u_{\varepsilon},(A)_2).
\end{aligned}$$ The difference of $\tilde E_{\varepsilon}$ and $H_{\varepsilon}$ consists of the energy contribution of edges associated with the boundary layer $(A)_2\setminus (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$. Since $u_{\varepsilon}=g$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$, we deduce from , that $$\label{C:1:eq:001}
\limsup\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}\Big(\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})-F_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\Big)<\infty.$$ From in the proof of Lemma \[L:coercivity\], we learn that for all sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$ we have $$\label{C:1:eq:002}
I_{\varepsilon}^p\leq C\left(\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})+1\right),$$ where here and below $C$ denotes a finite constant that might change from line to line, but can be chosen independent of ${\varepsilon}$. Furthermore, thanks to , $g\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and the Poincaré-Sobolev inequality applied to $u_{\varepsilon}-g$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C:1:eq:003}
|F_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})| &\leq& \left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\sum_{x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A}|f_{\varepsilon}(x)|^{\frac{q}{q-1}}\right)^{\frac{q-1}{q}}\left({\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\sum_{x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal L}\cap A}|u_{\varepsilon}(x)|^q\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\notag\\
&\leq& C\left(\int_{(A)_1}|u_{\varepsilon}-g|^q\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}+\left(\int_{(A)_1}|g|^q\,dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\notag\\
&\leq& C I_{\varepsilon}+1.\end{aligned}$$ We combine the previous three estimates as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\varepsilon}^p&\stackrel{\eqref{C:1:eq:002}}{\leq}& C\left(\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})+1\right)\\
&\leq& C\left(\big(\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})-F_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\big)+|F_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})|+1\right)\\
& \stackrel{\eqref{C:1:eq:003}}{\leq}&C\left(\big(\tilde E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})-F_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\big)+I_{\varepsilon}+1\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $p>1$ and thanks to , the assertion follows.
[*Step 2.* ]{} Proof of part (b) – $\Gamma$-convergence.
By we have $$\lim\limits_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow 0}F_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})=\int_A f\cdot u\,dx$$ for any sequence $u_{\varepsilon}\to u$ in $L^q(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with $u_{\varepsilon}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\varepsilon}_g(A)$. Hence, it suffices to prove $\Gamma$-convergence for $H_{\varepsilon}$. We start with the lower bound. Let $(u_{\varepsilon})$ and $u$ be such that $u_{\varepsilon}\to u$ in $L^{q}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that holds. Then by Step 1, we get $u\in g+W_0^{1,p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. For any $U\Subset A$ we have $H_{{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\geq E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},U)$, and thus by Proposition \[P:inf\]: $$\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}H_{{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\geq\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},U)\geq \int_UW_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(\nabla u(x))\,dx.$$ Taking the supremum over $U\Subset A$ and using $W_{{\operatorname{hom}}}\geq0$, the lower bound follows. Next, we prove existence of a recovery sequence. By a standard approximation argument, it is sufficient to consider $u\in g+C_c^\infty(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Combining Proposition \[P:sup\] and the gluing construction Lemma \[L:glue\] and Lemma \[L:glue:convex\], respectively, we obtain a sequence $(u_{\varepsilon})$ with $u_{\varepsilon}\to u$ in $L^{\frac{\beta}{\beta+1}p}(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $u_{\varepsilon}=u=g$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus (A)_{-{\varepsilon}R}$ such that $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},A)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}{\varepsilon}^d\!\!\!\!\sum_{z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_{\frac{z}{\varepsilon}}\omega;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(z))=\int_AW_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(\nabla u(x))\,dx.$$ By the definition of $R$, cf. Remark \[Remark:finiterange0\], we have $\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}u(z)=\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^{\varepsilon}g(z)$ for all $z\in{\varepsilon}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\setminus A$ (see ). Combined with the fact that for all $0<\rho<1$ and ${\varepsilon}\ll 1$ we have $H_{{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\leq E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},(A)_\rho)$, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}H_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\leq \limsup\limits_{\rho\downarrow 0}\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\downarrow0}E_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon},(A)_\rho)=E_{{\operatorname{hom}}}(u,A).\end{aligned}$$ In view of Lemma \[L:compactness\] we even have $u_{\varepsilon}\to u$ in $L^q(A,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, which concludes the proof of the recovery sequence.
The convergence of minima and minimizers is a consequence of the compactness (Step 1) and of $\Gamma$-convergence (Step 2). Note that minimizers of $J_{\varepsilon}$ exist thanks to the coercivity and the continuity of the potentials, and the finite dimensionality of the problem.
First notice that $$\inf_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{\mathbb E \left[m_F(\cdot;kY)\right]}{k^d}=\lim_{k\uparrow\infty\atop k\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{\mathbb E \left[m_F(\cdot;kY)\right]}{k^d}$$ holds by monotonicity. Set $\mathcal I:=\{[a,b)~|~a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\}$ and fix $F\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times d}$. We denote by $\mathcal L^1$ the class of integrable functions on $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P)$.
[*Step 1.* ]{} We claim that $$m_F:{\mathcal I}\to\mathcal L^1,\qquad A\mapsto m_F(\cdot,A),$$ defines a subadditive and stationary process (see e.g. [@Krengel]). To that end we need to check the following three properties:
(i) $m_F$ defines a set function from $\mathcal I$ to $\mathcal L^1$. Indeed, since $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}\geq 0$ and thanks to we have $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq \mathbb E[m_F(A)]\leq&|A|\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(1+\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1))<\infty.\end{aligned}$$
(ii) $m_F$ is stationary, i.e. for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, $\omega\in\Omega$ and $A\in \mathcal I$ it holds $m_F(\tau_z\omega;A)=m_F(\omega;z+A)$. This is a direct consequence of a change of variable in the infimum problem in the definition of $m_F$ and the stationarity of the interaction potentials $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}$.
(iii) $m_F(\omega;\cdot)$ is subadditiv. Let $A_1,\dots,A_M\subset \mathcal I$ be disjoint sets and $\bigcup_{i=1}^MA_i=A\in\mathcal I$. For every $A_i$, we find $\phi_{i}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{0}^1(A_i)$ such that $$E_1(\omega;g_F+\phi_{i},A_i) = m_F(\omega;A_i),$$ where $g_F$ denotes the linear function $g_F(x):=Fx$. We define $\phi:=\sum_{i=1}^M\phi_{i}\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^1(A)$. Since $\phi_{i}\in{\mathcal{A}}_0^1(A_i)$ for all $i=1,\dots,M$, we have $\phi=\phi_{i}$ on $(A_i)_R$ for $i=1,\dots,M$. Moreover, we have that for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A$ there exists a unique $i\in\{1,\dots,M\}$ such that $z\in A_i$. Hence, subadditivity follows: $$\begin{aligned}
m_F(\omega;A)\leq&E_1(\omega;g_F+\phi,A)=\sum_{i=1}^M\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A_i}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}V_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_z\omega;\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1g_F(z)+\partial_{{\operatorname{b}}}^1\phi(z))\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^ME_1(\omega;g_F+\phi_{i},A_i)=\sum_{i=1}^Mm_F(\omega;A_i).
\end{aligned}$$
[*Step 2.* ]{} Ergodic limit for cubes in ${\mathcal I}$.\
By the previous step, we are in position to apply the Ackoglu-Krengel subadditive ergodic theorem in the version [@ACG11 Theorem 1], cf. [@AK81 Theorem 2.9]: There exists a set $\Omega_F\subset\Omega$ of full measure such that for all $\omega\in\Omega_F$ and all cubes of the form $Q=[a,b)$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\uparrow\infty\atop k\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac{1}{|kQ|}m_F(\omega;kQ)=\lim_{k\uparrow\infty\atop k\in{\mathbb{N}}}\frac1{k^d}\mathbb E\left[m_F(\cdot;kY)\right]=W_0(F).\end{aligned}$$
[*Step 3.* ]{} General cubes.\
To pass to the limit along ${\mathbb{R}}$ and cubes $Q$ satisfying $\bar Q=[a,b]$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we adapt the arguments of [@DMM86 Proposition 1] (and [@MM94 Corollary 3.3]) to our degenerate and discrete situation. For every $\delta>0$ there exists a dilation $T\geq 1$ and cubes $Q_\delta^-$, $Q_\delta^+\in{\mathcal I}$ such that $$Q_\delta^-\subset TQ\subset Q_\delta^+,\quad \frac{|Q_\delta^-|}{|TQ|}\geq 1-\delta,\quad \frac{|TQ|}{|Q_\delta^+|}\geq 1-\delta.$$ The growth condition on $V_{{\operatorname{b}}}$ yields for all open bounded Lipschitz sets with $B\subset A$ the following inequality $$\begin{aligned}
m_F(\omega;A)\leq m_F(\omega;B)+\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap A\setminus B}\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(1+\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_z\omega)(|F|^p+1)).\end{aligned}$$ For every $t>0$, we set $t^+=\lfloor t\rfloor+1$ and $t^-=\lfloor t \rfloor$. Thanks to the ergodic theorem in Step 2, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{t\uparrow\infty}\frac{1}{|t^+Q_\delta^+|}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap (t^+Q_\delta^+\setminus tTQ)}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_z\omega)\leq \delta\mathbb{E}[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}],\\
&\lim_{t\uparrow\infty}\frac{1}{|tTQ|}\sum_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap(tTQ\setminus t^-Q_\delta^-)}\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}(\tau_z\omega)\leq \delta\mathbb{E}[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}].\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
W_0(F)=&\lim_{t^+\uparrow\infty}\frac{m_F(\omega;t^+Q_\delta^+)}{|t^+Q_\delta^+|}\\
\leq& \liminf_{t\uparrow\infty}\frac{m_F(\omega;tTQ)}{|tTQ|}+\delta\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1)+1)\\
\leq& \limsup_{t\uparrow\infty}\frac{m_F(\omega;tTQ)}{|tTQ|}+\delta\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1)+1)\\
\leq&\lim_{t^-\uparrow\infty}\frac{m_F(\omega;t^-Q_\delta^-)}{|t^-Q_\delta^-|}+2\delta\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1)+1)\\
=&W_0(F)+2\delta\sum_{{{\operatorname{b}}}\in{\mathcal E}_0}{c_1}(\mathbb E[\lambda_{{\operatorname{b}}}](|F|^p+1)+1).\end{aligned}$$ The assertion follows by the arbitrariness of $\delta>0$.
[99]{} R. Alicandro and M. Cicalese, A general integral representation result for continuum limits of discrete energies with superlinear growth, *SIAM J. Math. Anal.*, **36**, 1–37, (2004). R. Alicandro, M. Cicalese and A. Gloria, Integral representation results for energies defined on stochastic lattices and application to nonlinear elasticity, *Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*, **200**, 881–943 (2011). S. Armstrong and P. Dario, elliptic regularity and quantitative homogenization on percolation clusters, *arXiv 1609:09431v1* S. Andres, J.-D. Deuschel and M. Slowik, Invariance principle for the random conductance model in a degenerate ergodic enviroment, *Ann. Prob.*, **43**, 1866–1891 (2015). S. Andres, J.-D. Deuschel and M. Slowik, Harnack inequalities on weighted graphs and some applications to the random conductance model, *Probability Theory and Related Fields*, **164**, 931–977 (2016). M. A. Ackoglu and U. Krengel, Ergodic theorems for superadditive processes, *J. reine angew. Math.*, **323**, 53–67 (1981). M. Ba and P. Mathieu, A Sobolev inequality and the individual invariance principle for diffusions in a periodic potential, *SIAM J. Math. Anal.*, **47**, 2022–2043, (2015). A. Baldi and M.-C. Tesi, A $\Gamma$-convergence aproach to non-periodic homogenization of strongly anisotropic functionals, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*, **14**, 1735–1759 (2004). O. Boukhadra, T. Kumagai and P. Mathieu, Harnack inequalities and local central limit theorem for the polynomial lower tail random conductance model, *J. Math. Soc. Japan* **67**, 1413–1448 (2015). A. Braides and A. Garroni, Homogenization of periodic nonlinear media with stiff and soft inclusion, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.* **5**, 543–564 (1995). P. Bella, B. Fehrman and F. Otto, A Liouville theorem for elliptic systems with degenerate ergodic coefficients, *arXiv:1605.00687v1* A. Bensoussan, J. L. Lions and G. Papanicolaou, *Asymptotic analysis for periodic structures,* Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 5, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1978. N. Berger and M. Biskup, Quenched invariance principle for simple random walk on percolation clusters, *Probab. Theory Related Fields* **137**, 83–120 (2007). M. Biskup, Recent progress on the random conductance model, *Probab. Surv.* **8**, 294–373 (2011). A. Braides, Homogenization of some almost periodic coercive functional, *Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL Mem. Mat.,* **9**, 313–321 (1985). A. Braides, M. Cicalese, Surface Energies in nonconvex discrete systems, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*, **17**, 985–1037 (2007). A. Braides and M. S. Gelli, Limits of discrete systems with long range interactions, *J. Convex Anal.,* **9**, 363–399 (2002). A. Braides, M. Maslennikov, L. Sigalotti, Homogenization by blow-up, *Appl. Anal.* **87**, 1341–1356 (2008). J. Braun and B. Schmidt, On the passage from atomistic systems to nonlinear elasticity theory for general multi-body potentials with $p$-growth, *Netw. Heterog. Media* **8**, 879–912 (2013). L. Carbone and C. Sbordone, Some properties of $\Gamma$-limits of integral functionals. *Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.* **122**, 1–60 (1979). A. Chiarini and J.-D. Deuschel, Invariance principle for symmetric diffusions in a degenerate and unbounded stationary and ergodic random medium, *arXiv:1410.4483*. B. Dacorogna, *Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variation*, 2nd edition, Springer, New York (2008). G. Dal Maso and L. Modica, Nonlinear stochastic homogenization and ergodic theory, *J. reine angew. Math.*, **368**, 28–42 (1986). R. De Arcangelis and S. Serra Cassano, On the homogenization of degenerate elliptic equations in divergence form, *J. Math. Pures Appl.* **71**, 1–20 (1992). R. De Arcangelis and S. Serra Cassano, On the convergence of solutions of degenerate elliptic equations in divergence form, *Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.* **167**, 1–23 (1994). E. De Giorgi, Sulla convergenza di alcune successioni d’integrali del tipo dell’area, *Rend. Matematica*, **8**, 277–294 (1975). M. Duerinckx and A. Gloria, Stochastic homogenization of nonconvex unbounded integral functionals with convex growth, *Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.* **221**, 1511–1584 (2016). J. Engström, L.-E. Persson, A. Piatnitski and P. Wall, Homogenization of random degenerated nonlinear monotone operators, *Glasg. Mat. Ser. III* **41** (61), 101–114 (2006). L. Evans and R. Gariepy, *Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions,* CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., 1992. F. Flegel, Localization of the principal Dirichlet eigenvector in the heavy-tailed random conductance model, *arXiv:1608:02415v1*, I. Fonseca and S. Müller, Quasi-Convex integrands and lower semicontinuity in $L^1$, *SIAM J. Math. Anal.*, **23**, 1081–1098, (1992). A. Gloria, P. Le Tallec and M. Vidrascu, Foundation, analysis, and numerical investigation of a variational network-based model for rubber, *Contin. Mech. Thermodyn.* **26**, 1–31 (2014). V. V. Jikov, S. M. Kozlov and O. A. Oleinik, *Homogenization of differential operators and integral functionals,* Springer Verlag, Berlin, (1994). G. Kitavtsev, S. Luckhaus, A. Rüland, Surface Energies Emerging in a Microscopic Two-Dimensional Two-Well Problem, *accepted for publication in Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. A*, arXiv:1402.5256. W. Kuhn and F. Grün, Beziehungen zwischen elastischen Konstanten und Dehnungsdoppelbrechung hochelastischer Stoffe, *Kolloid-Zeitschrift*, **101**, 248–271 (1942). U. Krengel, *Ergodic theorems* de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 6, de Gruyter, Berlin (1985). A. Lamacz, S. Neukamm and F. Otto, Moment bounds for the corrector in stochastic homogenization of a percolation model, *Electron. J. Probab.* **20**, (2015). P. Marcellini, Periodic solutions and homogenization of nonlinear variational problems, *Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata. Serie Quarta* **117**, 139–152 (1978). P. Mathieu and A. Piatnitski, Quenched invariance principles for random walks on percolation clusters, *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A* **463**, 2287–2307 (2007). K. Messaoudi and G. Michaille, Stochastic homogenization of nonconvex integral functionals, *RAIRO Modél. Math. Anal. Numér.* **28** (3) 329–356 (1994). J.-C. Mourrat and F. Otto, Anchored Nash inequalities and heat kernel bounds for static and dynamic degenerate environments, *J. Funct. Anal.* **270**, 201–228 (2016). S. Müller, Homogenization of nonconvex integral functionals and cellular elastic materials, *Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.* **99**, 189-212 (1987). G. C. Papanicolaou and S. R. S. Varadhan, Boundary value problems with rapidly oscillating random coefficients. In: Random Fields, vols. I, II (Esztergom, 1979), Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, vol. 27, pp. 835–873. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1981). L. Scardia, A. Schlömerkemper and C. Zanini, Boundary layer energies for nonconvex discrete systems, *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.* **21** (2011), 777–817. M. Schäffner and A. Schlömerkemper, On Lennard-Jones systems with finite range interactions and their asymptotic analysis, arXiv:1501.06423. V. Sidoravicius and A.-S. Sznitman, Quenched invariance principles for walks on clusters of percolation or among random conductances, *Probab. Theory Related Fields* **129**, 219–244 (2004). V. V. Zhikov and S. E. Pastukhova, Homogenization of degenerate elliptic equations, *Sibirian Math. Journal* **49**, 80–101 (2008).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute the log canonical thresholds of non-negatively curved singular hermitian metrics on ample linearized line bundles on bi-equivariant group compactifications of complex reductive groups. To this end, we associate to any such metric a convex function whose asymptotic behavior determines the log canonical threshold. As a consequence we obtain a formula for the alpha invariant of these line bundles, in terms of the polytope associated to the group compactification.'
address: |
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, IF, F-38000 Grenoble, France\
CNRS, IF, F-38000 Grenoble, France
author:
- Thibaut Delcroix
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Log canonical thresholds on group compactifications
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The aim of this article is to begin the study of Kähler metrics on polarized $G\times G$-equivariant compactifications of a connected complex reductive group $G$. This class of manifolds generalizes the well known class of polarized toric manifolds, and we extend some techniques of toric geometry to this setting. In this article, we study singular hermitian metrics on linearized ample line bundles, which are non-negatively curved and invariant under the action of $K\times K$, where $K$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$. We associate to such a metric a convex function on some real vector space, that we call the convex potential of the metric, and show how the asymptotic behavior of this function is controlled by a polytope associated to the line bundle. This generalizes the case of toric manifolds and relies on the $KAK$ decomposition of a reductive group.
The correspondence between metrics and their convex potentials is a bijection and provides a description of the set of non-negatively curved, $K\times K$-invariant, singular hermitian metrics. Furthermore, to obtain this description we use a special continuous reference metric that generalizes the Batyrev-Tschinkel metric on toric line bundles, which had already been used as a model for the behavior of continuous metrics in [@CLT10].
We then proceed to compute the log canonical threshold of such metrics, in terms of the asymptotic behavior of their convex potential. To achieve that goal, we associate a convex body to the metric, that we call the Newton body of the metric, which gives another way to encode the asymptotic behavior of the convex potential, and is well suited to fan decompositions. We should stress at this point that another important ingredient is the existence of a toric subvariety (and corresponding fan) in any group compactification, that contains the information about the compactification. We obtain the following theorem.
Let $(X,L)$ be a polarized $G\times G$-equivariant compactification of $G$. Assume furthermore that $X$ is Fano. Denote by $P$ the polytope associated to $L$ and by $Q$ the polytope associated to the anticanonical line bundle $-K_X$. Let also $H$ denote the convex hull of the images, by the Weyl group $W$ of $G$, of the sum of the positive roots of $G$. Let $h$ be a $K\times K$-invariant hermitian metric with non negative curvature on $L$, then the log canonical threshold of $h$ is given by: $$\mathrm{lct}(h)=\mathrm{sup}\{c>0; 2H+2cP \subset cN(h)+2Q\},$$ where $N(h)$ is the Newton body of $h$.
Using this expression of the log canonical threshold, we are able to compute Tian’s $\alpha$ invariant for any ample linearized line bundle on a Fano group compactification, with respect to the $K\times K$ action.
Let $(X,L)$ be a polarized compactification of $G$, and $P:=P(X,L)$. Assume furthermore that $X$ is Fano and let $Q:=P(X,-K_X)$. Then $$\alpha_{K\times K}(L)=\mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; c(P + (-P^W)) \subset Q \ominus H \},$$ where $P^W$ denotes the subset of $W$-invariant points of $P$ and $W$ is the Weyl group of $G$.
This formula generalizes the formula for the $\alpha$-invariant of polarized Fano toric manifolds previously obtained in [@Del14], and independently by other authors [@Amb14; @LSY15]. In the case of the anticanonical line bundle on a Fano toric manifold, the formula was initially obtained by Song [@Son05].
The original motivation of this work was to obtain such an expression, hoping that Tian’s criterion for the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics in terms of this invariant would be satisfied by some group compactifications. Recall that Tian’s criterion [@Tia87] is that if the $\alpha$ invariant is strictly greater than $\frac{n}{n+1}$ where $n$ is the dimension of the manifold, then there exists a Kähler-Einstein metric.
For toric manifolds, additional symmetries had to be taken into account for the criterion to be satisfied. For the important examples of wonderful compactifications of semisimple adjoint groups with no rank one factor, Brion computed their automorphism group in [@Bri07], so that our result allows to compute the alpha invariant with respect to a maximal compact subgroup of the automorphism group, but Tian’s criterion is not satisfied. Even though we can in some cases consider additional symmetries, we do not obtain new examples of Kähler-Einstein metrics by this method. Our study of hermitian metrics will be used in [@DelKE] where we obtain a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on a group compactification in terms of the polytope. The present article and [@DelKE] contain the main results of the author’s PhD thesis [@DelTh].
Group compactifications
=======================
Definition and examples
-----------------------
Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group.
Let $X$ be a projective manifold. We say that $X$ is a *smooth $G\times G$-equivariant compactification of $G$* (or in short a *compactification of $G$*) if $X$ admits a holomorphic $G\times G$-action with an open and dense orbit equivariantly isomorphic to $G$ as a $G\times G$-homogeneous space under the action defined by $(g_1,g_2)\cdot g= g_1gg_2^{-1}$.
Let $X$ be a compactification of $G$. We will always identify $G$ with the open and dense orbit in $X$. These manifolds belong to the class of *spherical manifolds* [@Per14; @Tim11]. There is a finite number of $G\times G$-orbits in $X$ and the boundary $X\setminus G$ is of codimension one.
If $G=T \simeq (\mathbb{C}^*)^n$ is a torus, then the compactifications of $T$ are the projective toric manifolds. One goes from the $T$-action to the $T\times T$ action through the morphism $T\times T \rightarrow T, (t_1,t_2)\mapsto t_1t_2^{-1}$.
Assume that $G$ is an adjoint semisimple group. Then De Concini and Procesi [@DCP83] showed the existence of a special compactification of $G$, called the wonderful compactification of $G$. It is the only compactification of $G$ satisfying the following property : its boundary $X\setminus G$ (where we identify the open and dense orbit in $X$ with $G$) is a union of simple normal crossing prime divisors $D_i$, $i\in \{1,\ldots, r\}$, such that for any subset $I\subset \{1,\ldots, r\}$, the intersection $X\cap \bigcap_{i\in I} D_i$ is the closure of a unique $G\times G$-orbit, and all $G\times G$-orbits appear this way. The integer $r$ is equal to the rank of $G$, which is the dimension of a maximal torus in $G$.
The wonderful compactification of $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{C})$ is especially simple : it is $\mathbb{P}^3$ considered as $\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{Mat}_{2,2}(\mathbb{C}))$ equipped with the action of $\mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{C})\times \mathrm{PGL}_2(\mathbb{C})$ induced by the multiplication of matrices on the left and on the right.
Polytopes associated to a polarized group compactification
----------------------------------------------------------
Recall that a *$G$-linearized line bundle* over a $G$-manifold $X$ is a line bundle $L$ on $X$ equipped with an action of $G$ lifting the action on $X$, and such that the morphisms between the fibers induced by this action are linear.
Let $G$ be a connected complex reductive group. We call a *polarized group compactification* a pair $(X,L)$ where $X$ is a compactification of $G$ and $L$ is a $G\times G$-linearized line bundle on $X$.
Choose $T$ a maximal torus in $G$, and let $S$ be a maximal compact torus in $T$. We denote, as usual, by $M$ the lattice of characters of $T$ and by $N$ the lattice of one parameter subgroups of $T$, naturally dual to each other. Denote by $\mathfrak{s}$ the Lie algebra of $S$, by $\mathfrak{t}$ the Lie algebra of $T$ and by $\mathfrak{a}$ the Lie algebra $i \mathfrak{s} \subset \mathfrak{t}$. We identify $\mathfrak{a}$ with $N\otimes \mathbb{R}$, and $\mathfrak{a}^*$ with $M\otimes \mathbb{R}$.
Let $\Phi\subset \mathfrak{a}^*$ denote the root system of $(G,T)$. Let $W$ be its Weyl group. Choose a system of positive roots $\Phi^+$. It defines a positive Weyl chamber $\mathfrak{a}^+$ in $\mathfrak{a}$, resp. $\mathfrak{a}^*_+$ in $\mathfrak{a}^*$.
[[@AB04II Section 2]]{} Let $(X,L)$ be a polarized group compactification of $G$. Denote by $Z$ the closure of $T$ in $X$. Then $Z$ is a toric manifold, equipped with a $W$-action, and $L|_Z$ is a $W$-linearized ample toric line bundle on $Z$.
We denote by $P(X,L)$, or $P$ for simplicity, the polytope associated to the ample toric line bundle $L|_Z$ by the theory of toric varieties [@Ful93; @Oda88]. The polytope $P$ is a lattice polytope in $M\otimes \mathbb{R}$, and it is $W$-invariant. Define $P^+(X,L)=P(X,L)\cap \mathfrak{a}^*_+$. It is a polytope in $\mathfrak{a}^*$, and $P(X,L)$ is the union of the images of $P^+(X,L)$ by $W$.
The polytope $P^+(X,L)$ encodes the structure of $G\times G$-representation of the space of holomorphic sections of $L$, generalizing the same property for toric line bundles.
[[@AB04II Section 2.2]]{} Let $(X,L)$ be a polarized group compactification, then $$H^0(X,L)\simeq \bigoplus \{ \mathrm{End}(V_{\alpha}) ; \alpha \in M\cap P^+(X,L)\}$$ where $V_{\alpha}$ is an irreducible representation of $G$ with highest weight $\alpha$.
[[@BK05 Proposition 6.1.11]]{} The wonderful compactification $X$ of an adjoint semisimple group is Fano. The corresponding polytope $P(X,-K_X)$ is the convex hull of the images by the Weyl group $W$ of the weight $2\rho + \sum_{i=1}^r\alpha_i$, where the $\alpha_i$ are the simple roots of $\Phi^+$ and $2\rho$ is the sum of the positive roots.
Convex potential
================
In this section we introduce the convex potential of a $K\times K$-invariant, non-negatively curved singular hermitian metric on a polarized group compactification. This correspondence gives a bijection between the set of these metrics and the set of the $W$-invariant convex functions on $\mathfrak{a}$ which satisfy asymptotic behavior conditions.
Singular hermitian metrics and potentials
-----------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a compactification of $G$, and $L$ a linearized ample line bundle on $X$. Given a hermitian metric $h$ on $L$ and a local trivialization $s$ of $L$ on an open subset $U\subset X$, the *local potential* of $h$ with respect to $s$ is the function $\phi$ defined on $U$ by $$\phi(x)=-\ln(|s(x)|_h^2).$$ We consider here singular hermitian metrics and only require that the potential with respect to any local trivialization is locally integrable. The value $+\infty$ for the potentials is allowed.
We say that a hermitian metric is *locally bounded* if its potentials with respect to any trivialization on a sufficiently small open subset are bounded. A hermitian metric is smooth (resp. continuous) if and only if its potentials with respect to any local trivialization are. A continuous hermitian metric is locally bounded.
Given a reference metric $h_0$, we define the *global potential* $\psi$ of $h$ with respect to $h_0$ by $$\psi(x)= -\ln \left( \frac{|y |_h^2}{|y |_{h_0}^2} \right),$$ for any element $y$ of the fiber $L_x$. This is a function on $X$ that can a priori take the values $\pm \infty$. If $s$ is a local trivialization on $U$, $\phi$ (resp. $\phi_0$) is the potential of $h$ (resp. $h_0$) with respect to $s$, then $\psi = \phi - \phi_0$ on $U$.
The convex potential
--------------------
Let $(X,L)$ be a polarized compactification of $G$.
We identify $G$ with the open dense orbit in $X$, and first build a trivialization of $L$ on $G$. Choose $1_e$ a non-zero element of the fiber $L_e$ above the neutral element $e$ of $G$. Define the section $s$ of $L$ on $G$ by $s(g)=(g,e)\cdot 1_e$. This section is a trivialization over $G$, equivariant under the action of $G\times \{e\}$, and any such trivialization is a scalar multiple of $s$.
Denote by $\phi$ the local potential of $h$ on $G$ with respect to $s$.
We are interested in hermitian metrics that are invariant under the action of $K\times K$ where $K$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$. We choose $K$ such that $K\cap T = S$. We will use the classical $KAK$ decomposition of a complex reductive group.
[[@Kna02 Theorem 7.39]]{} Any element $g\in G$ can be written in the form $g=k_1 \exp(x) k_2$ where $k_1, k_2\in K$ and $x\in \mathfrak{a}^+$. Furthermore, $x$ is uniquely determined by $g$. In other words, the set $A^+:= \{\exp(x) ; x\in \mathfrak{a}^+\}$ is a fundamental domain for the $K\times K$-action on $G$.
We first remark that if $h$ is $K\times K$-invariant, then its potential with respect to the section constructed above is still $K\times K$-invariant.
Assume that $h$ is $K\times K$-invariant, then $\phi$ is also $K\times K$-invariant.
Let $k_1, k_2 \in K$ and $g\in G$. We can first write $$\begin{aligned}
s(k_1 g k_2) & = (k_1 g k_2,e)\cdot 1_e \\
& = (k_1, k_2^{-1}) (g,e) (k_2,k_2) \cdot 1_e.\end{aligned}$$ The subgroup $\mathrm{diag}(G)=\{(g,g)|g\in G\}$ fixes the neutral element $e\in G$, and thus acts on the fiber $L_e$ through a character $\chi$ of $G$, so that $(g,g)\cdot 1_e= \chi(g) 1_e$.
We can thus compute $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(k_1 g k_2) & = -\ln(|s(k_1 g k_2)|_h^2) \\
& = -\ln(|(k_1, k_2^{-1}) (g,e) (k_2,k_2) \cdot 1_e|_h^2) \\
\intertext{by $K\times K$-invariance of $h$, this is}
& = -\ln(|(g,e) (k_2,k_2) \cdot 1_e|_h^2) \\
\intertext{and, by linearity,}
& = -\ln(|\chi(k_2)| |(g,e) \cdot 1_e|_h^2) \\
\intertext{Since $K$ is compact, $|\chi(k_2)|=1$, so we obtain}
\phi(k_1 g k_2) & = -\ln(|(g,e) \cdot 1_e|_h^2) \\
& = \phi(g).\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $h$ is in addition non-negatively curved. Then $\phi$ is a $K\times K$-invariant plurisubharmonic function on $G$. Let $u$ be the function on $\mathfrak{a}$ defined by $$u(x)= \phi(\exp(x)).$$ Then Azad and Loeb proved in [@AL92] that the function $u$ is convex and $W$-invariant.
In particular, since we assumed that the local potentials of singular hermitian metrics are locally integrable, the $K\times K$-invariance of $h$ ensures that the functions $u$, respectively $ \phi$ take finite values on $\mathfrak{a}$, resp. $G$. Indeed, a convex function that takes an infinite value at a point must take an infinite value on a whole octant starting from that point, and then the corresponding $K\times K$-invariant function on $G$ is not locally integrable.
We will call $u$ the *convex potential* of $h$.
Asymptotic behavior of the convex potential
-------------------------------------------
### A special metric {#BTmetric}
Let us begin by introducing a continuous, $K\times K$-invariant, reference hermitian metric on $L$. We start from the Batyrev-Tschinkel metric defined on toric manifolds, and generalize it to build a reference continuous metric for any polarized group compactification $(X,L)$, with convex potential the support function of the polytope $2 P(X,L)$.
Given a toric manifold $Z$, equipped with a linearized line bundle $D$, there is a natural continuous hermitian metric $h_D$, invariant under the action of the compact torus, on $D$, called the Batyrev-Tschinkel metric (see [@Mai00 Section 3.3]). If furthermore the line bundle $D$ is ample, then this metric is non-negatively curved, and its convex potential is the support function $v$ of the polytope $2 P(Z,D)$.
Suppose now that $(X,L)$ is a polarized group compactification, and $Z$ is the toric submanifold. Denote $L|_Z$ by $D$. Then $P(Z,D)=P(X,L)$ is $W$-invariant, which implies that the Batyrev-Tschinkel metric $h_D$ is $W$-invariant.
We want to extend $h_D$ to a continuous $K\times K$-invariant metric $h_L$ on $X$. Define $h_L$ at $\xi \in L_g$ by $|\xi|_{h_L}=|(k_1,k_2)\cdot \xi|_{h_D}$, for $(k_1,k_2) \in K\times K$ such that $k_1 g k_2^{-1} \in T$. We need to check that this is well defined. Since $h_D$ is $W$-invariant we only need to check that, for $t\in T$, if $(k_1,k_2)\in \mathrm{Stab}_{K\times K}(t)$ then $|\xi|_{h_D}=|(k_1,k_2)\cdot \xi|_{h_D}$. But $\mathrm{Stab}_{K\times K}(t)$ acts linearly on the line $L_t$, through a character $\chi$. By compacity, $|\chi(k_1,k_2)|=1$, so $|(k_1,k_2)\cdot \xi|_{h_D}=|\chi(k_1,k_2)\xi|_{h_D}= |\xi|_{h_D}$.
### Asymptotic behavior
\[Asbe\] The singular hermitian $K\times K$-invariant metrics $h$ with non negative current curvature are in bijection with the convex $W$-invariant functions $u :\mathfrak{a}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying the condition that there exists a constant $C_1\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$u(x) \leq v(x)+C_1$$ on $\mathfrak{a}$, where $v$ is the support function of the polytope $2 P(X,L)$. This bijection is obtained by associating to $h$ its convex potential $u$. Furthermore, $h$ is locally bounded if and only if there exists in addition a constant $C_2\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$v(x)+C_2 \leq \varphi(x) \leq v(x)+C_1.$$
Let $h$ be a singular hermitian $K\times K$-invariant metric with non negative current curvature on $L$. Let $u$ be its convex potential. Recall that $h_L$ denotes the reference continuous metric constructed above, and let $\omega_L$ be the curvature current of $h_L$. Denote by $\psi$ the potential of $h$ with respect to $h_L$. It is an $\omega_L$-psh function on $X$. In particular, $\psi$ is bounded from above on $X$.
Denote by $w$ the function on $\mathfrak{a}$ associated to the $K\times K$-invariant function $\psi|_G$. Then we see that the function $u-v$ is equal to $w$ and thus bounded from above.
If furthermore $h$ is locally bounded then since $h_L$ is also locally bounded, the function $w$ is bounded on $X$. So $w=u-v$ is bounded on $\mathfrak{a}$.
Conversely, let $u$ be a convex $W$-invariant function such that $u(x) \leq v(x)+C$. We choose any reference metric $h_0$ on $L$ that is smooth, positively curved and $K\times K$-invariant. Then by the first direction there exist constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that if $u_0$ is the potential of $h_0$ we have $$v(x)+C_2 \leq u_0(x) \leq v(x)+C_1.$$ Let $\omega_0$ be the curvature form of $h_0$.
Consider the function $w:= u - u_0$. It will be enough to show that the function $\psi$ on $G$ corresponding to $w$ extends to an $\omega_0$-psh function on $X$.
First remark that $\psi=\phi-\phi_0$, and by the other direction of the result of Azad and Loeb [@AL92], $\phi$ is psh on $G$. The assumption on $u$ implies that $w$, and thus $\psi$, are bounded from above. Indeed, we have $$w=u-u_0 \leq v+C-u_0 \leq C-C_2.$$
A classical result on psh functions is that a psh function extends over an analytic subset if and only if it is locally bounded from above. Here, applying that with $\psi$ allows to extend $\psi$ to an $\omega_0$-psh function on $X$. The corresponding singular hermitian metric $h$ has non-negative curvature, is $K\times K$-invariant, and has convex potential $u$.
For locally bounded metrics, one just needs to use the refinement that if a psh function is locally bounded then it extends to a bounded psh function.
Newton bodies
=============
In this section we introduce a convex body associated to any non-negatively curved singular $K\times K$-invariant hermitian metric $h$ on an ample linearized line bundle $L$ on a group compactification $X$. We first define a convex set associated to any function, which is a natural set to consider in the case of convex functions. Applying this construction to the convex potential of a hermitian metric yields a convex body that is contained in $2P(X,L)$, that will be used to compute the log canonical threshold of $h$.
Newton set of a function
------------------------
Let $f$ be a function $\mathfrak{a}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and $\sigma$ a closed convex cone in $\mathfrak{a}$. We call *Newton set* of $f$ the following set in $\mathfrak{a}^*$. $$N_{\sigma}(f):=\{m\in \mathfrak{a}^*; \exists C, \forall x \in \sigma, f(x)-m(x) \geq C\}.$$
In the following, we will simply call cone a closed convex cone. For any function $f$ and any cone $\sigma$, the Newton set $N_{\sigma}(f)$ is clearly convex.
Recall the definition of the dual cone $\sigma^{\vee}$ of $\sigma$: $$\sigma^{\vee}=\{ m\in \mathfrak{a}^* ; m(x)\geq 0 ~ \forall x \in \sigma \}.$$ The Newton set $N_{\sigma}(f)$ is by definition stable under addition of an element of the opposite of the dual cone $\sigma^{\vee} \subset \mathfrak{a}^*$. We write this also $N_{\sigma}(f)=N_{\sigma}(f)+(-\sigma^{\vee})$ where the plus sign means the Minkowki sum of sets.
Let $f$ be the affine function $f(x)=m(x)+c$ where $m\in \mathfrak{a}^*$ and $c$ is a constant. Then $N_{\sigma}(f)=m+(-\sigma^{\vee})$.
Let us record the following elementary properties of Newton sets.
\[easyprop\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two functions on $\mathfrak{a}$ and $c\in \mathbb{R}$. Then
- $N_{\sigma}(cf)=cN_{\sigma}(f)$
- $N_{\sigma}(f+c)=N_{\sigma}(f)$
- if $f\leq g$ then $N_{\sigma}(f)\leq N_{\sigma}(g)$.
- In particular, if for some constants $c_1$ and $c_2$, $$g+c_1\leq f \leq g+c_2$$ on $\sigma$, then $N_{\sigma}(f)=N_{\sigma}(g)$.
- Let $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ be two convex cones such that $\sigma=\sigma_1\cup \sigma_2$, then $$N_{\sigma}(f)=N_{\sigma_1}(f)\cap N_{\sigma_2}(f).$$
The last property is very helpful when we want to use a fan decomposition.
\[CPLNew\] Let $v:\mathfrak{a} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a piecewise linear function along a finite fan decomposition $\sigma_0 = \cup_{i=1}^N \sigma_i$ where $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and the $\sigma_i$ are convex cones. For $1\leq i\leq N$, denote by $v_i$ the element of $\mathfrak{a}^*$ such that $v(x)= v_i(x)$ on $\sigma_i$. Then $$N_{\sigma}(v)=\bigcap_{i=1}^N (v_i+(-\sigma_i^{\vee})).$$
If furthermore $v$ is convex, then $N_{\sigma}(v)= \mathrm{Conv}\{v_i\}+(-\sigma^{\vee}).$
Newton set of convex functions
------------------------------
For this subsection only, we will allow convex functions to take the value $+\infty$. If $f$ is such a function we define its *domain* by $$\mathrm{dom}(f):=\{x \in \mathfrak{a} ; f(x)<\infty\}.$$ We impose however that all functions considered have a non empty domain. In the rest of the section, we always assume $\mathrm{dom}(f)=\mathfrak{a}$.
The first remark is that the Newton set of a function $f$ on the whole of $\mathfrak{a}$ is the domain of its *Legendre-Fenchel transform* (or convex conjugate) $f^*$ defined, for $m\in \mathfrak{a}^*$, by $$f^*(m):=\mathrm{sup}\{m(x)-f(x) ; x\in \mathfrak{a}\}.$$
Let $\sigma$ be a convex cone, and define the convex function $\delta_{\sigma}$ as the indicator function of $\sigma$, *i.e.* $\delta_{\sigma}(x)=0$ if $x\in \sigma$ and $\delta_{\sigma}(x)=\infty$ otherwise. Then it is not hard to check that $N_{\sigma}(f)=N_{\mathfrak{a}}(f+\delta_{\sigma})$. In other words $N_{\sigma}(f)$ is the domain of the convex conjugate of $f+\delta_{\sigma}$.
We will recall a classical result on convex functions, which allows to express the Newton set of a sum as the Minkowski sum of the Newton sets of the summands. First recall the definition of infimal convolution:
Let $f$ and $g$ be two convex function. The *infimal convolution* of $f$ and $g$ is the function $f\square g$ defined, for $x\in \mathfrak{a}$, by $$f\square g(x)=\mathrm{inf}\{f(x-y)+g(y); y\in \mathfrak{a}\}.$$
\[Rockafellar\] [@Roc97 Theorem 16.4] Let $f$ and $g$ be two convex functions on $\mathfrak{a}$, such that the relative interiors of the domains of $f$ and $g$ have a point in common. Then $$(f+g)^*(m)=f^*\square g^*.$$
Let $\sigma$ be a convex cone, and $f$ a convex function with $\mathrm{dom}(f)=\mathfrak{a}$, then $$N_{\sigma}(f)= N_{\mathfrak{a}}(f)+(-\sigma^{\vee}).$$
We have seen that $N_{\sigma}(f)$ is the domain of the convex conjugate of $f+\delta_{\sigma}$, but by Theorem \[Rockafellar\], this is also the domain of the function $f^*\square \delta_{\sigma}^*$. We can apply this theorem because the intersection of the domains of $f$ and $\delta_{\sigma}$ is $\sigma$.
The domain of an infimal convolution is the Minkowski sum of the domains of the two functions involved, so we just need to compute the domain of $\delta_{\sigma}^*$. By definition we check that this is $-\sigma^{\vee}$, and obtain the statement.
\[Newsum\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two convex functions, both with domain $\mathfrak{a}$, and $\sigma$ a convex cone. Then $N_{\sigma}(f+g)=N_{\sigma}(f)+N_{\sigma}(g)$.
We have, by the previous proposition, $$N_{\sigma}(f+g)= N_{\mathfrak{a}}(f+g)+(-\sigma^{\vee}),$$ and by the same proof, $$N_{\mathfrak{a}}(f+g)=N_{\mathfrak{a}}(f)+N_{\mathfrak{a}}(g),$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\sigma}(f+g) & = N_{\mathfrak{a}}(f)+N_{\mathfrak{a}}(g)+(-\sigma^{\vee}) \\
& = N_{\sigma}(f)+N_{\sigma}(g). \end{aligned}$$
Newton body of a metric
-----------------------
Let $X$ be a compactification of $G$, polarized by $L$. Let $h$ be a $K\times K$-invariant hermitian metric with non negative curvature on $L$, and $u$ its convex potential with respect to a fixed left-equivariant trivialization of $L$ on $G$, which is a function on $\mathfrak{a}$.
We will call *Newton body* of $h$ the set $N(h):=N_{\mathfrak{a}}(u)$.
Let $P$ be the polytope corresponding to the polarization $L$.
\[newBT\] Let $h_L$ be the metric constructed in Section \[BTmetric\]. Its convex potential $v$ is the support function of $2P$, so $N(h_L)=2P$, as in Example \[CPLNew\]. Remark that the convex potential of $h_L$ is piecewise linear with respect to the opposite of the fan of the toric subvariety.
The Newton body of $h$ is stable under the action of the Weyl group $W$.
Let $u$ be the convex potential of $h$, and let $m\in \mathfrak{a}^*$. Suppose that $$u(x)-m(x)\geq C$$ for some constant $C$ and for all $x\in \mathfrak{a}$. Let $w\in W$. By $W$-invariance of $u$, the inequality is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
C & \leq u(w\cdot x)-m(x)\\
& \leq u(w\cdot x)-w^{-1}\cdot m(w\cdot x).\end{aligned}$$
Since $w$ induces a bijection of $\mathfrak{a}$, we get that for all $w\in W$, $m\in N(h)$ if and only if $w\cdot m\in N(h)$, which means that $N(h)$ is $W$-invariant.
We can finally translate the information about the asymptotic behavior of metrics in terms of their Newton bodies.
Let $h$ be a $K\times K$-invariant hermitian metric with non negative curvature on $L$. Then $N(h)\subset 2P$. If in addition $h$ is locally bounded, then $N(h)=2P$.
Recall from Section \[BTmetric\] that the convex potential $u$ of a $K\times K$-invariant hermitian metric $h$ with non negative curvature on $L$ satisfies $$u \leq v+C_2$$ on $\mathfrak{a}$ for some constant $C_2$, and that if $h$ is locally bounded then we have in addition $$v+C_1\leq u$$ for some constant $C_1$.
Now the result easily follows from Proposition \[easyprop\] and Example \[newBT\].
Log canonical thresholds
========================
In this section, we reduce the computation of the log canonical threshold of a $K\times K$-invariant non-negatively curved metric to an integrability problem involving its convex potential, by using the $KAK$ integration formula. We prove an integrability criterion for exponentials of concave functions, with respect to the measure $J(x)dx$ appearing in the $KAK$ integration formula, and then use it to obtain an expression of the log canonical threshold in terms of the Newton body of the metric.
Log canonical thresholds on compact manifolds
---------------------------------------------
In this subsection we consider first $X$ a compact complex manifold that is not necessarily a group compactification, and $L$ a line bundle on $X$.
Let $x$ be a point in $X$, and $h$ a hermitian metric on $L$. The *complex singularity exponent* (or *local log canonical threshold*) of $h$ at $x$, which we denote by $\mathrm{lct}(h,x)$ is the supremum of all $c>0$ such that $e^{-c\varphi}$ is integrable with respect to Lebesgue measure in a neighborhood of $x$, where $\varphi$ is the potential of $h$ with respect to a trivialization $s$ of $L$ in a neighborhood of $x$.
If $h$ is a locally bounded metric then on a sufficiently small neighborhood of any point, the potential $\varphi$ is a bounded function, so it is integrable. It means that for any such metric, $\mathrm{lct}(h,x)=\infty$ at any point $x$.
Let $h$ be a hermitian metric on $L$, then the *log canonical threshold* of $h$ is defined as $$\mathrm{lct}(h)=\mathrm{inf}_{x\in X}(\mathrm{lct}(h,x)).$$
\[lctcompact\] Let $h$ be a singular hermitian metric on $L$, $h_0$ a locally bounded hermitian metric on $L$, and $\psi$ the potential of $h$ with respect to $h_0$. Let also $dV$ be any smooth volume form on $X$. Then we have $$\mathrm{lct}(h)=\mathrm{sup}\left\{ c>0;\int_Xe^{-c\psi}dV< \infty \right\}.$$
Let $x$ be any point in $X$, and $s$ a trivialization of $L$ on a neighborhood $U$ of $x$. Up to shrinking $U$, we can assume that the local potential $\varphi_0$ of $h_0$ with respect to $s$ is bounded.
Let $\varphi$ be the local potential of $h$ with respect to $s$ and $\psi$ the potential of $h$ with respect to $h_0$. Then by definition of $\psi$, we have $\psi=\varphi-\varphi_0$ on $U$, and since $\varphi_0$ is bounded, the integrability of $e^{-c\varphi}$ with respect to Lebesgue measure on a neighborhood of $x$ is equivalent to the integrability of $e^{-c\psi}$ on the same neighborhood.
Furthermore, in the neighborhood of any point $x$ in $X$, the integrability with respect to Lebesgue measure is equivalent to integrability with respect to a smooth volume form.
The function $\psi$ is defined everywhere on $X$, $e^{-c\psi}$ is positive, and $X$ is compact, so $e^{-c\psi}$ is integrable with respect to $dV$ in the neighborhood of any point in $X$ if and only if $\int_X e^{-c\psi}dV<\infty$.
Take $0<c<\mathrm{lct}(h)$, then $c<\mathrm{lct}(h,x)$ for all $x\in X$, so $\int_X e^{-c\psi}dV<\infty$. This means that $$\mathrm{lct}(h) \leq \mathrm{sup}\left\{ c>0;\int_Xe^{-c\psi}dV< \infty \right\}.$$
Conversely, if $c>\mathrm{lct}(h)$ then there exists $x\in X$ such that $c>\mathrm{lct}(h,x)$ but then $\int_X e^{-c\psi}dV=\infty$, so $c\geq \mathrm{sup}\left\{ c>0;\int_Xe^{-c\psi}dV< \infty \right\}$. Taking the infimum gives the other inequality: $$\mathrm{lct}(h) \geq \mathrm{sup}\left\{ c>0;\int_Xe^{-c\psi}dV< \infty \right\}.$$ This proves the proposition.
Log canonical thresholds on group compactifications
---------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a Fano compactification of $G$. Let $L$ be an ample linearized line bundle on $X$. Using Proposition \[lctcompact\], we reduce the computation of log canonical thresholds to integrability conditions on the potentials of metrics, with respect to a smooth volume form. Since volume forms do not put weight on the (codimension one) boundary $X\setminus G$, we will restrict to integrability conditions on $G$. We want to use, in addition, the $KAK$ integration formula, that we recall here :
[@Kna02 Proposition 5.28] Let $dg$ denote a Haar measure on $G$, and $dx$ the Lebesgue measure on $\mathfrak{a}$, normalized by the lattice of one parameter subgroups $N$. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any $K\times K$-invariant, $dg$-integrable function on $G$, $$\int_G f(g)dg= C\int_{\mathfrak{a}^+}J(x)f(\exp(x))dx,$$ where $$J(x)=\prod_{\alpha \in \Phi^+} \mathrm{sinh}(\alpha(x))^2.$$
Let us now derive an integrability criterion with respect to $J$.
Integrability criterion
-----------------------
### Integrability criterion on a cone
We use the following proposition, obtained by Guenancia in [@Gue12]. It is an analytic proof and generalization of the computation by Howald of the log canonical thresholds of monomial ideals. The statement given here is slightly different from the statement in [@Gue12], but is in fact equivalent (see [@Del14] for details).
[@Gue12 Proposition 1.9] \[Gue12\] Let $f$ be a convex function on $\mathfrak{a}$. Assume that $\sigma$ is a smooth polyhedral cone in $\mathfrak{a} = N\otimes \mathbb{R}$. Then $e^{-f}$ is integrable on a translate (equivalently on all translates) of $\sigma$ if and only if 0 is in the interior of the Newton body of $f$: $0\in \mathrm{Int}(N_{\sigma}(f))$.
### Integrability with respect to J
The half sum of the positive roots of $\Phi$ is denoted by $\rho$. We want to prove the following integrability criterion, with respect to the measure $J(x)dx$.
\[criterionJ\] Assume that $\mathfrak{a}^+=\bigcup_i \sigma_i$ where each $\sigma_i$ is a smooth polyhedral cone of full dimension $r$. Let $l$ be a function on $\mathfrak{a}$, convex on each cone $\sigma_i$. Then $$\int_{\mathfrak{a}^+}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx < +\infty$$ if and only if $4\rho \in \mathrm{Int}(N_{\mathfrak{a}^+}(l))$.
Let $\sigma$ be a smooth full dimensional polyhedral cone in $\mathfrak{a}^+$, $l$ be a convex function on $\mathfrak{a}$, then the following are equivalent:
- $\int_{\sigma}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx<\infty$;
- $\int_{\sigma}e^{-l(x)+4\rho(x)}dx<\infty$;
- $4\rho \in \mathrm{Int}(N_{\sigma}(l))$.
Writing $$\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha(x))=\frac{e^{\alpha(x)}-e^{-\alpha(x)}}{2}
=\frac{1}{2}e^{\alpha(x)}(1-e^{-2\alpha(x)}),$$ we get that $$J(x)=\frac{1}{2^{2\mathrm{Card}(\Phi^+)}}e^{2\sum_{\alpha \in \Phi^+}\alpha(x)}
\prod_{\alpha \in \Phi^+}(1-e^{-2\alpha(x)})^2.$$
For any $x\in \mathfrak{a}^+$ and $\alpha \in \Phi^+$, $\alpha(x)> 0$, so $0\leq e^{-2\alpha(x)}< 1$. This implies $0< \prod_{\alpha \in \Phi^+}(1-e^{-2\alpha(x)})^2 \leq 1$, so $$0< J(x) \leq \frac{1}{2^{2\mathrm{Card}(\Phi^+)}}e^{4\rho(x)}.$$
This first inequality allows to say that if $\int_{\sigma}e^{-l(x)+4\rho(x)}dx<\infty$ then $$\int_{\sigma}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx<\infty.$$
Let us now prove the converse. Choose $\gamma$ a point in the interior of $\sigma$. Assume that $e^{-l+4\rho}$ is not integrable on $\sigma$. Then by the usual integrability criterion (Proposition \[Gue12\]) $e^{-l+4\rho}$ is also non integrable on $\gamma+\sigma$.
But now, for $x\in \gamma + \mathfrak{a}^+$ and $\alpha\in \Phi^+$, we have $\alpha(x)\geq c=\mathrm{min}_{\beta\in \Phi^+}\beta(\gamma)>0$, so $0\leq e^{-2\alpha(x)}\leq e^{-2c}<1$, and this implies $$\left(\frac{1-e^{-2c}}{2}\right)^{2\mathrm{Card}(\Phi^+)}e^{4\rho(x)}\leq J(x)
\leq \frac{1}{2^{2\mathrm{Card}(\Phi^+)}}e^{4\rho(x)}.$$
This gives that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\sigma}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx & \geq \int_{\gamma + \sigma}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx \\
& \geq \int_{\gamma + \sigma}e^{-l + 4 \rho}dx \\
& \geq \infty.\end{aligned}$$
We have then shown the equivalence of the two first points in the lemma. By Proposition \[Gue12\] the second point is also equivalent to $$0\in \mathrm{Int}(N_{\sigma}(l-4\rho))=-4\rho+\mathrm{Int}(N_{\sigma}(l)).$$ Letting $4\rho$ go to the left, we conclude the proof.
Now we can prove the proposition, just by gluing the parts.
Just remark that since the function $e^{-l(x)}J(x)$ is positive and the cones are full dimensional, $\int_{\mathfrak{a}^+}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx < +\infty$ if and only if $\int_{\sigma_i}e^{-l(x)}J(x)dx < +\infty$ for all $i$.
For each of these integrals we can use the lemma, so the necessary and sufficient condition becomes $4\rho \in \mathrm{Int}(N_{\sigma_i}(l))$ for all $i$, or equivalently $4\rho \in \mathrm{Int}(\bigcap_i N_{\sigma_i}(l))$.
To conclude, observe that $N_{\mathfrak{a}^+}(l)=\bigcap_i N_{\sigma_i}(l)$ by Proposition \[easyprop\].
Log canonical thresholds in terms of Newton bodies
--------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a Fano compactification of $G$. Let $L$ be a linearized ample line bundle on $X$, whose associated polytope is $P$. Denote by $Q$ the polytope associated to the anticanonical bundle $-K_X$. Let also $H$ denote the convex hull of all images of $2\rho$ by the Weyl group $W$.
We want to prove the following.
\[exprlct\] Let $h$ be a $K\times K$-invariant hermitian metric with non negative curvature on $L$, then $$\mathrm{lct}(h)=\mathrm{sup}\{c>0; 2H+2cP \subset cN(h)+2Q\}.$$
We first introduce some notations.
Let us fix $s_0$ a left $G$-equivariant trivialization of $L$ on $G$ and $s_1$ a left $G$ equivariant trivialization of $-K_X$ on $G$.
Let $u$ be the convex potential of $h$ with respect to the section $s_0$. Let also $u_0$ be the support function of $P$ and $h_0$ be the corresponding metric. It has locally bounded potentials. Denote by $\psi$ the potential of $h$ with respect to $h_0$.
Since $X$ is Fano, we can choose $h_1$ a smooth metric on $-K_X$ with positive curvature, and let $u_1$ be its convex potential with respect to $s_1$. This choice determines a smooth volume form on $X$, which writes, on $G$, $$dV=e^{-u_1}dg$$ where $dg$ is the Haar measure $s_1^{-1}\wedge \overline{s_1^{-1}}$.
\[HinQ\] In particular, the integral of this volume form is finite, so applying the $KAK$ integration formula this means that $$\int_{\mathfrak{a}^+}e^{-u_1}Jdx<\infty.$$ By Proposition \[criterionJ\], this implies that $$4\rho \in \mathrm{Int}(N(h_1))=\mathrm{Int}(2Q).$$ Another way to say that is $H \subset \mathrm{Int}(Q)$.
Using Proposition \[lctcompact\], then restricting to the dense orbit, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{lct}(h) & = \mathrm{sup} \left\{ c>0; \int_Xe^{-c\psi}dV<\infty \right\} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \left\{c>0; \int_G e^{-c\psi}dV<\infty \right\}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi(\exp(x))=u(x)-u_0(x)$, we can now use the $KAK$ integration formula to write: $$\mathrm{lct}(h) = \mathrm{sup} \left\{c>0; \int_{\mathfrak{a}^+} e^{-c(u-u_0)}e^{-u_1}Jdx<\infty \right\}.$$
Then Proposition \[criterionJ\] gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{lct}(h) &
= \mathrm{sup} \left\{ c>0;
4\rho \in \mathrm{Int}(N_{\mathfrak{a}^+}(cu-cu_0+u_1)) \right\} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \{c>0; 4\rho \in N_{\mathfrak{a}^+}(cu-cu_0+u_1) \}. \end{aligned}$$
Let $\sigma_i$ be the cones of full dimension in the fan subdivision of $\mathfrak{a}^+$ corresponding to $X$ (induced by the fan subdivision of $\mathfrak{a}$ associated to the toric subvariety $Z$). Then $u_0$ is linear on each $-\sigma_i$. We write $u_0^i$ the corresponding element of $\mathfrak{a}^*$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{lct}(h)& = \mathrm{sup} \{c>0; \forall i,~ 4\rho \in N_{-\sigma_i}(cu-cu_0+u_1) \} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \{c>0; \forall i,~ 4\rho + cu_0^i \in N_{-\sigma_i}(cu+u_1) \}. \\
\intertext{Recall from Example~\ref{CPLNew} that
$P=N_{\mathfrak{a}}(u_0)\subset u_0^i+\sigma_i^{\vee}$, so that }
\mathrm{lct}(h)& = \mathrm{sup} \{c>0; \forall i,~ 4\rho + cP \in N_{-\sigma_i}(cu+u_1) \} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \{c>0; 4\rho+cP \in N_{\mathfrak{a}^+}(cu+u_1) \} \\
& = \mathrm{sup}\{c>0; 2H+2cP \subset N_{\mathfrak{a}}(cu+u_1)\} \end{aligned}$$ by $W$-invariance.
To conclude it remains to remark that both $u$ and $u_1$ are convex, so by Proposition \[Newsum\], $$N_{\mathfrak{a}}(cu+u_1)=cN_{\mathfrak{a}}(u)+N_{\mathfrak{a}}(u_1)=cN(h)+2Q.$$
Alpha invariants
================
We obtain in this section an expression for the $\alpha$-invariant of a polarized group compactification in terms of its polytope. We first give the result for general reductive group compactifications, then see how it simplifies when the group is semisimple. We then discuss some some examples and how some additional symmetries can be taken into account for reductive group compactifications.
General formula
---------------
Let $X$ be a compact complex manifold, $K$ a compact subgroup of the automorphisms group of $X$, and $L$ a $K$-linearized line bundle on $X$. The *alpha invariant* of $L$ relative to the group $K$, denoted by $\alpha_K(L)$ is the infimum of the log canonical thesholds of all $K$-invariant singular hermitian metrics on $L$ with non negative curvature.
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two convex bodies in $\mathfrak{a}^*$. Recall the definition of the *Minkowski difference*: $$Q\ominus P = \{x | x+P\subset Q\}.$$ Another expression of the Minkowski difference is the following, which shows that it is convex if $Q$ is convex: $$Q \ominus P = \bigcap_{p\in P} (-p+Q).$$ If $P_1$, $P_2$ and $Q$ are three convex bodies, then $P_1+Q\subset P_2$ if and only if $P_1\subset P_2\ominus Q$.
We can now state our main result.
\[alphared\] Let $(X,L)$ be a polarized compactification of $G$, and $P:=P(X,L)$. Assume furthermore that $X$ is Fano and let $Q:=P(X,-K_X)$. Then $$\alpha_{K\times K}(L)=\mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; c(P + (-P^W)) \subset Q \ominus H \},$$ where $P^W$ denotes the subset of $W$-invariant points of $P$.
Let $h$ be any $K\times K$-invariant metric on $L$ with non negative curvature. The Newton body of $h$ is convex and $W$-stable. In particular it contains a $W$-invariant point $p$, for example the barycenter of the orbit of any point in $N(h)$.
Denote by $h_p$ the $K\times K$-invariant metric on $L$ with non negative curvature whose convex potential is the function $x\mapsto p(x)$. Then $\{p\}=N(h_p) \subset N(h)$, so by the expression of the log canonical thresholds from Theorem \[exprlct\], $\mathrm{lct}(h)\geq \mathrm{lct}(h_p)$.
Since all such $h_p$ for $p\in 2P^W$ define a singular hermitian metric with non-negative curvature, this remark allows to write the alpha invariant as $$\alpha_{K\times K}(L)=\mathrm{inf}_{p\in 2P^W} \mathrm{lct}(h_p).$$
Now from the expression of the log canonical threshold we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{lct}(h_p) & = \mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; 2H+2cP \subset cN(h_p) + 2Q\} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; -cp+2cP \subset 2Q \ominus 2H \}.\end{aligned}$$
Then the expression of the alpha invariant further simplifies as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{K\times K}(L) & = \mathrm{inf}_{p\in 2P^W}
\mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; -cp+2cP \subset 2Q \ominus 2H \} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; \forall p\in 2P^W, -cp+2cP \subset 2Q \ominus 2H \} \\
& = \mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; 2cP + (-2cP^W) \subset 2Q \ominus 2H \}.\\
\intertext{Dividing by two yields}
& =\mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; c(P + (-P^W)) \subset Q \ominus H \}\end{aligned}$$ which is the expression in the statement of the Theorem.
In the toric case, we recover our previous computation [@Del14]: $$\alpha_{(\mathbb{S}^1)^n}(L)=\mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; c(P + (-P)) \subset Q \}.$$
Semisimple case
---------------
The alpha invariant of an ample line bundle on a Fano compactification of a semisimple group can be easily expressed in terms of the polytope associated to $L$ as an inradius between two convex bodies.
The *inradius* of $Q$ with respect to $P$ is the number: $$\mathrm{inr}(P,Q) := \mathrm{sup}\{c \geq 0| \exists x, ~ x+cP\subset Q\}.$$
\[alphassinr\] Assume that $G$ is a semisimple group. Then $$\alpha_{K\times K}(L)=\mathrm{inr}(P,Q\ominus H).$$
If $G$ is semisimple, we have $P^W=\{0\}$. In fact, the metric $h_0$ whose convex potential is the zero function satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{K\times K}(L) & = \mathrm{lct}(h_0) \\
& = \mathrm{sup}\{c>0; cP \subset Q\ominus H\}.\end{aligned}$$ And this is equal to the inradius $\mathrm{inr}(P,Q\ominus H)$.
Indeed, one inequality is trivial: $\mathrm{inr}(P,Q\ominus H)\geq \alpha_{K\times K}(L)$. Conversely, assume $c\leq \mathrm{inr}(P,Q\ominus H)$, i.e. there exists an $x\in \mathfrak{a}^*$ such that $$x+cP\subset Q \ominus H.$$ Then since $P$ and $Q\ominus H$ are stable under $W$-action, we also have $$\forall w\in W, ~ w\cdot x +cP\subset Q \ominus H.$$ Convexity and the fact that the barycenter of the $W$-orbit of $x$ is $0$ imply that $cP\subset Q \ominus H$, so $c\leq \alpha_{K\times K}(L)$. We have thus proved the other inequality $\mathrm{inr}(P,Q\ominus H)\leq \alpha_{K\times K}(L)$.
In the case of reductive groups, the alpha invariant is not an inradius, but we can bound it from above by an inradius: $$\alpha_{K\times K}(L) \leq \mathrm{inr}(P+(-P)^W,Q\ominus H).$$
Additional symmetries
---------------------
If the polytopes $P$ and $Q$ admit additional common symmetries, then the value of the alpha invariant can be improved. Indeed, the symmetries of $Q$ translate to a finite subgroup $O$ of the automorphisms group of the variety $X$, and if $P$ is stable under these symmetries, then it is linearized by $O$. We can thus consider the alpha invariant with respect to the bigger group generated by $K\times K$ and $O$, that we denote $K_O$.
We then have, adapting the proof of Theorem \[alphared\], $$\alpha_{K_O}(L)=\mathrm{sup} \{ c>0 ; c(P + (-P^{\left<W,O\right>})) \subset Q \ominus H \}.$$ In particular, if the only fixed point under $\left<W,O\right>$ is the origin, then just as in the semisimple case, we get $$\alpha_{K_O}(L)=\mathrm{inr}(P,Q\ominus H).$$
Examples
--------
Let us compute the $\alpha$ invariant of the anticanonical line bundle for some wonderful compactifications of semisimple groups. First remark that in this case we have $P=Q$ and can rewrite the expression of the invariant as : $$\alpha_{K\times K}(X,-K_X)=\mathrm{sup}\{c>0; H\subset (1-c)Q\},$$ or, by $W$-invariance, $$\alpha_{K\times K}(X,-K_X)=\mathrm{sup}\{c>0; 2\rho\in (1-c)Q^+\}.$$
It is interesting to notice that this quantity appeared in the determination of some volume asymptotics by Chambert-Loir and Tschinkel. If $\sigma$ denotes the quantity the authors compute in the examples of compactifications of semisimple groups [@CLT10 Section 5.3], we have $\sigma=1-\alpha_{K\times K}(X,-K_X)$ if the polytope considered is the anticanonical polytope of a Fano compactification. This is because their computation in this special case is equivalent to a computation of the log canonical threshold of a metric on the anticanonical line bundle with constant convex potential.
For wonderful compactifications of semisimple adjoint groups, the polytope of the anticanonical line bundle $Q$ is determined by the root system. Indeed, recall that it is the convex hull of the images by $W$ of the weight $2\rho + \sum_{i=1}^r \alpha_i$ where the $\alpha_i$ are the simple roots of $\Phi^+$.
In particular, when $G= (\mathrm{PSL}^2(\mathbb{C}))^n$, for any $n\geq 1$, the simple roots are the same as the positive roots, so $Q=2H$.
Let $X$ be the wonderful compactification of $(\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{C}))^n$, then $$\alpha_{K\times K}(-K_X)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
Applying Corollary \[alphassinr\] gives $$\alpha_{K\times K}(-K_X)=\mathrm{inr}(2H,H)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
More generally for type $A_n$, choosing an appropriate ordering of the simple roots $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$, we can write the positive roots as $$\alpha_i+\alpha_{i+1}+\cdots +\alpha_j$$ for each pair $(i,j)$ with $1\leq i \leq j \leq n$. We see then that the coefficient of $\alpha_k$ in the sum of positive roots $\sum_{l=1}^n \alpha_l$ is equal to the cardinal of the set $\{(i,j) ; 1\leq i \leq k \leq j\leq n\}$. This is $k(n-k+1)$. Adding the sum of simple roots, we see that the $k^{th}$-coordinate of the vertex defining the polytope of the wonderful compactification of $\mathrm{PSL}_{n+1}(\mathbb{C})$ in the basis of simple roots is $1+k(n-k+1)$.
Then from our result, the alpha invariant is easily seen to be the maximum of all $c>0$ such that for each $k$, $c(1+k(n-k+1))\leq 1$. We deduce the following value for the alpha invariant.
Let $X$ be the wonderful compactification of $\mathrm{PSL}_{n+1}(\mathbb{C})$, then $$\alpha_{K\times K}(-K_X)=
\frac{1}{1+\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil (\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor +1) }.$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Coulomb drag between parallel two-dimensional electronic layers is an excellent tool for the study of electron-electron interactions. In actual experiments, the layers display spatial charge density fluctuations due to imperfections such as external charged impurities. However, at present a systematic way of taking these inhomogeneities into account in drag calculations has been lacking, making the interpretation of experimental data problematic. On the other hand, there exists a highly successful and widely accepted formalism describing transport within single inhomogeneous layers known as effective medium theory. In this work, we generalize the standard effective medium theory to the case of Coulomb drag between two inhomogeneous sheets and demonstrate that inhomogeneity in the layers has a strong impact on drag transport. In the case of exciton condensation between the layers, we show that drag resistivity takes on a value determined by the amplitude of density fluctuation. Next we consider drag between graphene sheets, in which the existence of spatial charge density fluctuations is well-known. We show that these inhomogeneities play a crucial role in explaining existing experimental data. In particular, the temperature dependence of the experimentally observed peaks in drag resistivity can only be explained by taking the layer density fluctuations into account. We also propose a method of extracting information on the correlations between the inhomogeneities of the layers. The effective medium theory of Coulomb drag derived here is general and applies to all two-dimensional materials.'
author:
- 'Derek Y.H. Ho'
- Indra Yudhistira
- 'Ben Yu-Kuang Hu'
- Shaffique Adam
bibliography:
- 'MyLibrary.bib'
title: Theory of Coulomb Drag in Spatially Inhomogeneous Materials
---
I. INTRODUCTION
===============
The effects of electron-electron interactions in transport measurements are usually a small correction to predictions from models of non-interacting electrons. Coulomb drag is special because it is identically zero unless interactions are present [@narozhny_coulomb_2016], making it an ideal experimental probe of electron-electron interactions [@hu_electron-electron_1996]. A typical experiment measuring drag involves driving a current in one (active) layer and measuring the induced potential drop in a physically separated (passive) layer caused by the Coulomb force as shown in Fig. \[inhomg-drag\]. The corresponding induced electric field is then divided by the current density in the active layer to yield the drag resistivity. Studies of this effect now have a history of almost thirty years. The first experiments [@solomon_new_1989; @gramila_mutual_1991; @sivan_coupled_1992] were performed using double layer two-dimensional electronic gases (i.e. GaAlAs heterostructures), followed by a series of associated theoretical works [@jauho_coulomb_1993; @flensberg_coulomb_1994; @kamenev_coulomb_1995; @flensberg_linear-response_1995]. A subject of special interest in drag studies is the formation and detection of interlayer exciton condensates [@nandi_exciton_2012] which hold the potential for application in low power electronics (see Ref. [@banerjee_bilayer_2009] and references therein). Drag measurements are the standard method for detecting exciton condensation since it shows strong signatures in the drag resistivity [@mink_probing_2012; @efimkin_anomalous_2016].
Recent years have seen a sustained experimental effort to understand Coulomb drag in two dimensional materials such as graphene [@kim_coulomb_2011; @kim_coulomb_2012; @gorbachev_strong_2012; @titov_giant_2013] and its bilayer [@li_excitonic_2016; @lee_giant_2016; @li_negative_2016; @liu_quantum_2016] due to their high level of tunability and the ability to reach unprecedentedly small separations between the layers while still keeping them electrically isolated, both of which are favourable to the formation of exciton condensates. These two-dimensional layers however also come with a drawback. Due to their two-dimensional nature, they tend to possess charge density fluctations [@martin_observation_2008] that arise either due to external charged impurities [@adam_self-consistent_2007] or corrugations in the topography of the sheets [@gibertini_electron-hole_2012], as shown in Fig. \[inhomg-drag\]. As such inhomogeneity is known to play a role in the single layer carrier transport of two-dimensional materials [@adam_self-consistent_2007], it is natural to expect that they will also play a role in double layer drag transport. Up till now however, there has not been a method for systematically including the inhomogeneity of the layers in calculations of drag resistivity. The situation is very different when it comes to single layer resistivity, for which there exists a well-known formalism that successfully describes charge and heat transport in an inhomogeneous layer known as effective medium theory (EMT) [@landauer_electrical_1978; @stroud_effective_1998; @choy_effective_2016]. In this work, we close the gap by generalizing EMT for the first time to the case of Coulomb drag between two inhomogeneous sheets and demonstrate the importance of inhomogeneity in drag transport by applying the resulting formalism to two examples. First, we show that in the case of interlayer exciton condensation [@seamons_coulomb_2009; @nandi_exciton_2012], where a divergent drag resistivity is expected at zero temperature [@vignale_drag_1996], charge density fluctuations yield a finite value determined by the amplitude of spatial density fluctuations. Next, we apply the drag EMT formalism to drag between two inhomogeneous graphene sheets. The standard homogeneous theory predicts drag resistivity peaks that decrease as temperature increases, in contradiction with experiment by Gorbachev [*et al.*]{} [@gorbachev_strong_2012] where the opposite is seen. We show that upon inclusion of density inhomogeneity, the drag resistivity peaks increase with temperature within the range of experiment, thus resolving the contradiction. Gorbachev [*et al.*]{} also report measuring anomalously straight drag resistivity isolevels whereas standard homogeneous theory predicts curved ones. We demonstrate that these straight isolevels are in fact caused by the presence of charge density fluctuations. Lastly, there is an ongoing controversy surrounding the nature of correlations between the layers’ fluctuations. As we discuss in detail later, there exist arguments that they are correlated [@song_energy-driven_2012], anti-correlated [@gorbachev_strong_2012] or simply uncorrelated. We demonstrate using drag EMT that it is possible to deduce the nature of the correlations by measuring drag resistivity along different lines in the two-layer density parameter space.
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 3cm 0cm 2cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=9cm] {Fig1}
\end{array}$
The plan of this paper is as follows. Sec. II. presents the derivation of Coulomb drag EMT, of which several example applications will be given in the next two sections. Sec. III investigates excitonic drag in the presence of density fluctuations and Sec. IV studies the impact of these fluctuations on drag between graphene sheets. Sec. V concludes with a discussion of this work and the problems that may be pursued in future based on it.
II. Coulomb Drag Effective Medium Theory {#EMT-derivation}
========================================
We consider the standard drag setup – two parallel 2D sheets of identical size separated by some finite distance, with a current flowing through the active layer while the passive layer remains an open circuit. To model the presence of inhomogeneity, we assume that the active and passive layers are each made up of $N$ patches (commonly referred to as ‘puddles’) each with its own conductivity, $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}$ and $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}$ respectively, where $i=1, \cdots, N$. We assume that the puddles in both layers are circles of radius $a$, with the $i$th puddle of the active layer lying exactly atop the $i$th puddle of the passive, as in Fig. \[layers\]. Both puddles are assumed to be of equal area. This assumption is of general applicability because we are allowed to define as many circular patches and make them as small as we wish. We do not make any further assumptions about the nature of these puddles and our derivation is applicable regardless of whether the puddles are correlated, anti-correlated or uncorrelated.
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 3cm 0cm 3cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=9cm] {layers-diagram}
\end{array}$
Unlike the standard single layer case (see Appendix A), there are three effective conductivities to be determined. These are the effective in-plane conductivities of the active and passive layers, and the effective drag conductivity between the layers. We denote them by $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}, \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ and $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ respectively. Our final result is the set of equations (see Eqs. (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-mono\])) that are solved to yield the effective conductivities.
We summarize the steps of our derivation before delving into the details. First, we take an arbitrary $i$th pair of puddles, one from each layer, and embed each one inside its own homogeneous effective medium of conductivity $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ and $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ respectively as shown in Fig. \[layers\], where each effective medium has within it the uniform effective field (excluding the field caused by the puddle) denoted by $\vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{0}$ and $\vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{0}$ respectively and the drag conductivity between the two effective media is denoted $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$. Next, we determine the electric fields inside the puddles, $\vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}$ and $\vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}$. Finally, we substitute these into the EMT self-consistency equations, given by $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i} = \vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{0}, \label{EMT-act}$$ and $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i} = \vec{E}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{0} \label{EMT-pass}$$ where $f_{i}$ refers to the areal fraction of the $i$th patch relative to the whole layer to obtain Eqs. (\[sigmaEMT-drag\]), (\[sigmaEMT-active\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-passive\]). Taking the continuum limit, we obtain the final results of Eqs. (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-mono\]).
We now begin the detailed derivation. Our first task is to solve for the field inside the $i$th (where $i$ is arbitrary) puddle that has been embedded in the effective medium as described above. We assume that the puddles are regions of uniform 2D polarization in a direction parallel to the effective electric field of the layer. These polarizations are denoted by $\vec{M}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}= M^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}\vec{e}_x$ and $\vec{M}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}= M^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}\vec{e}_x$ for the active and passive layers respectively. In the active effective medium, we have $$U^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}(r,\theta) = -E^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{0}r \cos(\theta) + \frac{a^{2}}{2\epsilon_{0}} \frac{M^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}}{r}\cos(\theta) \label{UAE}$$ and $$\vec{E}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}(r,\theta) = E^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{0} \vec{e}_{x} + \frac{a^{2}}{2\epsilon_{0}} \frac{1}{r^{2}} \left[ 2 (\vec{M}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} \cdot \vec{e}_{r})\vec{e}_{r} - \vec{M}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} \right]. \label{EAE}$$ Note that we have chosen a radial coordinate system with its origin at the center of the two concentric circular puddles. Inside the $i$th puddle of the active effective medium, we guess that the field is simply proportional to the effective field $$U^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{i}(r,\theta) = -C^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} E^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{0} r \cos(\theta) \label{UAi}$$ and $$\vec{E}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{i}(r,\theta) = C^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} E^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{0} \vec{e}_{x}, \label{EAi}$$ where $C^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}$ is an unknown constant to be determined. The exact same considerations apply for the passive layer. That is, the previous four equations with all ‘$\mathrm{A}$’ superscripts replaced by ‘$\mathrm{P}$’s describe the passive layer.
We thus have a total of four unknowns, $M^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$, $M^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}$, $C^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$ and $C^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}$, the last two of which give us the fields within the $i$th puddle of each layer. We solve for these unknowns by making use of boundary conditions. First, the potentials must be continuous at the boundaries of the puddle in each layer. That is, $$U_{E}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} (r=a,\theta) = U_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} (r=a,\theta) \label{UcontA}$$ and $$U_{E}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} (r=a,\theta) = U_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} (r=a,\theta) \label{UcontP}$$ for all $\theta$, with the explicit forms of the potentials as given in the previous paragraph. Second, the radial current density must also be continuous at these boundaries. The current densities in the active and passive effective media $\vec{j}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$ and $\vec{j}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}$ are related to the electric fields $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$ and $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}$ by the matrix equation $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
\vec{j}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}\\
0 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}& \sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}\\
\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}& \sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}\end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c}
\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}\\
\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}\end{array} \right), \label{matrixrel1}$$ where $\vec{j}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}= 0$ because we consider the situation in which the passive layer is in an open-circuit configuration. Note that $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$ points in the direction of the driving current in the active layer. Within the puddles, we have the similar relation $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
\vec{j}_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}\\
0 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}& \sigma_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}\\
\sigma_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}& \sigma_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}\end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c}
\vec{E}_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}\\
\vec{E}_{i}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}\end{array} \right). \label{matrixrel2}$$ The electric fields $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$ and $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}$ are either parallel or anti-parallel on physical grounds, since the latter is caused by the former through the drag effect. We choose our axes so that both fields are along the $x$-axis. Explicitly, $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}= E_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}\vec{e}_x$ and $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}= E_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}\vec{e}_x$. Equations (\[matrixrel1\]) and (\[matrixrel2\]) together with the requirement of continuous radial current density yield $$\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} E_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}},r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} + \sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} E_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}},r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} = \sigma_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} E_{i,r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} + \sigma_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} E_{i,r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} \label{JcontA}$$ and $$\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} E_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}},r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} + \sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} E_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}},r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} = \sigma_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} E_{i,r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} + \sigma_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} E_{i,r}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}, \label{JcontP}$$ where the subscript $r$ denotes the radial component. Substituting the potentials and fields in Eqs. (\[UAE\]) to (\[EAi\]) and their counterparts for the passive layer into Eqs. (\[UcontA\]), (\[UcontP\]), (\[JcontA\]) and (\[JcontP\]) yields four equations for the four unknowns mentioned. Note that the $\theta$ dependence drops out of the problem, leaving behind only the magnitudes of the various vectors. We solve the simultaneous equations for $C^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}$ and $C^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}$ to find
$$C^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}= \left(1-\frac{2\left( \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}- \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i} \right)\frac{E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_0}{E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_0}
+ (\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})-((\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})^{2})}{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}} \right) \label{Cact}$$
and $$C^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}= \left(1-\frac{2\left( \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}- \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i} \right)\frac{E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_0}{E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_0}
+ (\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})-((\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})^{2})}{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}} \right). \label{Cpas}$$
We have thus solved for the electric fields within the $i$th pair of puddles. In order for these fields to be combined with the self-consistency equations in a useful manner however, we must first be able to write the electric field inside each puddle as a function of only its own layer’s effective medium field (i.e., instead of being a function of the effective medium fields of both layers). We achieve this by requiring that just given the two effective medium layers without puddles (i.e., Fig. \[layers\] with the puddles taken out), there will be no current flow in the passive layer. Physically, this means that $E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{0}$ and $E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{0}$ represent uniform fields that effectively model the spatially fluctuating fields in the two layers. The expression for this condition is given by $$\frac{E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{0}}{E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{0}} = - \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{ \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}. \label{zerojE}$$ Substituting Eqs. (\[Cact\]) and (\[Cpas\]) into Eqs. (\[EAi\]) and its passive layer counterpart respectively and making use of Eq. (\[zerojE\]), we obtain the intra-puddle field in the active (passive) layer as a function of only the active (passive) layer’s effective medium electric field. Explicitly, we obtain for the active layer puddle
$$E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}= \left(1-\frac{2\left( \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i} - \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\right)\frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}+(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})-
((\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})^{2})}
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}} \right) E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{0}$$
and $$E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}= \left(1-\frac{2\left( \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i} - \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\right)\frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}
+ (\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})-((\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})^{2})}{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})-(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i})^{2}} \right) E^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{0}$$ for the passive layer puddle.
Finally, we substitute these into the self-consistency equations (\[EMT-act\]) and (\[EMT-pass\]) and make the approximation of setting all terms quadratic in drag conductivities to zero since drag conductivities are typically much smaller than in-plane conductivities. This yields $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}
{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}} = 0. \label{sigmaEMT-active}$$ and $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{2\left( \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i} - \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\right)\frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}
}{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})} +
\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}} =0, \label{2terms}$$ where we have made use of the fact that $\sum_{i} f_{i} = 1$. Equation (\[sigmaEMT-active\]) is the well-known discrete single layer EMT equation applied to the active layer. Equation (\[2terms\]) is more complicated and comprises two terms summing to zero. Since the two unknowns $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ and $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ cannot be determined by this single equation, we require another condition. Since the drag conductivity is very small compared to the in-plane conductivity within either layer, we may obtain this condition by approximating that the interlayer interaction has a negligible effect on the passive layer conductivity. This then implies that the standard single layer EMT equation (cf. (\[sigmaEMT-active\]) ) applies to the passive layer, and the two terms of Eq. (\[2terms\]) must both be individually zero. Equating the first term to zero and solving for $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ yields $$\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}= \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\frac{\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{ \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})}} {\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{ \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i} }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})} } \label{sigmaEMT-drag},$$ while setting the second term to zero yields $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}} =0 \label{sigmaEMT-passive}.$$ The former is a newly derived discrete EMT drag equation while the latter is just the already-known discrete single layer EMT equation applied to the passive layer. Note that in the case of there being only two puddles in each layer (relevant only at double charge neutrality) so that $f_{i}= \frac{1}{2}$, $i={1,2}$, we recover the results of Ref. [@apalkov_effective_2005] which considered drag between inhomogeneous layers each consisting of only two areal components. Generalizing Eq. (\[sigmaEMT-drag\]) to the continuum limit, we obtain the EMT drag conductivity equation
$$\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}= \sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} \frac{\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dn_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}' \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dn_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}' P_{\mathrm{bi}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}') \cdot \left[ \frac{\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}') }{(\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}+\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}'))(\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}+\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}') )} \right] }{\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dn_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}' \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dn_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}' P_{\mathrm{bi}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}') \cdot \left[ \frac{ \sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}') }{(\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}+\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}'))(\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}+\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}') )}\right]},\label{sigmaEMT-drag-cont}$$
where $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}'$ and $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}'$ denote the charge densities in the active and passive layers and $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ is the effective medium theory averaged drag conductivity obtained by solving the equation. $P_{\mathrm{bi}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}')$ is the joint probability distribution of finding two points on the layers with one point lying directly above the other having charge densities $(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}')$. Doing the same for Eqs. (\[sigmaEMT-active\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-passive\]) yields $$\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} dn_{i}' P_{\mathrm{mono}}(n_{i}') \frac{\sigma_{i}(n_{i}') - \sigma_{i}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}}{\sigma_{i}(n_{i}') + \sigma_i^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}} = 0, \label{sigmaEMT-mono}$$ where $i= \mathrm{A}, \mathrm{P}$ denotes the layer index and $\sigma_{i}(n_{i}')$ is the homogeneous conductivity of layer $i$ at uniform density $n_{i}'$. $P_{\mathrm{mono}}(n_{i}')$ is the single layer probability density of finding a point on layer $i$ with charge density $n_{i}'$.
Equation (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) is the main result of this work and represents the first generalization of EMT to the drag problem. We emphasize that it is general and applies to drag between any two sheets of two-dimensional material. The drag resistivity is given by solving Eqs. (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-mono\]) for the three conductivities $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$, $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$, $\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ and inserting them into $$\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} = - \frac{\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}- (\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}})^{2}}. \label{rhoD}$$ The standard homogeneous theory [@flensberg_linear-response_1995; @kamenev_coulomb_1995; @narozhny_coulomb_2012] is recovered in the limit of $ n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})} \rightarrow 0$.
To perform actual calculations, one must choose specific probability distributions for $P_{\mathrm{mono}}$ and $P_{\mathrm{bi}}$. We choose for the former the usual monovariate Gaussian distribution, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathrm{mono}}(n_{i}') & \equiv & P_{\mathrm{mono}}(n_{i}';n_{i},n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(i)}) \\ \nonumber
& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(i)} } \exp\left(- \frac{(n_{i}'-n_{i})^{2}}{2 (n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(i)})^{2} } \right), \label{gaussian}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{i}$ without the prime superscript denotes the average charge density of layer $i$ set by the external gate voltage. $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(i)}$ is the root mean square density fluctuation about the average caused by charged impurities and quantifies the strength of inhomogeneity in the sample.
We model the double layer distribution using the bivariate normal probability distribution
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathrm{bi}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}') & \equiv & P_{\mathrm{bi}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}',n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}';n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}},n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}},\eta) \\ \nonumber
&=&\frac{1}{2\pi n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\mathrm{rms}} n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\mathrm{rms}} \sqrt{1-\eta^{2}}} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2(1-\eta^{2})} \left[ \frac{(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}' - n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}})^{2} }{(n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\mathrm{rms}})^{2}} + \frac{(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}' - n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})^{2} }{(n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\mathrm{rms}})^{2}} - \frac{2\eta(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}' - n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}})(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}' - n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})}{n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\mathrm{rms}}n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\mathrm{rms}}} \right] \right), \label{bivariate-norm-distrib}
\end{aligned}$$
where the interlayer correlation coefficient $\eta$ quantifies the charge density fluctuations between the two layers. A value of $\eta=1$ ($-1$) corresponds to perfectly correlated (anti-correlated) charge density fluctuations within the two layers, while a value of $\eta=0$ corresponds to uncorrelated fluctuations. Mathematically, $\eta$ is defined by $$\eta \equiv \frac{\langle (n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}' - n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}) (n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}' - n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})\rangle}{n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\mathrm{rms}}n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\mathrm{rms}}},$$ where the angular brackets refer to averaging over the areas of the two layers. Static charged impurities in the surroundings of two sheets held close together can lead to correlated fluctuations, whereas random strain in the sheets together with strong Coulomb coupling between them can lead to anti-correlated fluctuations. If the separation between layers is fairly large, the fluctuations will tend to be uncorrelated due to each sheet seeing a potential of different origin. All these scenarios may be modeled in Eq. (\[bivariate-norm-distrib\]) by choosing the value of $\eta$ accordingly. In an earlier version of this work, we claimed that Onsager reciprocity relation is violated for $\eta \neq 0$ but this has since been found to be due to a numerical error. We show in Appendix B a proof that Onsager reciprocity is obeyed in the drag EMT formalism.
Before moving on to applications, we discuss the physical conditions under which inhomogeneities strongly affect transport and the drag EMT must be applied. There are three energy scales that need to be considered. First, the temperature of the system $k_{B}T$ is important. Second, we introduce the typical layer Fermi energy ${E}_{F}(\bar{n})$ where $\bar{n} \equiv \sqrt{n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}}$ is the typical average layer density. Lastly, we define an inhomogeneity energy scale $E_{F}(n^{*})$ where $n^{*} \equiv \sqrt{n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}}$ is the typical root mean square fluctuation of density in the layers. Generally speaking, the impact of fluctuations (i.e. the amount by which drag changes after including density fluctuations) is strong when $$E_{F}^{*} \sim \mathrm{max}(\bar{E}_{F},k_{B}T) \label{EMT-impt}$$ is satisfied. The reason is as follows. The drag EMT essentially yields an average of the homogeneous $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ over a region of density space centered at average densities $(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})$ with an area on the order of $(n^{*})^{2}$, with the exact shape and orientation of the averaging region determined by $\eta$ and the relative magnitudes of $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$. Such a coarse-graining procedure makes a big difference when performed over regions in which the function being averaged possesses turning points. In the case of drag resistivity, these occur at the double neutrality point, and in the regions $|\bar{E}_{F}| \sim k_{B} T$ where the finite density drag peaks occur, and they will be inside the region of averaging when Eq. (\[EMT-impt\]) is true. Inhomogeneity is negligible if $E_{F}^{*} \ll \mathrm{max}(\bar{E}_{F},k_{B}T)$ because the averaging encompasses a region over which $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ does not change much. Lastly, if $E_{F}^{*} \gg \mathrm{max}(\bar{E}_{F},k_{B}T)$, then $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ will be approximately zero everwhere since the averaging window includes the high density regions where drag has already gone to zero for all intents and purposes.
III. IMPACT OF INHOMOGENEITY ON EXCITONIC DRAG
==============================================
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 3cm 0cm 3cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=9cm] {Fig2}
\end{array}$
Under the right conditions, electrons and holes in the two layers are expected to bind together forming stable bosonic excitons, which can condense into a superfluid exciton condensate (see for instance Refs. [@min_room-temperature_2008] and [@lozovik_condensation_2012]). In particular, the drag resistivity of an exciton condensate diverges as temperature approaches zero [@vignale_drag_1996] because the magnitude of drag conductivity approaches that of the single layer conductivity. We demonstrate that this divergence is suppressed in the presence of charge density inhomogeneity. We model the exciton condensate at zero temperature using the following phenomenological expressions for the various conductivities. The monolayer conductivity is given by $$\frac{\sigma_{i}}{\sigma_{0}} = A \left|\frac{n_{i}}{n_{0}} \right|^{\alpha} ,\label{sigma-mono-ex}$$ and the drag conductivity by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sigma_{D}}{\sigma_{0}} &=& -A \left(\frac{ \mathrm{min} (n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}) }{n_{0}}\right)^{\alpha} \left( \frac{1-\mathrm{sgn}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})}{2}\right) \\ \nonumber
&& + 10^{-2} \left| \frac{n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} }{n_{0}} \right|^{1/2} \left( \frac{1+\mathrm{sgn}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})}{2}\right).\label{sigmad-ex}\end{aligned}$$
In the above, $i= {A,P}$ is a layer index, and $\sigma_{0} = \frac{e^{2}}{h}$, $n_{0}=10^{10} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$. $A$ and $\alpha$ are phenomenological coefficients that can be given arbitrary values depending on the specific material under consideration. We note that the above expressions produce the correct behavior in various limits. When the passive layer is in open-circuit configuration and no current flows in it, they lead to equal electric fields in the two layers, as expected from Ref. [@vignale_drag_1996]. When the passive layer is short-circuited so that there is no electric field across it, they yield equal charge currents in the two layers.
In the absence of inhomogeneity (ie. $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})} =0$), it is clear from Eq. (\[rhoD\]) that a divergence in $\rho_{D}$ occurs at perfectly matched opposite densities $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} = -n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$. To investigate the effect of density fluctuations on exciton drag, we substitute the above conductivity expressions into the EMT equations (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-mono\]) and use the probability distributions in Eqs. (\[gaussian\]) and (\[bivariate-norm-distrib\]) with various values of $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})}$. As shown in Fig. \[exciton-div\], density fluctuations suppress the divergence in drag resistivity. Furthermore, the magnitude of drag at perfectly matched densities goes inversely as $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})}$ as shown in the inset. Here, we have used $A=5$, $\alpha=1$ and $\eta=0$ but our numerics suggest that these statements still apply for arbitrary values of $A$ and all positive powers $\alpha$. They also apply regardless of the value of correlation coefficient $\eta$. This finding demonstrates that sample inhomogeneity is important when using drag resistivity as a probe of exciton condensation and should be of great interest in the ongoing search for exciton condensation [@li_excitonic_2016; @liu_quantum_2016; @de_cumis_complete_2016].
IV. DRAG IN GRAPHENE SETUPS
===========================
In this section, we demonstrate that just as in single layer graphene transport, inhomogeneity plays an important role in graphene drag transport and it is necessary to take inhomogeneity into account in order to explain the experimental data in the literature. We begin with a brief review of drag calculation.
1. Review of Coulomb drag theory
--------------------------------
Coulomb drag has been studied theoretically in graphene monolayers in several works [@tse_theory_2007; @peres_coulomb_2011; @narozhny_coulomb_2012; @carrega_theory_2012; @amorim_coulomb_2012]. The drag conductivity $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})$ between two sheets at uniform densities $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}$ and $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$ respectively can be derived diagramatically [@flensberg_linear-response_1995; @kamenev_coulomb_1995] as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} (n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}) &=& \frac{1}{16 \pi k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T} \int \displaylimits_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d^{2}q}{(2\pi)^2} \int \displaylimits_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{\sinh^{2}(\frac{\hbar\omega}{2k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}}T})} \nonumber \\
&\times & \Gamma ^x _{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} \left(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}, \mathbf{q} ,\omega \right) \Gamma ^x _{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} \left(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}},\mathbf{q}, \omega \right) |V(d)|^{2}, \label{sigmaD}\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is temperature, and $d$ the interlayer spacer width. $V(d)$ is the dynamically screened interlayer Coulomb interaction [@ramezanali_finite-temperature_2009], and $\Gamma ^x$ refers to the $x$-component of the nonlinear susceptibility in monolayer graphene as given in Ref. [@narozhny_coulomb_2012]. In our calculations here, we choose parameters based on the experimental setup in Gorbachev [*et al.*]{} [@gorbachev_strong_2012] where both graphene sheets are encapsulated in hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) and separated by a hBN spacer. Further details on these quantities may be found in Appendix C. In all our calculations, we use the following parameters unless otherwise specified- the interlayer spacing is $d=9 \mathrm{nm}$, distance of the active (passive) layer from the charged impurity plane is $20\mathrm{nm}$ ($10\mathrm{nm}$) and the impurity concentration on the charged impurity plane is $n_{\mathrm{imp}} = 15 \times 10^{10} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$.
The in-plane conductivity of layer $i$ at uniform density $n_{i}$ is given by $$\sigma_{i}(n_{i}) = \frac{e^{2}v_{F}^{2}}{2} \int dE D(E) \tau_{i}(E) \left( -\frac{\partial f(E) }{\partial E} \right), \label{sigmamono}$$ where $i=A,P$, $D(E) = 2 |E| / (\pi \hbar^{2} v_{F}^{2})$ is the density of states and $f(E)$ the Fermi function, given by $f(E,\mu_{i}) = \left( \exp(\frac{E-\mu_{i}}{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T}) + 1 \right)^{-1} $ and $\tau_{i}(E)$ is the intralayer transport scattering time. The chemical potential $\mu_{i}$ is determined by $n_{i}$ and $T$ (see Appendix C). We assume that electron-charged impurity scattering is the dominant scattering mechanism and neglect all others. The previous two equations together with Eq. (\[rhoD\]) yield drag resistivity at any point in density space $(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}, n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})$, assuming completely homogeneous graphene sheets.
2. Temperature Dependence of drag resistivity peaks
---------------------------------------------------
Using the above expressions, we calculate drag resistivity along the line of oppositely matched densities $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} = -n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$ and show the results in Fig. \[T-dep-1\](a). At each temperature, the drag resistivity follows the standard density dependence. At charge neutrality, it is zero due to electron-hole symmetry. As we move away from charge neutrality, drag increases to a peak (henceforth referred to simply as the ‘drag peak’) and subsequently goes to zero at high density as screening between the layers effectively decouples them. However, a surprise occurs as we tune temperature. The drag peaks decrease as temperature increases, in direct contradiction with the experimental observations of Gorbachev [*et al*]{}. This puzzling contradiction appears to have gone unnoticed in the literature.
The resolution lies in including inhomogeneity in the calculation of drag using EMT. This is done by substituting Eqs. (\[sigmaD\]) and (\[sigmamono\]) into the EMT equations (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-mono\]) to obtain the effective conductivities $\sigma^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$, $\sigma^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ and $\sigma^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$, which are then substituted into Eq. (\[rhoD\]) to obtain the effective drag resistivity. We assume uncorrelated density fluctuations $\eta=0$ in Eq. (\[bivariate-norm-distrib\]) because interlayer correlations at finite densities away from the double neutrality point $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}=0$ are expected to be weak due to screening. The drag peaks thus obtained by EMT are smaller than their values assuming perfect homogeneity because EMT essentially averages $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ over some region in density space and this can only result in maxima decreasing in height. The drag peaks also follow a non-monotonic temperature dependence, increasing with temperature to a peak at some temperature set by the inhomogeneity strength, and decreasing thereafter. We choose inhomogeneity strength $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})} = (7,14) \times 10^{10} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ so that the highest peak occurs at $T=240K$ (i.e. the highest temperature studied in Gorbachev [*et al.*]{}) and show the results of our calculation in Fig. \[T-dep-1\](b). At high densities and temperatures such that $\hbar v_{F} \sqrt{\pi n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}}$ and $k_{B} T$ are much greater than $\hbar v_{F} \sqrt{\pi n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})}}$, the homogeneous and EMT drag calculations yield essentially the same values, as expected since the disorder energy scale is now the smallest energy scale of the problem. As a corollary of this, the decrease in drag peak at temperatures above $240K$ occurs because inhomogeneity becomes unimportant and the homogeneous behavior re-emerges. The decrease in drag peak above $240K$ is a concrete prediction of our theory that should be testable in existing experimental setups.
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6.5cm 0cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=8cm] {Fig3a} \\
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6.5cm 0cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=8cm] {Fig3b} \\
\end{array}$
The drag resistivities calculated in Fig. \[T-dep-1\] are smaller than those of the experiment, possibly due to enhancement mechanisms such as dielectric inhomogeneity [@badalyan_enhancement_2012] and virtual phonons [@amorim_coulomb_2012-1] which we have not included in our calculations. We defer a detailed study of these effects to a future work. For now, we take them into account phenomenologically by comparing our theoretically calculated drag resistivity with experiment at high density and temperature (where inhomogeneity plays a negligible role) and using the extracted discrepancy factor to scale up our calculated $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ values by hand. Comparing the experimental $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ at $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} = -n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} = 60 \times 10^{10} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ and $T=240K$ (i.e. the largest density and temperature in the data of Gorbachev [*et al.*]{}) with the corresponding $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ calculated using the homogeneous theory, we find a discrepancy of $3.96$. A similar discrepancy was also found by Gorbachev [*et al*]{}. We thus define a ‘dressed’ drag resistivity $\tilde{\rho}_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ as the calculated $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ multiplied by a factor of $3.96$. Comparing the dressed EMT drag resistivity peaks at various inhomogeneity strengths with experiment in Fig. \[T-dep-2\], we see that the curve for $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(A,P)} = (7,14) \times 10^{10} \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ agrees well with experiment. We choose a larger root mean square density fluctuation for one layer because in general one layer is expected to be nearer the impurity plane than the other. However, we note that our numerics do not show much difference when the individual layer root mean square fluctuations are changed so long as the total fluctuation $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(A)}+n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(P)}$ is unchanged.
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6.5cm 0cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=8cm] {Fig3c}
\end{array}$
3. Drag isolevels in the presence of inhomogeneity
--------------------------------------------------
We show in Figs. \[drag-contours\](a) and (b) our calculations of $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ as a function of $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}$ and $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$ using homogeneous theory and EMT respectively. The drag isolevels are strongly concave in the homogeneous case, whereas they are essentially straight in the presence of inhomogeneity. This is due to the fact that EMT basically does a form of averaging of the conductivities in density space. At high densities much greater than $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{({\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}},{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}})}$, the contour lines start becoming more concave since the influence of inhomogeneity becomes increasingly unimportant at high densities. These straight contour lines have also been observed in the experimental works of Ref. [@gorbachev_strong_2012] and [@kim_coulomb_2012].
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6.5cm 0cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=8cm] {Fig4a} \\
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6.5cm 0cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=8cm] {Fig4b}
\end{array}$
4. Drag resistivity with correlated inhomogeneities
---------------------------------------------------
Various proposals have been made concerning the existence of correlations in the density fluctuations of the active and passive layers. Gorbachev [*et al.*]{} argue for the existence of anti-correlated fluctuations in which each hole (electron) puddle lies predominantly above an electron (hole) puddle. This occurs if the density fluctuations arise from strain-induced corrugations in the graphene sheets [@gibertini_electron-hole_2012] and the sheets deform themselves so as to minimize the electrostatic potential energy. On the other hand, correlated fluctuations in which each hole (electron) puddle lies predominantly above another hole (electron) puddle have also been suggested [@song_energy-driven_2012]. This situation occurs if the fluctuations arise from charged impurities in the surrounding environment [@adam_self-consistent_2007] since the puddles in the two layers experience potentials arising from one and the same set of charges. Lastly, the density fluctuations tend toward being completely uncorrelated as the interlayer spacing becomes large.
We study the effect of all three possible types of correlation on $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ and compare with the homogeneous theory. Figs. \[drag-cuts\](a) to (d) show $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ for completely homogeneous samples and three different values of correlation coefficient $\eta$ respectively. Strictly speaking, $\eta$ changes as a function of density (and temperature) but we assume it to be constant since we are interested mainly in the qualitative effect of correlations that have more to do with the sign of $\eta$ rather than its exact value. With the exception of the double neutrality point (DNP), inhomogeneity always causes a decrease in magnitude of $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$, regardless of the nature of correlation. This is because drag EMT performs an averaging of the homogeneous $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ in density space, as mentioned at the end of Sec. II. This averaging can only lead to an increase in magnitude of $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ at minima of $| \rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} |$, and the only one such minima that occurs is located at the double neutrality point [@narozhny_coulomb_2012].
The presence of non-zero correlations also leads to a finite $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ at the double neutrality point, with correlation (anti-correlation) leading to a negative (positive) drag. This is to be expected since drag between sheets of the same (opposite) sign of charge density is negative (positive). Gorbachev [*et al.*]{} report measuring positive $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ at the double neutrality point in their experiment and that this positive drag always appeared in the regime of $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} \sim n_{\mathrm{rms}}$. There are two proposed explanations for this. Song and Levitov [@song_energy-driven_2012] have demonstrated that energy exchange between the two layers in the presence of correlated fluctuatons yields positive $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ due to thermoelectric effects and suggest that this might explain experiment. They refer to this effect as ‘energy drag’ and to the standard Coulomb force-mediated drag considered in this work (i.e. Eq. (\[sigmaD\])) and many others [@tse_theory_2007; @peres_coulomb_2011; @narozhny_coulomb_2012; @carrega_theory_2012; @amorim_coulomb_2012] as ‘momentum drag’. Song and Levitov ignore the negative contribution of correlated momentum drag at the DNP (cf. Fig. \[drag-cuts\](c)). On the other hand, Gorbachev [*et al.*]{} ignore energy drag and explain their experiment by considering only momentum drag at the DNP and arguing (without the use of drag EMT) that anti-correlated fluctuations arising from random strain in the graphene sheets give rise to positive drag (cf. Fig. \[drag-cuts\](d)). In the presence of nonzero correlations, momentum and energy drag compete at the DNP and a full analysis involving both must be performed in order to predict $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$. Such an analysis has not been performed and the exact origin of positive drag at the DNP remains an open problem. The drag EMT in this work does not include energy drag and is thus unable to make quantitative predictions of drag at the DNP. However, it might still be possible to shed some light on the nature of correlations between the two sheets away from the DNP, where $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} \gg n_{\mathrm{rms}}$ and energy drag is negligible. This is done by measuring $\rho_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ along the two lines $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}=\pm n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$ and comparing the magnitude of the drag peaks (i.e. the peaks at finite density away from DNP) along the two lines. As shown in Figs. \[drag-cuts\](c) and (d), drag EMT predicts that correlated (anti-correlated) fluctuations lead to drag peaks of larger magnitude along the $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}= n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$ ($n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}= -n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$) line than the $n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}= -n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$ ($n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}= n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}$) line. Fig. \[drag-cuts\](b) shows that uncorrelated fluctuations lead to peaks of equal magnitude along the two lines. This suggests a means of deducing the nature of correlations experimentally. We note that this should be done at low temperatures since inhomogeneity effects become weak at high temperatures.
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[trim=0.8cm 6.5cm 0.8cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=4.4cm] {Fig5a} &
\includegraphics[trim=0.8cm 6.5cm 0.8cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=4.4cm] {Fig5b} \\
\includegraphics[trim=0.8cm 6.5cm 0.8cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=4.4cm] {Fig5c} &
\includegraphics[trim=0.8cm 6.5cm 0.8cm 6.5cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=4.4cm] {Fig5d}
\end{array}$
V. DISCUSSION
=============
Coulomb drag is a favored probe for studying electron-electron interactions but a standard framework for studying drag in the presence of sample inhomogeneity has been absent till this work. We have generalized effective medium theory to include Coulomb drag, thus providing for the first time a systematic means of incorporating spatial density fluctuations into drag calculations. The importance of the formalism was demonstrated through several examples. Standard theory neglecting inhomogeneity suggests that an indirect exciton condensate possesses infinite drag resistivity at zero temperature [@vignale_drag_1996]. We showed that the presence of density fluctuations yields a finite drag resistivity with a value determined by the amplitude of the fluctuations. In the case of drag between graphene sheets, we demonstrated that inhomogeneity is crucial for explaining the experimental observations made in the Manchester experiment of Ref. [@gorbachev_strong_2012]. We showed that the rise of the drag resistivity peaks with temperature is a direct result of inhomogeneity and cannot be explained by the standard (homogeneous) theory. Our calculations also yield isodrag lines that bear a striking resemblance to those from the experiment. Lastly, there is an ongoing controversy concerning the sign of correlation between the density fluctuations of the two layers. We showed that this may be deduced from drag measurements along different lines in the $(n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}},n_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}})$ density space.
Several future avenues of research arise from this work. First, we have considered only the Coulomb-mediated momentum exchange between the layers and ignored interesting proposals of possible thermoelectric effects [@lung_thermoelectric_2011; @song_energy-driven_2012]. In principle, it is possible to formulate a generalized effective medium theory of drag incorporating thermoelectricity along the lines of Ref. [@webman_thermoelectric_1977]. Second, it would be of great interest to explore the effects of inhomogeneity in double layer graphene in the hydrodynamic regime and also in different drag setups such as bilayer graphene [@li_negative_2016; @lee_giant_2016], topological insulators [@efimkin_drag_2013], two-dimensional electron gases [@de_cumis_complete_2016] and hybrid graphene-two-dimensional gas setups [@gamucci_anomalous_2014]. Third, the present work may be generalized to obtain a magnetodrag EMT (i.e. an EMT for Coulomb drag in the presence of a magnetic field). Such a theory is at present still lacking in the literature and would be especially important because to date, successful observations of exciton condensation have typically involved non-zero magnetic fields [@nandi_exciton_2012; @li_excitonic_2016; @liu_quantum_2016]. Last, it would be interesting to implement the dielectric inhomogeneity [@badalyan_enhancement_2012] and virtual phonon [@amorim_coulomb_2012-1] enhancement mechanisms in theoretical calculations to obtain precise agreement with experiment. We have also assumed for the sake of simplicity that $\eta$ and $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(A,P)}$ are effectively constant as functions of density and temperature. This assumption does not affect the qualitative accuracy of the results but nonetheless has a quantitative effect. One possible way to remedy this is to use the rigorous theory presented in Ref. [@rodriguez-vega_ground_2014] for calculating $\eta$ and $n_{\mathrm{rms}}^{(A,P)}$ as a function of the system parameters. We leave these as problems for future work.
Acknowledgment
==============
We are grateful for very useful discussions with Cory Dean, Eugene Mele, Boris Narozhny, Justin Song, Marco Polini, Navneeth Ramakrishnan, and Giovanni Vignale. D.H. also thanks Lim Yu Chen for his work as part of a high school project in developing early versions of the Matlab codes used here. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore under its fellowship program (NRF-NRFF2012-01) and by the Singapore Ministry of Education and Yale-NUS College through Grant No. R-607-265-01312. BYKH acknowledges the Professional Development Leave granted by the University of Akron and the hospitality of the Center for Advanced 2D Materials at the National University of Singapore. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the use of the dedicated computational facilities at the Centre for Advanced 2D Materials and the invaluable assistance of Miguel Dias Costa in making use of these resources.
APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF SINGLE LAYER EMT
==========================================
For completeness, we also review the derivation of the monolayer EMT result, Eq. (\[sigmaEMT-mono\]). Useful reviews of monolayer EMT may be found in Consider a sheet of 2D material which is made up of a patchwork of $N$ areas (i.e. puddles) each with differing conductivities $\sigma_{i}$, where $i =1 , \cdots , N$. The areal fraction of the $i$th puddle is denoted by $f_{i}$ with $\sum_{i} f_{i} = 1$. We wish to calculate the effective conductivity of this sheet. We first imagine that each puddle is embedded in a homogeneous effective medium of conductivity $\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ and through which permeates a uniform electric field $\vec{E}_{0}$. Next, we work out the electric field $\vec{E}_{i}$ inside each puddle in the form $\vec{E}_{i} = ( \cdots ) \vec{E}_{0}$. Consider the $i$th puddle embedded in the effective medium as shown in Fig. \[single-layer-diagram\]. For simplicity, we assume that all puddles are circles of radius $a$. We find the electric field inside this puddle.
$
\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 3cm 0cm 3cm,clip=true,height=! ,width=9cm] {single-layer-diagram}
\end{array}$
The conductivity of the medium is $\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$ and it is permeated by a uniform field $\vec{E}_{0} = E_{0} \vec{e}_x$ corresponding to an external field that we will refer to as the primary field. We denote the field inside the puddle as $\vec{E}_{i}$ and the field outside as $\vec{E}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}$. We assume that the puddle possesses a uniform polarization $\vec{M}$ pointing in the same direction as the external field, so that $\vec{M} = M \vec{e}_x$. From electrostatics, such a circular puddle is associated with an electric field in the region outside it given by $$E_{s}(\vec{r}) = \frac{a^{2}}{2 \epsilon_{0} r^{2}} \left[ 2 ( \vec{M} \cdot \vec{e}_{r} ) \vec{e}_{r} - \vec{M} \right] \label{Es-field}$$ with a corresponding potential $$U_{s}(\vec{r}) = \frac{a^{2}}{2 \epsilon_{0}} \frac{M}{r} \cos(\theta).$$ Here, the subscript ‘s’ is short for ‘secondary’ and we placed the origin of our radial coordinate system at the center of the circular puddle. Hence, the total field outside ($r > a$) is, taking the $\vec{e}_{r}$ components, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{E,r} (r,\theta) &=& E_{0,r} + E_{s,r} \\ \nonumber
&=& E_{0} \cos(\theta) + \frac{a^{2}}{2 \epsilon_{0} r^{2}} M \cos(\theta)\end{aligned}$$ and the potential is $$U_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}(r,\theta) = - E_{0} r \cos(\theta) +\frac{a^{2}}{2\epsilon_{0}}\frac{M}{r} \cos(\theta).$$ Next, we consider the field inside the puddle. We guess that the field inside is proportional to the externally applied field $\vec{E}_{0}$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{E}_{i} &=& C \vec{E}_{0} \\ \nonumber
&=& C E_{0} \vec{e}_x \\ \nonumber
&=& C E_{0} \cos(\theta) \vec{e}_{r} \label{guess}\end{aligned}$$ with potential $$U_{i} (r,\theta) = - C E_{0} r \cos(\theta). \label{guess-pot}$$ We now use boundary conditions to solve for the unknown $C$, and obtain the desired field inside the puddle. The boundary conditions that must be obeyed at the boundary of the puddle are the continuity of potential, and continuity of radial current density. In equations, they are $$U_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}(a,\theta) = U_{i} (a,\theta)$$ and $$\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}E_{E,r} = \sigma_{i} E_{i,r}.$$ We can make use of these two boundary conditions to solve for the two unknowns $M$ and $C$. This yields $$C = \frac{2\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+ \sigma_{i}}$$ and $$M = 2 \epsilon_{0} E_{0} \left(\frac{2\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+ \sigma_{i}} -1 \right).$$ The fact that solutions for $C$ and $M$ exist validates our earlier guess in Eq. (\[guess\]), which we know is the unique physical solution due to the uniqueness theorem. We are not interested in $M$ here. Our objective was to find $\vec{E}_{i}$, which we have successfully done by determining $C$. Explicitly, we have found that $${E}_{i} = \left( \frac{2\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+ \sigma_{i}} \right) E_{0}, \label{E-in}$$ where $E_{i}$ is the magnitude of $\vec{E}_{i}$. We substitute the above into the EMT self-consistency condition $$\sum_{i=1}^{N} f_{i} \vec{E}_{i} = \vec{E}_{0}, \label{EMT-self-con}$$ and simplify to obtain $$\sum_{i=1}^{N} f_{i} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{i} - \sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}{\sigma_{i} + \sigma_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} = 0.$$ Generalizing to a continuum of puddles and denoting the continuous puddle label by $n$, one obtains Eq. (\[sigmaEMT-mono\]).
APPENDIX B: PROOF OF ONSAGER RECIPROCITY
========================================
In the context of drag, Onsager reciprocity [@casimir_onsagers_1945] predicts that there should be no difference in drag resistivity when the active and passive layers are switched. We prove that Onsager reciprocity is obeyed by the drag EMT derived in this work. Mathematically, proving Onsager reciprocity amounts to interchanging all ‘A’ and ‘P’ superscripts (denoted henceforth by ‘$\textsc{A} \leftrightarrow \textsc{P}$’) and showing that drag resistivity remains the same. Since it is clear that interchanging $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ and $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ in the drag resistivity expression Eq. (\[rhoD\]) makes no difference, our remaining task is to prove smilar invariance for $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$. We start by considering the discretized version of $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ in Eq. (\[sigmaEMT-drag\]), which may be rewritten as $$\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} = \frac{\mathrm{Numerator}}{\mathrm{Denominator}},$$ where $$\mathrm{Numerator} = \sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{ \sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}_{i} }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})}, \label{numerator}$$ and $$\mathrm{Denominator}=\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{ \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})}. \label{denominator}$$ The numerator Eq. (\[numerator\]) is invariant under $\textsc{A} \leftrightarrow \textsc{P}$ because of the invariance of the standard (homogeneous) drag conductivity, as seen from Eq. (\[sigmaD\]). To prove that the denominator is also invariant, we take the difference of the monolayer EMT equations (\[sigmaEMT-active\]) and (\[sigmaEMT-passive\]), $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})- (\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}-\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}) }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})} =0.$$ Simplifying and rearranging, we obtain $$\sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{ \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})} = \sum_{i} f_{i} \cdot \frac{ \frac{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i}}{\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}} }
{(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{i})(\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}+\sigma^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{i})}.$$ This proves that Eq. (\[denominator\]) is also invariant under $\textsc{A} \leftrightarrow \textsc{P}$. We have thus established that the discrete version of $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ obeys Onsager reciprocity. Taking the continuum limit, we conclude that the continuous version Eq. (\[sigmaEMT-drag-cont\]) does too and $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{E}}}}$ remains unchanged when the roles of the two layers are swapped. This completes the proof of Onsager reciprocity.
APPENDIX C: HOMOGENEOUS DRAG THEORY
===================================
1. Drag Conductivity Expressions
--------------------------------
The dynamically screened interlayer Coulomb interaction is given by $$V(q,\omega,d) = \frac{V_{12}(q,d)}{\epsilon_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} (q,\omega ,d) }$$ where the double-layer dielectric function $\epsilon_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ is given by
$$\epsilon_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}} (q,\omega ,d,T) = \left( 1 - V_{11}(q) \Pi_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}} (q,\omega,T) \right) \left( 1 - V_{22}(q) \Pi_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}(q,\omega,T) \right) - V_{12}(q)V_{21}(q)\Pi_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}(q, \omega, T) \Pi_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}} (q, \omega, T), \label{dielec-dbl}$$
with bare interlayer and intralayer Coulomb potentials $V_{12}(q,d) = V_{21}(q,d) = 2\pi e^{2}\exp(-qd) / \kappa q$ and $V_{11}(q)=V_{22}(q) = 2\pi e^{2} / \kappa q$ respectively, where $\kappa$ is the dielectric constant of the material encapsulating the graphene sheets and $d$ is the interlayer spacing. We assume $d=9 \mathrm{nm}$ in all our calculations here, corresponding to the sample measured in Fig 3(a) of Gorbachev [*et al*]{}. $\Pi_{i}$ is the dynamical polarizability of layer $i$ as given in Ref. [@ramezanali_finite-temperature_2009]. The physical meaning of the nonlinear susceptibility is that it is a response function relating the voltage felt across each layer with the current it induces within it [@narozhny_coulomb_2012] via $$\mathbf{i}(\omega) = \int d\mathbf{r}_{1} \int d\mathbf{r}_{2} \mathbf{\Gamma}(\omega,\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}) V(\mathbf{r}_{1}) V(\mathbf{r}_{2}).$$ The $x$-component of the nonlinear susceptibility of layer $i$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma ^x _{i} \left(n_{i}, \mathbf{q} ,\omega \right) &\equiv& \Gamma ^x_{i}(\omega, \mathbf{q}, \mu_{i} /k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}}T) \\ \nonumber
&=& \Gamma_{i}(\omega, q, \mu_{i} /k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}}T) \cos (\theta_{q}),\end{aligned}$$ where we convert charge density to chemical potential using the methods detailed in the next subsection. It is convenient at this stage to switch to dimensionless notation, $$\tilde{\omega} = \frac{\hbar \omega}{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T}, \hspace{2mm} \tilde{q} = \frac{\hbar v_{F} q}{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T}, \hspace{2mm} \tilde{\mu} = \frac{\mu}{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T}, \hspace{2mm} \tilde{E} = \frac{E}{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T}, \hspace{2mm} z=\frac{2\tilde{E}+\tilde{\omega}}{\tilde{q}}.$$ With this notation, we follow the approach detailed in Ref. [@narozhny_coulomb_2012] to obtain the expressions
$$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{i}(\omega, q, \frac{\mu_{i}}{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}}T}) &=& -\frac{4e}{\hbar v_{F}} \tilde{\Gamma}_{i} ( \tilde{\omega}, \tilde{q}, \tilde{\mu_{i}}), \nonumber \\
\tilde{\Gamma}_{i} ( \tilde{\omega}, \tilde{q}, \tilde{\mu}_{i}) &=& \frac{1}{4\pi} G(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q},\tilde{\mu_{i}}) \tilde{q}, \nonumber \\
G(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q},\tilde{\mu_{i}}) &=&
\begin{cases}
-\frac{1}{2} \int ^{1}_{0} dz I(z,\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega},\tilde{\mu_{i}}) \sqrt{\frac{1-z^{2}}{\frac{\tilde{\omega}^{2}}{\tilde{q}^{2}}-1 }} K_{i}(z,\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega}), & | \tilde{\omega}| > \tilde{q}, \\
\frac{1}{2} \int ^{\infty}_{1} dz I(z,\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega},\tilde{\mu}_{i}) \sqrt{\frac{z^{2}-1}{ 1-\frac{\tilde{\omega}^{2}}{\tilde{q}^{2}} }} K_{i}(z,\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega}), & | \tilde{\omega} | < \tilde{q},
\end{cases} \nonumber \\
I(z,\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega},\tilde{\mu}_{i}) &=& \tanh\left(\frac{z\tilde{q}-\tilde{\omega}-2\tilde{\mu}_{i}}{4}\right) - \tanh\left(\frac{z\tilde{q}+\tilde{\omega}-2\tilde{\mu}_{i}}{4}\right) + \tanh \left(\frac{z\tilde{q}+\tilde{\omega}+2\tilde{\mu}_{i}}{4}\right)-\tanh\left(\frac{z\tilde{q}-\tilde{\omega}+2\tilde{\mu}_{i}}{4}\right), \nonumber \\
K_{i}(z,\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega}) &=& \tilde{\tau}_{i} \left(\frac{z\tilde{q}-\tilde{\omega}}{2}\right) \frac{z\tilde{\omega}-\tilde{q}}{z\tilde{q}-\tilde{\omega}} - \tilde{\tau}_{i}\left(\frac{-z\tilde{q}-\tilde{\omega}}{2}\right)\frac{z\tilde{\omega}+\tilde{q}}{z\tilde{q}+\tilde{\omega}}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{\tau}_{i}(\tilde{E}) &=& \frac{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T \tau_{i}(E)}{\hbar}. \label{NLS}\end{aligned}$$
where $\tau_{i}$ is the transport scattering time of layer $i$. Note however that the dimensionless frequency and momenta defined in this work differ from that in Ref. [@narozhny_coulomb_2012] by a factor of $1/2$. In this paper we assume that electron-charged impurity scattering dominates over all other scattering mechanisms. In this case, $\tau_{i}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_{i}(E)} &=& \frac{4\pi n_\mathrm{imp}^{(i)}}{\hbar} \int \frac{d^{2}k'}{(2\pi)^{2}} \left| \frac{V_\mathrm{imp}(q,d_{\mathrm{imp}}^{(i)})}{\epsilon_{s}(q)} \right|^{2} \times \\ \nonumber
&& \frac{1-\cos^{2}(\theta_{\mathbf{k,k'}})}{4} \delta (E_{k} -E_{k'}), \label{tau-imp}\end{aligned}$$ where $q = |\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}'|$ and $\theta_{\mathbf{k,k'}}$ is the angle between the initial and final wave vectors $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{k'}$ in a scattering event. $n_\mathrm{imp}^{(i)}$ is the areal concentration of charged impurities in an impurity plane located at a distance $d_{\mathrm{imp}}^{(i)}$ away from the graphene sheet. $V_\mathrm{imp} (q) = 2 \pi e^{2} / (\kappa q) \exp(- q d_\mathrm{imp}^{(i)}) $ where $d_\mathrm{imp}^{(i)}$ is the distance between the graphene sheet and the charged impurities which are assumed to lie in a single plane. In our calculations, we assume that both layers see one and the same impurity plane so that $n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}_{\mathrm{imp}} = n^{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}_{\mathrm{imp}} \equiv n_\mathrm{imp}$. In the experiment of Gorbachev [*et al.*]{}, the impurity plane is expected to be near the $\mathrm{SiO_{2}}$ wafer on which the drag heterostructure rests. Hence, we assume $d_{\mathrm{imp}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{P}}}}=10 \mathrm{nm}$ and $d_{\mathrm{imp}}^{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{A}}}}=20 \mathrm{nm}$ corresponding to the fact that the passive layer lies nearer the $\mathrm{SiO_{2}}$ wafer in Gorbachev [*et al.*]{}
The single layer dielectric function $\epsilon_{s}$ is given by $$\epsilon_{s}(q) = 1 - \Pi(q,T) V_{11}(q), \label{dielec-sgl}$$ where $\Pi(q,T)$ is the static polarizability of graphene. As pointed out in Ref. [@narozhny_coulomb_2012], the nonlinear susceptibility contains a logarithmic divergence along the line $\tilde{q} = \tilde{\omega}$ so long as $\tau$ has an $E$-dependence. In this work, we prevent $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ from diverging in calculations by using the dynamical polarizability of Ref. [@ramezanali_finite-temperature_2009] in the dielectric function. This introduces a divergence in the denominator of $\sigma_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{D}}}}$ which cancels that in the numerator, leaving behind a finite and well-defined quantity. We shall assume the value of the graphene ‘fine structure constant’ is $r_\mathrm{s} = 0.568 $, corresponding to an estimated value of $\kappa =3.5$ for hexagonal boron nitride. The above expressions constitute all the ingredients one needs to calculate the drag homogeneous conductivity.
2. Relation between Charge Density and Chemical Potential
---------------------------------------------------------
Here we review the one-to-one correspondence between charge density and chemical potential given a fixed temperature. The charge density is defined as $n= n_{e} - n_{h}$ where $n_{e}$ and $n_{h}$ refer to the electron and hole densities respectively. These densities are obtained from the chemical potential $\mu$ and temperature $T$ via $$n_{e,h}=-\frac{2}{\pi}\left(\frac{k_{B}T}{\hbar v_{F}}\right)^{2}\mathrm{Li}_{2}\left[-\exp\left(\pm\frac{\mu}{k_{B}T}\right)\right], \label{neh}$$ where $\mathrm{Li}_{2}$ refers to the dilogarithm function. This equation allows us to find the charge density given the chemical potential and temperature.
We can also find the chemical potential given the charge density and temperature. This is done by noting that $E_{F} =\hbar v_{F} \sqrt{\pi |n|} \hspace{0.5mm} \mathrm{sign}(n)$ and using the relation $$\frac{\mu}{E_{F}} = F_{\mu} \left( \frac{k_{{\textnormal{\tiny \textsc{B}}}} T}{|E_{F}|} \right), \label{Fmu}$$ where $$F_{\mu} (x) = \bar{g} (x) \left( 1 - \frac{\pi^{2} x^{2}}{6} \right) + g(x) / \left[ 4\log(2) x \right],$$ with $g(x) = (1+ \mathrm{Erf}[10(x-0.5)] )/2 $ and $\bar{g} (x) = \mathrm{Erfc}[10(x-0.5)]/2 $. Eqs (\[neh\]) and (\[Fmu\]) allow one to trivially convert a function of charge density to a function of chemical potential and vice versa.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The symmetric dynamics of two kinks and one antikink in classical (1+1)-dimensional $\phi^4$ theory is investigated. Gradient flow is used to construct a collective coordinate model of the system. The relationship between the discrete vibrational mode of a single kink, and the process of kink-antikink pair production is explored.'
author:
- |
N. S. Manton[^1] and H. Merabet[^2]\
[*Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge*]{}\
[*Cambridge CB3 9EW, United Kingdom*]{}
date: May 1996
title: |
-1.5cm\
$\phi^4$ Kinks - Gradient Flow and Dynamics
---
2000 = 2000 16.8cm -.4cm -.9cm plus 0.2pt minus 0.1pt = 6pt plus 2pt minus 1pt
PACS number : 11.10.Lm
Introduction
============
One of the more challenging problems in non-integrable soliton dynamics is to find a collective coordinate model of the dynamics. In some theories there is a moduli space of exact multi-soliton static solutions, and the soliton dynamics at low energy is modelled by geodesic motion on the moduli space [@Manton82; @Stuart95]. In others there is a nearby theory with exact static solutions and a moduli space, and the soliton dynamics is modelled by geodesic motion on the moduli space perturbed by small forces [@Shah94; @Stuart94]. In exactly integrable models, like the sine-Gordon model, one can exactly compute what happens in a multi-soliton or multi-soliton-antisoliton process. There is no energy loss to radiation in these processes, and solitons do not annihilate antisolitons in a collision. However, the problem of interest here involves soliton-antisoliton annihilation. There is no moduli space of static solutions available; neither is it close to being exactly integrable.
A method of dealing with solitons, or solitons and antisolitons, which exert forces on each other, is constrained minimization [@Jac/Reb79]. One introduces collective coordinates by hand, say the positions of the solitons and antisolitons, and then seeks the field configuration of minimal potential energy for given positions. The reduced model for the soliton dynamics is partly defined by this (minimal) potential energy as a function of the collective coordinates. There are various disadvantages of this procedure. Firstly, it is rather [*ad hoc*]{}, because there are many possible definitions of the collective coordinates. When solitons are close together, their positions are not uniquely defined. Different definitions will lead to different reduced models. Secondly, the kinetic energy is not well-defined. It is tempting to use the naive kinetic energy expression, based on the soliton masses and the collective coordinate velocities, but this is again quite misleading when the solitons are close together. We have learnt from examples like BPS monopoles, where there is a moduli space of exact static solutions, that the kinetic energy is determined by the geometry of the moduli space, and it could not easily be determined if one had a rigid [*a priori*]{} view of what the collective coordinates of the monopoles were.
The method we use here, advocated in [@Manton88] and previously developed in the context of instanton-antiinstanton physics in [@Bal/Yun86], exploits the gradient flow equations associated with the field theory of interest. The detailed procedure is explained below. Here let us point out that gradient flow represents a dissipative dynamics of fields, and hence of solitons and antisolitons. But this gradient flow is only used as an auxillary tool to construct a non-dissipative reduced dynamical system, with its own Lagrangian. The gradient flow curves are chosen to map out a finite dimensional manifold of field configurations, and the reduced Lagrangian is simply the field theory Lagrangian restricted to this manifold. A natural choice for the gradient flow curves is the union of all those that descend from a particular unstable, static solution of the field equations. This defines the unstable manifold of the solution. Alternatively, for solitons that attract each other, one can define the unstable manifold as the union of all the gradient flow curves which descend from configurations of very well separated solitons.
The unstable manifold acquires a metric and potential from the field configuration space of which it is a submanifold. These define a Lagrangian for dynamical motion on the unstable manifold, leading to an Euler-Lagrange equation of the form (\[natEL\]) below. This reduced dynamical system is the collective coordinate model for the soliton dynamics. Any set of coordinates on the unstable manifold can be regarded as collective coordinates for the solitons, although there may be a preferred choice if the solitons are well-separated. A solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation on the unstable manifold is not, in general, identical with any solution of the original field equations, but it may provide an approximation.
The reduced system should be particularly useful if the potential energy function does not vary much over the unstable manifold, that is, if the static forces between solitons are weak (but nonvanishing), so large kinetic energies are not generated. The unstable manifold is then an almost flat valley in the field configuration landscape, and the motion on it at modest speeds is expected to be a good approximation to the true field dynamics. This is because motion orthogonal to the valley, i.e. radiation, is not readily generated. However, this has not really been demonstrated analytically, nor tested numerically. In the example to be considered here, the potential energy varies substantially, but we shall show that the reduced dynamics is still useful.
The gradient flow in field theories with solitons has been investigated in detail in some cases. Demoulini and Stuart have studied the gradient flow in the two-dimensional abelian Higgs model [@Dem/Stu96], whose solitons are magnetic flux vortices, proving the global existence of gradient flow curves, and obtaining some insight into the unstable manifolds. For $N$ type II vortices, which repel, the unstable manifold of the static axisymmetric solution representing $N$ coincident vortices is particularly interesting. The reduced dynamics on this manifold should be a good model for $N$-vortex motion, but this has not been investigated. Waindzoch and Wambach have studied the gradient flow in the two-Skyrmion sector of Skyrme’s soliton model of nucleons [@Wai/Wam95], the geometry of which was discussed in [@Ati/Man93], and have numerically (partially) constructed an unstable manifold which should model the two-Skyrmion dynamics. Also, there has been a detailed study of the gradient flow equation in $\phi^4$ theory with $\phi$ defined on a finite spatial interval [@H/M/O/83]. It has been shown that the unstable manifold of the simplest unstable solution on the interval, namely $\phi =0$, completed with the unstable manifolds of lower energy solutions, is a global attractor for the gradient flow. However, there has been no comparison made between the solutions of the $\phi^4$ theory field equation and the dynamical motion on the unstable manifold. This example of $\phi^4$ theory on an interval shows that an unstable manifold can have a non-smooth boundary (see Fig. 8.5 in ref. [@H/M/O/83]). For an unstable manifold to be useful for modelling multi-soliton dynamics, and especially quantized soliton dynamics, it is important that the manifold has no boundary at all. The vortex and Skyrmion examples appear to satisfy this requirement. Mathematically, it is not at all clear in what circumstances an infinite-dimensional gradient flow system has a smooth, finite-dimensional global attractor without boundary.
Here we apply the gradient flow method to a particular case of kink-antikink dynamics in $\phi^4$ theory defined on an infinite line. The reduced system is one-dimensional and describes a process by which the kink and antikink annihilate, exciting a particular mode of the field. In the reduced system, this process then reverses and the kink-antikink pair is recreated. Since we are interested in how the kink and antikink annihilate into radiation, we perform a further analysis of how the reduced system couples to the radiation modes, and estimate the rate at which the energy of the reduced system is transfered to radiation. Fortunately, this rate is relatively slow, and we find a good agreement between the complete field dynamics and the dynamics of the reduced system coupled weakly to radiation.
$\phi^4$ Theory
===============
The model we consider is $\phi^4$ theory on a line. This model is a nonlinear, Lorentz invariant, scalar field theory which is not integrable [@Rajaraman82]. The field $\phi(x,t)$ has kinetic energy $$\label{kinetic}
T = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {1 \over 2} \dot\phi^2 \ dx$$ and potential energy $$\label{potential}
V = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} ({1\over 2} \phi'^2 + {1\over 2} (\phi^2 -
1)^2) \ dx \ .$$ The Lagrangian is $L=T-V$, and this leads to the field equation $$\label{full-eq}
\ddot\phi - \phi '' + 2\phi \ (\phi^2 -1) = 0.$$ There are two vacua, $\phi = \pm 1$. There are also two types of solitons, called kinks and antikinks. A kink interpolates between $-1$ and $1$ as $x$ increases, and an antikink does the reverse. Eq.(\[full-eq\]) has static solutions $$\label{kink}
\phi_K (x-a) = \tanh (x-a)
\hspace{0.3cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.3cm}
\phi_{\bar K} (x-b) = -\tanh (x-b),$$ where $\phi_K$ and $\phi_{\bar K}$ are the kink and the antikink respectively. They have potential energy (rest mass) ${4\over 3}$. The parameter $a$ ($b$) denotes the centre of the kink (antikink). These solutions can be Lorentz boosted to an arbitrary speed $v < c$ (where the speed of light $c=1$ in our units). There are non-static field configurations with several kinks and antikinks, but kinks and antikinks must alternate along the line. A neighbouring kink and antikink can annihilate into oscillations of the field $\phi$ – interpreted as radiation. Also, in suitable circumstances, a kink-antikink pair can be produced.
There has been a substantial investigation of kink-antikink dynamics (see, e.g. ref.[@C/S/W/83]). If a kink and antikink approach from infinity, starting with any speed much less than the speed of light, they will annihilate into radiation. In higher speed collisions, what happens depends sensitively on the speed.
We have investigated a different process, which appears to be better suited to a collective coordinate analysis. This is the symmetric motion of a configuration of two kinks and an antikink, which we denote $K\bar{K}K$. We consider fields which possess the reflection symmetry $$\label{symmetry}
\phi (x) = - \phi (-x)$$ at all times, and for which $\phi \rightarrow 1$ as $x \rightarrow \infty$. This allows, among other things, for there to be kinks centred at $\pm a$, and an antikink at the origin. A field of this type can evolve into a single kink plus radiation, but the radiation is not emitted very rapidly, as we shall show. In the case of pure $K\bar{K}$ annihilation, all the energy goes into radiation [^3]
An interesting and important feature of $\phi^4$ kink dynamics is that a single kink has a normalizable discrete vibrational mode. The discrete mode deforms a static kink at the origin to the form $$\label{breather}
\phi (x) = \phi_K (x) + A \ \eta_D (x)
\hspace{0.3cm} \mbox{with} \hspace{0.3cm}
\eta_D (x) = {\sinh (x) \over \cosh^2(x)} \ ,$$ where, in the linearized approximation, the amplitude $A$ oscillates with frequency $\omega_0 = \sqrt{3}$. In comparison, the continuum radiation modes have frequencies $\omega > 2$. Fields of the form (\[breather\]) have the reflection symmetry (\[symmetry\]). When $A \simeq -2$, the field (\[breather\]) looks rather like a $K\bar{K}K$ configuration with the kinks close together. In fact it is possible to smoothly interpolate between a $K\bar{K}K$ configuration with the kinks well-separated, and a single kink, via fields of the approximate form (\[breather\]).
Gradient Flow
=============
We recall that a natural (finite-dimensional) Lagrangian system on a configuration space $\cal{C}$ has a Lagrangian of the form [@Arnold78] $$\label{natLag}
L({\dot {\bf{y}}},{\bf{y}}) =
T({\dot {\bf{y}}},{\bf{y}}) -
V({\bf{y}}) \ ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{where} \hspace{0.5cm}
T({\dot {\bf{y}}},{\bf{y}}) =
{1\over 2} g_{ij}({\bf{y}})
\dot{y}^i \dot{y}^j \ .$$ Here, $y^i$ are arbitrary coordinates on $\cal{C}$, and $g_{ij}({\bf{y}})$ can be interpreted as a Riemannian metric on $\cal{C}$. The Euler-Lagrange equation is $$\label{natEL}
\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d}t} (g_{ij} \dot{y}^j)
- {1\over 2} \frac{\partial g_{jk}}{\partial y^i}
\dot{y}^j \dot{y}^k = - \frac{\partial V}{\partial y^i}$$ whereas the gradient flow equation is $$\label{natgradflow}
g_{ij} \dot{y}^j =
- \frac{\partial V}{\partial y^i} \ .$$ The gradient flow is orthogonal to the contours of the potential $V$ – the notion of orthogonality requires a metric – and in the direction of decreasing $V$. If ${\bf y}_0$ is a saddle point of $V$, then the unstable manifold of ${\bf y}_0$ is defined as the union of all the gradient flow curves that descend from ${\bf y}_0$. If the configuration space is Euclidean, and $y^i$ are Cartesian coordinates, then the gradient flow equation is obtained from the Euler-Lagrange equation by replacing second time derivatives by first time derivatives.
$\phi^4$ field theory can be thought of as an infinite-dimensional Lagrangian system whose configuration space $\cal{C}$ is the space of fields $\{ \phi(x) \} $ at a given time. The simple form of the kinetic energy expression (\[kinetic\]) implies that $\cal{C}$ is Euclidean, with the Riemannian distance between fields $\phi(x)$ and $\phi(x) +
\delta\phi(x)$ being the square root of $$\label{Riem}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (\delta\phi(x))^2 \ dx \ .$$ The gradient flow equation is therefore obtained from eq.(\[full-eq\]) simply by replacing $\ddot{\phi}$ by $\dot{\phi}$, giving $$\label{flow-eq}
\dot{\phi} = \phi'' - 2\phi \ (\phi^2 -1).$$ Here, we solve this gradient flow equation to construct a collective coordinate model for the $K\bar{K}K$ system, with the imposed reflection symmetry (\[symmetry\]). Because of this symmetry, the $K\bar{K}K$ system is modelled by a one-dimensional unstable manifold. It consists of the field configurations $\phi(x)$, parametrized by $-\infty < t < \infty$, occurring in the solution of the gradient flow equation (\[flow-eq\]) which descends from a $K\bar{K}K$ configuration, with kinks at $\pm \infty$ and an antikink at the origin, to a single kink at the origin. This solution approaches the single kink tangent to its discrete mode. The collective coordinate can be identified either with the separation of the kinks from the antikink, while this is large, or with the discrete mode amplitude, while this has a modest or small negative value.
The unstable manifold is infinitely long. At the top end, where there are kinks at infinite separation, the potential energy is $4$ (three times the kink rest mass). At the bottom, where there is a single kink, the potential energy is ${4 \over 3}$. Most of the unstable manifold consists of well-separated $K\bar{K}K$ configurations, with kinks at $\pm a$ and an antikink at the origin. We cannot write down the exact form of the fields satisfying (\[flow-eq\]), but for $a >> 1$ an exponentially accurate approximation is given by the product form $$\label{initial-field}
\phi = - \phi_K (x + a) \ \phi_{\bar K} (x) \ \phi_K (x - a) \ ,$$ with $a$ a function of time. To a sufficiently good approximation, the Lagrangian for such fields is ${4\over 3} \dot a^2 + 32 e^{-2a} - 4$, since there are two kinks moving with velocities $\pm {\dot a}$, and the interaction potential of a $K\bar{K}$ pair separated by $a$ is $-16 e^{-2a}$ if $a$ is large [@Manton79]. The gradient flow equation therefore reduces to $$\label{a-flow}
\dot{a} = -24 e^{-2a}$$ whose integral is $e^{2a} = -48t + \hbox {const}$. We have verified this by taking the initial data (\[initial-field\]) with $a=5$, and evolving it numerically with the gradient flow equation (\[flow-eq\]) until the three zeros of $\phi$ are at $x = \pm 4$ and $x=0$. The time this takes is very close to ${1\over 48} (e^{10} - e^{8}) \simeq 397$, which is a very long time compared with the period of the discrete mode oscillation.
For $a < 4$, the expression (\[initial-field\]) fails to be a good approximation for the fields on the unstable manifold, so we have integrated (\[flow-eq\]) numerically, starting at $t=0$ with initial data (\[initial-field\]) with $a=4$. We find that after a finite time the $K\bar{K}K$ configuration annihilates into a deformed single kink. An exact annihilation time can be defined as the time when the three zeros of $\phi$ coalesce into one. Equivalently, this is when $\phi'$ is zero at the origin. ($\phi'$ is negative before this time and positive afterwards.) The annihilation time, for our initial data, is $t=59.64$. By integrating (\[a-flow\]) and finding when $a=0$, one may estimate the annihilation time to be $t = {1\over 48} (e^8 -1) \simeq 62$.
As $t$ increases further, the field configuration rapidly approaches the single kink, and it does so tangent to the discrete mode, since this is the lowest frequency mode of vibration around the kink. So the field becomes well approximated by the form (\[breather\]), with an amplitude $A(t)$ tending to zero. Even at the annihilation time, the field (\[breather\]) with $A=-1$ is a reasonable approximation, since for this value of $A$, $\phi'$ vanishes at the origin. The asymptotic behaviour of $A(t)$ is given by calculating from (\[kinetic\]) and (\[potential\]) the kinetic and potential energies for fields of the form (\[breather\]). These are, respectively, $$\label{A-Kin}
T (A) = {1\over 3} \dot{A}^2$$ and $$\label{A-Pot}
V (A) = {4\over 3} + A^2 + {\pi\over 8} A^3 + {2\over 35} A^4,$$ giving a gradient flow equation $$\label{A-flow}
{2\over 3}\dot{A} = -2 A - {3\pi\over 8} A^2 - {8\over 35} A^3.$$ As $t \rightarrow \infty$, $A$ decays like $e^{-3t}$, the coefficient being the square of the discrete mode frequency.
Our numerical solution of the gradient flow equation was obtained using a predictor-corrector finite difference scheme. Since this is an implicit scheme, there is no stability restriction on $\Delta t/\Delta x^2$ (see [@Ames92]). The resulting tridiagonal linear system is solved explicitly using the Thomas algorithm. Our space-time domain is defined on $- 10 \leq x \leq 10$ and $0 \leq t \leq 65$ in space and time steps of 0.02 and 0.005 respectively. Fig. \[fieldsflow:fig\] shows the field $\phi$ at the initial time and various subsequent times. The annihilation process occurs at $t\sim 60$. Fig. \[potflow:fig\] shows the potential energy as a function of time. The rapid decrease occurs close to the annihilation time.
The unstable manifold stops abruptly at the single kink. It is desirable to define a valley which smoothly continues it. The valley continuation needs to approach the single kink tangent to the discrete mode from the opposite direction. The best continuation we can think of is the set of fields (\[breather\]) with $A > 0$. With this ansatz, the potential energy in the valley, and its first, second and third derivatives, are all continuous at the single kink, but the fourth derivative is probably discontinuous. The positive value of $A$ for which the potential energy expression (\[A-Pot\]) has value 4 is 1.3. Any field $\phi (x)$, with the reflection symmetry and boundary conditions we are assuming, has a decomposition $$\label{kink-field}
\phi (x) = \phi_K (x) + A \ \eta_D (x) + \eta (x)$$ where $\eta (x)$ is a superposition of continuum modes orthogonal to the discrete mode $\eta_D (x)$. We can calculate the amplitude of the discrete mode $A$ by projection $$\label{amplitude}
A = {3 \over 2} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
\left ( \phi (x) - \phi_K (x) \right ) \eta_D (x) \mbox{d}x \ .$$ In the valley, $A$ varies between $-3 \pi/2$ and $\infty$. The first number is calculated using (\[amplitude\]) with $\phi(x)$ a $K\bar{K}K$ configuration with kinks at infinite separation, and its finite value implies that the tangent to the unstable manifold is asymptotically orthogonal to the discrete mode (both metrically, and in the usual sense of integration). The $K\bar{K}K$ half of the valley is therefore curved, turning a right angle along its length. The half of the valley defined using the ansatz (\[breather\]), with $A$ positive, is straight.
Along the valley, the arc length $s$ is the only intrinsic geometrical quantity. Suppose $s = 0$ at the bottom, with $s$ positive in the $K\bar{K}K$ half of the valley. Let $V(s)$ be the potential energy in the valley, as a function of arc length. The intrinsic gradient flow equation is $$\label{s-flow}
\dot{s} = - {\mbox{d}V \over \mbox{d}s}$$ and in the $K\bar{K}K$ half of the valley this must give the same dependence of $V$ with time, as the field gradient flow equation. Eq. (\[s-flow\]) implies $${\mbox{d}V\over \mbox{d}t} =
- \left ( {\mbox{d}s\over \mbox{d}t} \right )^2 \ .$$ We have taken our numerically obtained $V(t)$ and integrated $\sqrt{-\dot{V}}$ to find $s(t)$, and hence determined $s$ and $V(s)$ along the curved half of the valley. The kinetic energy expression (\[A-Kin\]) for a field of the form (\[breather\]) implies that for small $s$, we may identify $s = -\sqrt{2\over 3}A$. For large positive $s$ we may identify $ds = \sqrt{8\over 3} da$. Numerically we estimate that for large $a$, $s= \sqrt{8\over 3} a - 1.18$. The arc length along the straight half of the valley is exactly $s = -\sqrt{2\over 3}A$, and using this relation we can easily convert the potential function (\[A-Pot\]) into a function of $s$. Fig. \[spotflow:fig\] shows the potential function $V(s)$ in both halves of the valley. If we use the discrete mode ansatz (\[breather\]) also for $s > 0$ we get the dashed curve in the Figure, which is not a bad approximation for $|A| \leq 2$. Note the asymmetry of the potential, due to the $A^3$ term in $V$.
Dynamics
========
The one-dimensional dynamical system $$\label{s-lagrangian}
L = {1\over 2} \dot{s}^2 - V(s) \ ,$$ with $V(s)$ as shown in Fig. \[spotflow:fig\], is our collective coordinate model for the dynamics of the $K\bar{K}K$ system. It predicts that for energies ${4\over 3} < E < 4$, there is a nonlinear oscillatory behaviour. For $E > 4$ it predicts that two kinks can approach from infinity and annihilate an antikink at the origin, with the kinetic energy being captured by the discrete mode of the kink that remains; then the process reverses and $K\bar{K}K$ reform. The model also predicts that if the initial data is of the form (\[breather\]) with $A=0$ and $|\dot{A}| > 2 \sqrt{2}$, then a $K\bar{K}K$ configuration will form, and the kinks move off to infinity. (The more direct process is with $\dot{A}$ initially negative.)
We do not expect the field dynamics to be exactly along the part of the valley defined by the gradient flow, since, as we have shown, the valley is extrinsically curved. However, we expect the motion along the valley to be a guide, rather like the bottom of a bobsleigh run is a guide to the bobsleigh trajectories. As the valley turns, so the dynamical motion must climb up the side of the valley to be forced round the corner. We also expect some vibrational motion orthogonal to the valley to be generated.
We have numerically studied the field dynamics of the $K\bar{K}K$ system, given by eq.(\[full-eq\]). The integration is performed using a second-order three level implicit formula. As for the gradient flow case, this scheme is stable for any value of $\Delta t/\Delta x$ provided that the three level parameter is greater than 1/4 (see [@Ames92]). Our space-time domain is defined on $- 20 \leq x \leq 20$ and $0 \leq t \leq 60$ in space and time steps of 0.02 and 0.015 respectively. We have considered two kinds of initial data.
First, we have taken the initial data (\[initial-field\]) with $a=4$ and with $\dot{\phi}=0$. The initial potential energy is very close to 4. We observe (see Fig. \[annihfull:fig\]) that the two kinks approach the antikink at the origin and annihilate, producing a kink with an excited discrete mode. The system oscillates back to $K\bar{K}K$, but the separation is reduced. The motion continues, essentially as a large amplitude nonlinear oscillation of the discrete mode. Energy is slowly transferred to radiation modes, which is emitted symmetrically and escapes to infinity.
Fig. \[potfull:fig\] shows the potential energy and total energy as a function of time. Total energy is conserved until $t\simeq 40$, which is when radiation first arrives at the boundary of the simulation interval. Our boundary conditions absorb this radiation. Notice that at $t=
18.75$, after one oscillation of the field, the potential energy is about 1.38 which is very close to ${4 \over 3}$, the energy of the static kink, so the field dynamics passes very close to the bottom of the valley at that time. Notice also the very long time during which the system oscillates with frequency just less than $\sqrt{3}$, and the slow production of radiation. In one period of oscillation the potential energy has two minima but these have unequal spacing in time. We have estimated theoretically the rate of energy loss to radiation from the oscillating discrete mode, and this agrees well with what we see numerically (see Appendix A).
Fig. \[ampl:fig\] shows $A(t)$, the amplitude of the discrete mode calculated using eq.(\[amplitude\]), for our dynamical field $\phi (x,t)$. If the $K\bar{K}K$ system moved exactly in the valley, with total energy less than 4, $A$ would oscillate without loss of amplitude. We see in Fig. \[ampl:fig\] that $A$ oscillates with slowly decreasing amplitude. The asymmetry of the oscillation can be understood from the asymmetry of the potential about the bottom of the valley. Note that the first time $A$ is positive, it reaches 1.15. This is close to the value 1.3 predicted for motion in the valley with total energy 4. Fig. \[toppot:fig\] shows the field $\phi$ obtained dynamically, at the moment when $A$ as defined by (\[amplitude\]) is 1.15, compared to the ansatz (\[breather\]) with $A = 1.15$.
Second, we have considered the initial data $\phi = \phi_K (x),
\dot{\phi} = -C \eta_D (x)$, that is, a single kink with its discrete mode excited. This motion starts at the bottom of the valley and tangent to the valley bottom, and although the valley is curved, we expect the motion to be guided round the curve, so that a $K\bar{K}K$ configuration will be produced if $C$ is sufficiently large.
If $C = 2 \sqrt{2}$, then the initial kinetic energy is ${8 \over 3}$, which is just sufficient to produce a kink-antikink pair. In practice, some energy goes into radiation, and this value of $C$ is not large enough. The critical value for kink-antikink pair production is $C\simeq 3.06$. Here, two kinks reach the boundary of our region $-20 \leq x \leq 20$, leaving an antikink at the origin, and since the forces between the kinks and the antikink are negligible at these separations, the kinks would presumably travel to infinity. Since 3.06 is not much greater than $2\sqrt{2}$ , we see that exciting the discrete mode of a single kink is an efficient mechanism for producing a $K\bar{K}$ pair. As $C$ increases beyond 3.06, so the outgoing kinks have higher speed, and there is also more radiation. Energetically, two $K\bar{K}$ pairs could be produced when $C=4$ but in practice, more energy is needed, and the production first occurs when $C=4.71$.
Figs. \[3kinks-a:fig\] and \[3kinks-b:fig\] show the field $\phi (x,t)$ for $-20 \leq x \leq 20$ and $0\leq t \leq 60$ with $C = 3.06$. One can see how the discrete mode evolves into the $K\bar{K}K$ system. The small amount of associated radiation is visible too. Fig. \[5kinks-b:fig\] shows the creation of two $K\bar{K}$ pairs when $C=4.71$.
Conclusion
==========
The $K\bar{K}K$ system with reflection symmetry is well-described by a one-dimensional reduced dynamical system with an asymmetric potential. This is quite surprising because annihilation of a kink and antikink can and does occur, releasing a large amount of energy. However, most of this energy is converted to the oscillation of the discrete mode of the remaining kink. The collective coordinate of the one-dimensional system can therefore be interpreted as the separation of the kinks from the antikink, or as the amplitude of the discrete mode, in different regions. We have defined the reduced system on one side of the minimum of the potential by gradient flow, on the other by an ansatz just involving the discrete mode, but perhaps a better ansatz is possible. The reduced dynamics is a good approximation to the full field dynamics, because the discrete mode couples quite weakly to radiation modes.
We conjecture that in other field theories, multi-soliton and soliton-antisoliton dynamics can be similarly reduced to finite-dimensional systems using gradient flow, and that discrete vibrational modes of the solitons may again play an important role. Soliton-antisoliton pair production may be associated with large amplitude excitations of the discrete modes in these other field theories. Perhaps soliton-antisoliton pair production at high temperatures can be catalysed by the presence of solitons, if these solitons have suitable discrete vibrational modes.
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
*Radiation from an oscillating kink* {#radiation-from-an-oscillating-kink .unnumbered}
====================================
In the linear approximation, the discrete mode of the kink oscillates harmonically with frequency $\sqrt{3}$. However, when the nonlinearity of the fields is taken into account, this mode couples to the continuum radiation modes and eventually all its energy is radiated away. We can estimate the rate at which this happens as follows.
Let us write the field $\phi$ as $$\label{kink-field:Ap}
\phi (x,t) = \phi_K (x) + A(t) \ \eta_D (x) + \eta (x,t)$$ where $\phi_K (x) = \tanh (x)$ and $\eta_D (x) = \sinh (x)/ \cosh^2(x)$. The function $\eta (x,t)$ represents the continuum part of the deformation of the kink, and hence is orthogonal to the discrete mode $$\label{orthogonality:Ap}
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \eta (x,t) \eta_D (x) \mbox{d} x = 0.$$ It is consistent to assume $\eta(x,t)$ is odd in $x$. If we substitute (\[kink-field:Ap\]) into the field equation (\[full-eq\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{field-eq:Ap}
(\ddot{A} + 3 A) \eta_D +
\ddot{\eta} - \eta'' + (6 \phi_K^2 - 2) \eta &=&
- 6 (\eta + \phi_K) \eta_D^2 A^2 \nonumber \\
& & - 6 (\eta + 2 \phi_K) \eta \eta_D A \nonumber \\
& & - 2 \eta_D^3 A^3 - 6 \phi_K \eta^2 - 2 \eta^3\end{aligned}$$ At ${\cal O}(A)$, the discrete mode oscillates with frequency $\sqrt{3}$, and there is no source for $\eta$, so it is consistent to set $\eta=0$. At ${\cal O}(A^2)$, there is a source for $\eta$, the term $- 6 \phi_K \eta_D^2 A^2$. If $A$ is small, we may suppose that $\eta$ is ${\cal O}(A^2)$, and we may neglect terms in (\[field-eq:Ap\]) involving $A^3$, $\eta^2$, $\eta A$, etc. The reduced system is $$\label{O(A**2):Ap}
(\ddot{A} + 3 A) \eta_D +
\ddot{\eta} - \eta'' + (6 \phi_K^2 - 2) \eta =
- 6 \phi_K \eta_D^2 A^2$$ The source term $- 6 \phi_K \eta_D^2 A^2$ splits into two parts, a projection onto the discrete mode, and a projection orthogonal to this. The projection onto the discrete mode implies an anharmonic oscillation of $A$, but this is not a large effect and the frequency of the oscillation is unchanged to lowest order. The projection orthogonal to the discrete mode is the source for $\eta$. Fortunately the eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger operator $$\label{Sch-Op:Ap}
- {\mbox{d}^2 \over \mbox{d}x^2} + (6 \phi_K^2 - 2)$$ are known exactly [@Rajaraman82], so the Green’s function can be computed and the response of $\eta$ to the source can be calculated by explicit integration.
The truncation (\[O(A\*\*2):Ap\]) is not energy conserving. The discrete mode oscillation creates radiation but there is no backreaction on the amplitude of the discrete mode. We may calculate the backreaction by finding the energy carried away by the radiation, and may infer the rate of decrease of the amplitude of the discrete mode, using energy conservation. Our calculation depends on the rate of energy loss being small during the period ${2\pi \over \sqrt{3}}$.
Let the projection of $\phi_K \eta_D^2$ onto the discrete mode be $\alpha \eta_D$, so the orthogonal projection is $\phi_K \eta_D^2 - \alpha \eta_D$. The constant $\alpha$ is determined by $$\label{alpha:Ap}
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \phi_K (x) \eta_D (x)^3 \mbox{d}x
- \alpha \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \eta_D (x)^2 \mbox{d}x = 0
\hspace{0.3cm} ,$$ implying $\alpha = {3\pi \over 32}$. The oscillation of the discrete mode, to ${\cal O}(A^2)$, therefore obeys $$\label{A-O(A**2):Ap}
\ddot{A} + 3 A + 6\alpha A^2 = 0$$ which agrees with what would be obtained, at this order, from (\[A-Kin\]) and (\[A-Pot\]). The equation for $\eta$ is $$\label{eta-O(A**2)-1:Ap}
\ddot{\eta} - \eta'' + (6 \phi_K^2 - 2) \eta =
6\ (\alpha \eta_D - \phi_K \eta_D^2)\ A^2$$ Let us now assume that $A = A_0 \cos (\sqrt{3} t)$, so $A^2 = {1 \over 2} A_0^2 (\cos (2 \sqrt{3} t) + 1)$. The response of $\eta$ to the time-independent source is itself time-independent and carries away no energy. The important part of $\eta$ is at the single frequency $2 \sqrt{3}$. Let us therefore consider the equation $$\label{eta-O(A**2)-2:Ap}
\ddot{\eta} - \eta'' + (6 \phi_K^2 - 2) \eta =
f (x) \exp (i \omega t)$$ where $\omega > 2$. Setting $\eta (x,t) = \eta (x) \exp (i \omega t)$, we obtain $$\label{eta-O(A**2)-3:Ap}
- \eta'' + (6 \phi_K^2 - 2 - \omega^2) \eta = f (x) \ .$$ The homogenous equation (\[eta-O(A\*\*2)-3:Ap\]) (with $f \equiv 0$) has exact solutions [@Rajaraman82] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta-homo:Ap}
\eta_q (x) &=& (3 \phi_K^2(x) - 1 - q^2 - 3 i q \phi_K (x) ) \exp (+ i q x)
\nonumber \\
\eta_{-q} (x) &=& (3 \phi_K^2(x) - 1 - q^2 + 3 i q \phi_K (x)) \exp (- i q x)\end{aligned}$$ where $q =\sqrt{\omega^2 - 4}$. From the form of these solutions as $x \to \infty$, we compute the Wronskian $$\label{wronskian:Ap}
W = \eta_q (x)\ \eta'_{-q} (x) - \eta'_q (x)\ \eta_{-q} (x) =
- 2 i q (q^2 + 1) (q^2 + 4) \ .$$ The solution of (\[eta-O(A\*\*2)-3:Ap\]) that we want is the one with outgoing radiation. The relevant Green’s function is $$\label{green:Ap}
G (x,\xi) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
- \displaystyle {1 \over W} \eta_{-q} (\xi)\ \eta_q (x) & \ \ (x < \xi) \\
- \displaystyle {1 \over W} \eta_{q} (\xi)\ \eta_{-q} (x) & \ \ (x >
\xi) \ .
\end{array}
\right.$$ So the desired solution of (\[eta-O(A\*\*2)-3:Ap\]) is $$\label{eta-sol:Ap}
\eta (x) = - {1 \over W} \eta_{-q} (x)
\int_{-\infty}^{x} f (\xi) \eta_{q} (\xi) \mbox{d}\xi \
- {1 \over W} \eta_{q} (x)
\int_{x}^{\infty} f (\xi) \eta_{-q} (\xi) \mbox{d}\xi \ .$$ We may use the asymptotic form of (\[eta-homo:Ap\]) to obtain the form of the solution (\[eta-sol:Ap\]) for large $x$, $$\label{eta-asy-1:Ap}
\eta (x) = \frac{1}{2 i q (2 - q^2 - 3 i q)}
\exp (- i q x)
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f (\xi) \eta_{q} (\xi) \mbox{d}\xi \ .$$ Thus, for the source $-3 A_0^2 \phi_K \eta_D^2 \cos (2 \sqrt{3} t)$, $\eta(x,t)$ is asymptotically $$\label{eta-asy-2:Ap}
\eta (x,t) = \mbox{Re} \left ( \frac{- 3 A_0^2}{2 i q (2 - q^2 - 3 i q)}
\exp i (\omega t - q x)
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi_K (\xi) \eta_D^2 (\xi) \eta_{q} (\xi)
\mbox{d}\xi
\right )$$ where $\omega = 2 \sqrt{3}$ and $q = 2 \sqrt{2}$. It is sufficient here to write the source as proportional to $\phi_K \eta_D^2$, since the integral of $\eta_D \eta_q$ vanishes.
Eq.(\[eta-asy-2:Ap\]) represents outward moving radiation for large $x$. There is similar outward radiation for large negative $x$. To calculate the integral in (\[eta-asy-2:Ap\]), we use the result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{integral:Ap}
I (q) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi_K (\xi) \eta_D^2 (\xi)
(3 \phi_K^2 (\xi) - 1 - q^2 - 3 i q \phi_K (\xi)) \exp (i q \xi) \mbox{d}\xi
\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{i \pi q^2 }{48 \sinh(\pi q/2)} (q^2 + 4) (q^2 - 2) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Thus (\[eta-asy-2:Ap\]) reads now $$\label{eta-asy-3:Ap}
\eta (x,t) =
\frac{\pi q (q^2 - 2)}{32 \sinh (\pi q/2)}
\sqrt{\frac{q^2 + 4}{q^2 + 1}}\ A_0^2 \cos (\omega t - q x - \delta)$$ where $\delta$ is a phase depending on $q$. We are only interested in the amplitude of the radiation, not its phase. For $q = 2 \sqrt{2}$ the amplitude is $$\label{eta-amp:Ap}
R = \frac{\pi \sqrt{3/8}}{\sinh (\pi \sqrt{2})} A_0^2 = 0.0453\ A_0^2$$ For a wave of the form $ \eta = R \cos (\omega t - q x - \delta)$ the average energy flux to the right is ${1\over 2} R^2 \omega q$, so the total energy flux away from the oscillating kink is $R^2 \omega q$. The rate of energy loss by the discrete mode (averaged over a period) is therefore $$\label{rate-E:Ap}
\frac{\mbox{d} E}{\mbox{d} t} =
- (0.0453)^2 4 \sqrt{6}\ A_0^4 = - 0.020\ A_0^4 \ .$$ On the other hand, the energy of the discrete mode is $E = A_0^2$, so the rate of decay of the amplitude is given by $$\label{rate-A:Ap}
\frac{\mbox{d} A_0^2}{\mbox{d} t} = - 0.020\ A_0^4$$ which can be integrated to give $$\label{A-decay:Ap}
\frac{1}{A_0^2(t)} - \frac{1}{A_0^2(0)} = 0.020\ (t - t_0) \ .$$
We can calculate the decay of the discrete mode amplitude due to radiation in another way. Consider again the exact equation (\[field-eq:Ap\]).
Using the orthogonality condition (\[orthogonality:Ap\]), we project the equation (\[field-eq:Ap\]) onto the discrete mode $$\label{A:Ap}
\ddot{A} + \omega_0^2 A = a_0 + a_1 A + a_2 A^2 + a_3 A^3$$ where we have defined $$\label{a-coef:Ap}
\begin{array}{ll}
a_0 = - 3 \displaystyle \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
(3 \phi_K + \eta) \eta^2 \eta_D \mbox{d} x; &
a_1 = - 9 \displaystyle \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
(2 \phi_K + \eta) \eta \eta_D^2 \mbox{d} x \\
a_2 = - 9 \displaystyle \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
\eta \eta_D^3 \mbox{d} x - 6 \alpha; &
a_3 = - 3 \displaystyle \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
\eta_D^4 \mbox{d} x = - {12\over 35} \ .
\end{array}$$ Following ref.[@Lan/LifT1], and as in [@Segur83], we seek a perturbative solution for $\phi(x,t)$ of the form (\[kink-field:Ap\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{perturbation:Ap}
A &=& A^{(1)} + A^{(2)} + A^{(3)} + \cdots \nonumber \\
\eta &=& \eta^{(1)} + \eta^{(2)} + \eta^{(3)} + \cdots\end{aligned}$$ and with $A$ having period $2\pi/\tilde{\omega}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{omega:Ap}
\tilde{\omega} &=& \omega_0 + \omega^{(1)} + \omega^{(2)} + \cdots\end{aligned}$$ At the first order, the discrete mode oscillates with the frequency $\omega_0=\sqrt{3}$, and there is no source term for the continuum modes, so $A^{(1)}=A_0 \cos(\omega_0 t)$ and $\eta^{(1)}=0$ .
At the second order, eq.(\[A:Ap\]) reduces to $$\label{A-2:Ap}
\ddot{A}^{(2)} + \omega_0^2 A^{(2)} = -6 \alpha {A^{(1)}}^2 +
2 \omega_0 \omega^{(1)} A_0 \cos(\omega_0 t) \ .$$ The requirement that the resonance term (at frequency $\omega_0$) be absent implies $\omega^{(1)}=0$, so we obtain exactly eq.(\[A-O(A\*\*2):Ap\]). The latter displays the first anharmonic correction to the discrete mode oscillation. Writing ${A^{(1)}}^2 = {1\over 2} A_0^2 (\cos(2 \omega_0 t) + 1)$, the solution of eq.(\[A-2:Ap\]) reads $$\label{A-2-sol:Ap}
A^{(2)} = {\alpha \over {\omega_0}^2} A_0^2
(\cos(2 \omega_0 t) - 3) \ .$$ The correction (\[A-2-sol:Ap\]) tells us that the main source of the asymmetric oscillation of $A$ in Fig. \[ampl:fig\] is the cubic term of the potential (\[A-Pot\]).
By expanding eq.(\[field-eq:Ap\]) up to the second order in $\eta$ and $A$, we obtain $$\label{eta-2:Ap}
{\ddot{\eta}}^{(2)} - {\eta''}^{(2)} +
(6 \phi_K^2 - 2) \eta^{(2)} =
6 (\alpha - \phi_K \eta_D) \eta_D {A^{(1)}}^2$$ which is exactly eq.(\[eta-O(A\*\*2)-1:Ap\]), therefore $\eta^{(2)}$ is given asymptotically by (\[eta-asy-3:Ap\]).
>From eq.(\[A-2:Ap\]) we see no $\eta$ contribution to the $A^{(2)}$ correction, consequently there is no energy conservation at this order. To find the modification to the discrete mode oscillation caused by radiation, we must go to the next order. The third order part of (\[A:Ap\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A-3:Ap}
\ddot{A}^{(3)} + \omega_0^2 A^{(3)} &=&
(6 i q \tilde{R}^2 - 6 {\alpha^2\over \omega_0^2} + {a_3\over 4})
A_0^3 \cos (3 \omega_0 t) \nonumber \\ & &
+ (2 \omega_0 \omega^{(2)} + 6 i q \tilde{R}^2 A_0^2 +
30 {\alpha^2\over \omega_0^2} A_0^2 +
{3\over 4} a_3 A_0^2) A_0 \cos (\omega_0 t)\end{aligned}$$ where $q = 2\sqrt{2}$ and $\tilde{R}=R/A_0^2$ with $R$ given by (\[eta-amp:Ap\]). Note the appearance of complex numbers resulting from the coupling of the discrete mode with the imaginary part of the continuum (the real part doesn’t contribute at this order). The condition for the resonance term to be absent is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{omega-2:Ap}
\omega^{(2)} &=& - (30 {\alpha^2\over \omega_0^2} +
{3\over 4} a_3 + 6 i q \tilde{R}^2) \frac{A_0^2}{2 \omega_0} \nonumber
\\ &=& - (0.176 + i 0.010) A_0^2\end{aligned}$$ The second order real correction to the frequency is negative, so the period of the discrete mode oscillation is greater than $2\pi/\omega_0$. This effect is confirmed by Fig. \[ampl:fig\] where we see a longer period at earlier times, when the discrete mode amplitude is large. The imaginary correction to the frequency implies a decay of the amplitude, the effect we are seeking, which in turn means that the real frequency increases with time. The decay rate of the amplitude is given by $$\label{A-3-sol:Ap}
\frac{\mbox{d} A_0}{\mbox{d} t} = - 0.010\ A_0^3$$ which is equivalent to (\[rate-A:Ap\]). Fig. \[amplpert:fig\] shows the evolution of $\phi (x,t)$ calculated numerically with initial data $\phi(x,t) = \phi_K (x) + \eta_D (x)$, so $A_0(0) = 1$. The dashed line shows the amplitude calculated up to the second-order, and including the frequency correction (\[omega-2:Ap\]). The decay of the amplitude of the discrete mode is thus seen to be well approximated by (\[A-decay:Ap\]).
[18]{}
Ames W F 1992 [*Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations*]{}, 3rd edn, (Academic Press, Boston)
Arnold V I 1978 [*Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics*]{} (Springer-Verlag, New York)
Atiyah M F and Manton N S 1993 Geometry and kinematics of two Skyrmions [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**153**]{} 391-422
Balitsky I I and Yung A V 1986 Collective coordinate method for quasizero modes [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**168B**]{} 113-119; Yung A V 1988 Instanton vacuum in supersymmetric QCD [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B297**]{} 47-85
Campbell D K, Schonfeld J F and Wingate C A 1983 Resonance structure in the kink-antikink interactions in $\phi^4$ theory [*Physica*]{} [**9D**]{} 1-32
Demoulini S and Stuart D Gradient flow of the superconducting Ginzburg-Landau Functional on the plane, to appear in [*Communications in Analysis and Geometry*]{};\
Stuart D Interaction of superconducting vortices and asymptotics of the Ginzburg-Landau gradient flow, to appear in [*Applied Mathematics Letters*]{}
Hale J K, Magalhaes L T and Oliva W M 1983 [*Introduction to Infinite Dimensional Dynamical Systems-Geometric Theory*]{}, Applied Math. Sciences [**47**]{} (Springer-Verlag, New York)
Jacobs L and Rebbi C 1979 Interaction energy of superconducting vortices [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B19**]{} 4486-4494
Landau L D and Lifshitz E M 1976 [*Mechanics*]{}, 3rd edn, Chapter 5, (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
Manton N S 1979 An effective Lagrangian for solitons [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B150**]{} 397-412
Manton N S 1982 A remark on the scattering of BPS monopoles [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**110B**]{} 54-56
Manton N S 1988 Unstable manifolds and solitons dynamics [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**60**]{} 1916-1919
Rajaraman R 1992 [*Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory*]{}, (North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam)
Segur H 1983 Wobbling kinks in $\phi^4$ and sine-Gordon theory [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**24**]{} 1439-1443
Shah P A 1994 Vortex scattering at near critical coupling [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B429**]{} 259-276
Stuart D 1994 Dynamics of Abelian Higgs vortices in the near Bogomolny regime [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**159**]{} 51-91
Stuart D 1995 The geodesic approximation for the Yang-Mills-Higgs equations [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**166**]{} 149-190
Waindzoch T and Wambach J 1996 Stability of the B=2 hedgehog in the Skyrme model [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**A602**]{} 347
Figure captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
Figure 1: The gradient flow annihilation process for the $K\bar{K}K$ system at time 0 (solid), 59 (dotted), 59.64 (dashed) and 61 (dashed dotted).
Figure 2: Time dependence of the potential energy along the gradient flow curve.
Figure 3: Arc length dependence of the potential energy in the valley. Gradient flow (solid) and discrete mode results for $s<0$ (the discrete mode result for $s>0$ is also shown).
Figure 4: The full dynamics annihilation process.
Figure 5: Time dependence of the potential energy (solid) and the total energy (dashed).
Figure 6: Time dependence of the discrete mode amplitude.
Figure 7: The field $\phi$ (solid) compared to the discrete mode ansatz at $A =1.15$ (dashed).
Figure 8: Creation process of three kinks for $C=3.06$.
Figure 9: Snapshots of the three kinks creation process at time 10 (solid), 30 (dotted), 60 (dashed) and 90 (dashed dotted).
Figure 10: Snapshots of the five kinks creation process at time 10 (solid), 20 (dotted), 40 (dashed) and 60 (dashed dotted).
Figure 11: Time dependence of the discrete mode amplitude with $A_0(0) = 1$ (solid) compared to the second order approximation (dashed).
(4.6,2.3)(0,0) (0.9,-0.2)
(4.6,2.3)(0,0) (0.9,-0.2)
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail address: [email protected]
[^3]: This is also a rather slow process because an intermediate, long-lived breather state is produced [@C/S/W/83] .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The rise-up in boron neutrino spectrum at low energies has been studied within the framework of ‘pure LMA’ scenario. Indirect bounds on the spectral ‘upturn’ have been obtained from the available solar neutrino data. These bounds have been used to demonstrate the efficacy of the precision measurements of the ‘upturn’ for further constraining the neutrino parameter space allowed by SNO salt phase data. The sterile neutrino flux has been constrained in the light of the recent 766.3 Ty KamLAND spectral data.'
author:
- |
S. Dev[^1] and Sanjeev Kumar[^2]\
[*Department of Physics, Himachal Pradesh University,*]{}\
[*Shimla, India-171005.*]{}
title: 'Constraints on the Neutrino Parameters from the ‘Rise-up’ in the Boron Neutrino Spectrum at Low Energies'
---
Neutrino Physics is passing through a phase of spectacular development. Vast amount of solar and atmospheric neutrino data has been accumulated and the neutrino deficits have been established to be the consequence of non-standard neutrino physics. The most recent steps in this direction are the pioneering results from SNO and KamLAND experiments. The SNO experiment provided a model independent proof of solar neutrino oscillations and the terrestrial disappearance of reactor $\overline{\nu }_{e}$ in the KamLANDexperiment has provided a further confirmation of the neutrino oscillation solution of the solar neutrino problem (SNP). This gives us confidence in the oscillation solution of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly.
The neutral current measurements at SNO [@1] have, conclusively, established the oscillations of solar neutrinos. After the evidence of terrestrial antineutrino disappearance in a beam of electron antineutrinos reported by KamLAND [@2], all other [@3] explanations of the solar neutrino deficit can, at best, be just subdominant effects. After these pioneering experiments, there is no scope for doubting the physical reality of neutrino mass and the consequent oscillations. KamLAND is the first experiment to explore the neutrino parameter space relevant to SNP with a beam of terrestrial neutrinos and has, convincingly, demonstrated the existence of neutrino oscillations confined to the large mixing angle (LMA) region. The total event rate as well as the spectrum distortion at KamLAND are in good agreement with the LMA expectations. Recently, updated analyses of all the available solar and reactor neutrino data including KamLAND and SNO salt phase data have been presented [@4]. However, even after the confirmation of the LMA MSW mechanism as a dominant solution of SNP, the oscillation parameters are not precisely known. A precise determination of these parameters will be of great importance for theory as well as phenomenology of neutrino oscillations in particular and particle physics in general.
The solar neutrino experiments have, already, entered a phase of precision measurements for oscillation parameters. On the other hand, the LMA solution is facing a deeper scrutiny. In fact, the completeness of the LMA solution is being questioned [@5] and the scope for some possible subdominant transitions is being explored [@6; @7] vigorously. Does the LMA solution satisfactorily explain all the solar neutrino data? Are there any observations indicating new physics beyond LMA? These are some of the relevant questions being posed. It is also the high time to put the LMA predictions to closer experimental scrutiny. There are, at least, two generic predictions of LMA [@6] which point towards life beyond LMA. One of these is the prediction of a high argon production rate, $Q_{Ar}\approx
3SNU$, for the Homestake experiment which is about $2\sigma $ above the observed rate. Another generic prediction of the LMA scenario is the ‘spectral upturn’ at low energies. Within the LMA parameter space, the survival probability should increase with decrease in energy and for the best fit point, the upturn could be as large as 10-15% between 8MeV and 5MeV [@6]. However, neither the SuperKamiokande (SK) nor SNO have reported any statistically significant ‘rise-up’ in the observed neutrino survival probability. Both these predictions of LMA can only be tested in the forthcoming phase of high precision measurements in the solar neutrino experiments and are crucial for confirmation of the LMA solution.
The distortions in the neutrino spectrum are an important factor in resolving the solar neutrino problem. These distortions arise due to the energy dependence of the survival probability as a result of which neutrinos with different energies survive in different proportions leading to distortions in the observed spectrum. Experimentally, the boron neutrinos are the most accessible source for the study of the distortions in the observed spectrum since the SK and SNO detect the boron neutrinos in the small energy bins over a wide energy range. Since, the LMA has emerged as a solution of the SNP, the spectrum distortions within the LMA scenario are of paramount importance for the final confirmation of the LMA as a solution of the SNP and, also, for possible physics beyond LMA.
In the present work, we focus on the ‘rise-up’ in the neutrino spectrum at low energies and demonstrate how a precision measurement of the ‘upturn’ can be used to further constrain the neutrino parameter space allowed by the SNO salt phase data. In the absence of concrete experimental results on the ‘rise-up’, we obtain indirect bounds on the ‘rise-up’ in the boron neutrino spectrum by comparing the boron neutrino survival probability obtained from the experiments with the asymptotic value of the corresponding LMA survival probability.
The apparent lack of the ‘rise-up’ in the observed boron neutrino spectrum at low energies has been sought to be explained by introducing subdominant transitions into sterile neutrinos [@6] and/or antineutrinos [@7]. In the present work, it has been shown that the ‘rise-up’ in the boron neutrino spectrum can be reduced significantly by choosing a suitable point within the LMA parameter space itself. We examine the status of this ‘rise-up’ within the pure LMA scenario in the following manner. From the SNO salt phase data and the value of the neutrino mixing angle ‘$\theta $’ obtained from the global analyses, indirect bounds on the ‘rise-up’ are obtained. The constraints on the ‘rise-up’ and the boron neutrino survival probability are combined to further constrain the neutrino parameter space allowed by the SNO.
The LMA survival probability [@8], to a very good approximation, can be written as $$P=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\cos 2\theta \cos 2\theta _{m},$$ where the mixing angle in matter is given by $$\cos 2\theta _{m}=\frac{\cos 2\theta -\beta }{\sqrt{\left( \cos 2\theta
-\beta \right) ^{2}+\sin ^{2}2\theta }}$$ and the ratio of matter to vacuum effects ‘$\beta $’ is given by $$\beta =\frac{2\sqrt{2}G_{F}N_{e}E}{\Delta m^{2}}.$$ E is the energy of the neutrino and $N_{e}$ is the electron number density at the point of maximal boron neutrino production i.e.e at. $x=r/R_{S}=0.05$ where $R_{S}$ is the solar radius so that $$G_{F}N_{e}=0.4714\times 10^{-11}eV$$ at this point [@9]. The energy dependence of the LMA survival probability P given by eqn. (1) is shown in Fig.1 (dashed line) along with its asymptotic value $sin^{2}\theta $ (dotted line). The survival probability averaged over the production region of the boron neutrinos [@9] has been plotted as a solid line. It can be easily seen that the analytical expression (1) is in fairly good agreement with the exact numerical result. The value of P is slightly increased by averaging over the production region. Moreover, the earth regeneration effects will, also, increase the survival probability only by a small amount. It can be seen that the percentage increase in the survival probability from the earth regeneration effects equals the day-night asymmetry. The expected day-night asymmetry at SNO is about 3% [@10]. Thus, eqn. (1) is a fairly good approximation to survival probability.
Equation (1) can be written as $$P=sin^{2}\theta +R,$$ where $$R=\cos 2\theta \cos ^{2}\theta _{m}$$ is the rise-up in the survival probability. Obviously, R is always positive and increases with decrease in energy. The survival probability P is an increasing function of both $\Delta m^{2}$ and $\theta $ in the allowed LMA region in contrast to R which is an increasing function of $\Delta m^{2}$ and a decreasing function of $\theta $, within this region. The ‘rise-up’ R becomes zero for maximal mixing. Since, maximal mixing is rejected at 5.4 standard deviations, the ‘rise-up’ cannot be zero. Hence, a non-zero ‘rise-up’ is an inescapable consequence of the LMA scenario.
Global analysis of the SNO salt phase data along with other solar and reactor neutrino data yields [@11] $$\Delta m^{2}=7.1_{-0.6}^{+1.2}\times 10^{-5}eV^{2},$$ $$\theta =32.5_{-2.3}^{+2.4}\deg .$$ For these LMA parameters, we have $$\sin ^{2}\theta =0.289_{-0.036}^{+0.038},$$ $$P=0.362_{-0.031}^{+0.036},$$ $$R=0.074_{-0.025}^{+0.044}.$$ It is clear that R is about three standard deviations above zero and is large enough to be measured experimentally.
The value of the survival probability for the boron neutrinos can be calculated from the SNO CC and NC rates using the relation
$$P=\frac{\phi _{CC}^{SNO}}{\phi _{NC}^{SNO}}$$
where we have assumed transitions into active flavors only. Transitions into sterile neutrinos can be important and will be studied elsewhere [@12]. Even though, neither SK nor SNO has reported any statistically significant ‘rise-up’, one can infer the ‘rise-up’ at 6.4MeV from SNO CC/NC ratio. Since, $sin^{2}\theta $ is constrained by equation (9), we can constrain R using eqns. (5) and (9). In this manner, we can obtain an indirect upper bound on R. However, the value of $\theta $ obtained from the global analyses is not model independent as a result of which the value of R obtained in this manner will be model dependent and will be valid only within the LMA scenario.
The pure $D_{2}O$ data from SNO [@1] gives $$\phi _{CC}^{SNO}=1.76_{-0.103}^{+0.108}\times 10^{6}cm^{-2}s^{-1},$$ $$\phi _{NC}^{SNO}=6.42_{-1.67}^{+1.66}\times 10^{6}cm^{-2}s^{-1},$$ where the statistical and the systematic errors have been combined in quadratures.. From equation (12), we have $$P=0.274_{-0.073}^{+0.073}.$$ Using the LMA value of $\theta $ and equation (5), one can obtain $$R=-0.015_{-0.081}^{+0.082},$$ which is not, significantly, different from zero. However, one can obtain an upper bound on R from equation (16) viz. $$R\leq 0.120$$ at 90%C.L. It may be worthwhile to mention that the NC rate given in equation (14) has been obtained without any assumptions regarding the energy dependence of the survival probability. If one assumes an undistorted boron neutrino spectrum and, hence, an energy independent survival probability, SNO pure $D_{2}O$ data gives $$\phi _{NC}^{SNO}=5.09_{-0.608}^{+0.637}\times 10^{6}cm^{-2}s^{-1}.$$ Using this value instead of the value quoted in equation (14) would give $$P=0.346_{-0.046}^{+0.048}$$ and $$R=0.057_{-0.058}^{+0.061}$$ in agreement with the LMA values given in eqns. (10) and (11). However, the LMA survival probability being energy dependent, the use of the value quoted in equation (18) for deriving constraints on neutrino parameters will not be internally consistent [@13].
The most recent SNO salt phase data [@11] $$\frac{\phi _{CC}^{SNO}}{\phi _{NC}^{SNO}}=0.306_{-0.035}^{+0.035}$$ can, also, be used to obtain the new bounds on P and R viz. $$P=0.306_{-0.035}^{+0.035},$$ $$R=0.017_{-0.050}^{+0.052}.$$ This value of ‘rise-up’ will be used henceforth. The value of P given in equation (22) is smaller than the mean LMA value by an amount $$0.057_{-0.056}^{+0.068}$$ which is one standard deviation above zero. We shall explore the allowed LMA region to reduce the difference between the LMA values of P, R and their experimental values given by eqns. (22) and (23) respectively which imply the following upper bounds on P and R: $$P\leq 0.363,$$ $$R\leq 0.102,$$ at 90%C.L. As noted earlier, the ‘rise-up’ R becomes smaller for smaller values of $\Delta m^{2}$ and larger values of $\theta $. However, a larger value of $\theta $ leads to an increase in the value of P. In fact, the experimental value of P is already greater than the mean LMA value and cannot be increased further. Hence, we consider the constraints (25) and (26) on P and R simultaneously. This can be achieved by plotting the constant P and constant R curves in the allowed parameter space. The curves corresponding to 90% C.L. upper bounds on P and R have been plotted in Fig.2 within the LMA parameter space allowed by the SNO. The overlap region below P and R curves is the region of parameter space allowed by the bounds on ‘rise-up’ and survival probability obtained above. The resulting upper bounds on $\Delta m^{2}$ and $\theta $ are $$\Delta m^{2}\leq 7.9\times 10^{-5}eV^{2},$$ $$\theta \leq 33.7\deg ,$$ at 90% C.L. Thus, the ‘rise-up’ in the boron neutrino spectrum can be used to further restrict the neutrino parameter space. In fact, the bound on the ‘rise-up’ derived from SNO salt-phase data selects lower values of $\Delta
m^{2}$ consistent with the conclusions reached by Aliani et al [@4] who incorporated the SNO spectrum data in the global analysis. Therefore, the ‘pure LMA’ scenario will get rejected at more than 90% C.L. if the future precision measurements favor $\Delta m^{2}>7.9\times 10^{-5}eV^{2}$. The value of $\Delta m^{2}$ larger than $7.9\times 10^{-5}eV^{2}$ will be clear signature of physics beyond LMA being manifest in the oscillations of solar boron neutrinos. The inclusion of the earth regeneration effect as well as the averaging over the production region will only decreases the value of $\Delta m^{2}$ and the upper bound mentioned above will, still, remain valid.
The curves P=0.342 and R=0.070 corresponding to 1.02$\sigma $C.L. are also shown in Fig. 2 below which there is no overlap. These two curves intersect at $$\Delta m^{2}=6.5\times 10^{-5}eV^{2},$$ $$\theta =31.4\deg .$$ For these values of $\Delta m^{2}$ and $\theta $, the difference between the LMA values of P, R and their experimental values (22) and (23) is the least (about one standard deviation). This can be regarded as the best fit point in the SNO allowed parameter space. The values of $\Delta m^{2}$ and $\theta
$ obtained from the global analyses of all the solar neutrino data [@10] are very close to the values obtained here.
While this work was in progress, KamLAND reported 766.3 Ty spectrum data [@14] which has been combined with the solar neutrino data by several authors [@4; @10; @14]. The two main implications of the new KamLAND data are the increase in the value of $\Delta m^{2}$ to $8.3_{-0.37}^{+0.40}\times 10^{-5}eV^{2}$ and a decrease in the best-fit value of $\theta $ to $31.3_{-1.3}^{+1.9}\deg $ [@10]. The best fit value of $\Delta m^{2}$ obtained in [@10] is larger than the upper bound derived here ( eqn. (27) ) hinting towards possible new physics beyond LMA.
The inclusion of the earth regeneration effects will increase the values of P and R by only about 3% which is too small as compared to the rise-up (which is about 28%) \[ see Fig. 3\]. Moreover, the LMA values of P and R are, already, larger than their experimental values. The earth regeneration effect will, therefore, further increase their values enhancing the mismatch between the theory and experiment. This would make the upper bound on $\Delta m^{2}$ even more restrictive.
For these values of $\Delta m^{2}$ and $\theta $, P and R will, now, become $$P=0.376_{-0.014}^{+0.017},$$ $$R=0.106_{-0.025}^{+0.023},$$ in place of eqns. (10) and (11). The difference of P from its experimental value (eqn. (22)) is given by $$0.076_{-0.038}^{+0.039}$$ which is $2\sigma $ above zero. Hence, there is considerable difference between the experimental and theoretical values of P in the LMA scenario and we are constrained to go beyond the pure LMA scenario. A natural candidate for these transitions would be the spin flavor precession (SFP) driven transitions into antineutrinos. Since, there are very stringent bounds on the solar antineutrino flux [@15], the transitions into antineutrinos can not account for this difference. Hence, we attribute the whole of this difference to the transitions into sterile neutrinos and obtain [@16] $$P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{e})=\frac{x\sin ^{2}\alpha }{1-x\cos ^{2}\alpha },$$ $$P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{\mu })=\left( 1-P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu
_{e})\right) \sin ^{2}\alpha ,$$ $$P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{S})=\left( 1-P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu
_{e})\right) \cos ^{2}\alpha ,$$ where $$x=\frac{\phi _{CC}^{SNO}}{\phi _{NC}^{SNO}},$$ and $$P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{\mu })=1-P_{LMA}.$$ Here, $\alpha $ is the sterile mixing angle. From these equations, we obtain $$P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{e})=\frac{x\left( 1-P_{LMA}\right) }{\left(
1-x\right) },$$ and $$\sin ^{2}\alpha =1-\frac{P_{LMA}-x}{1-2x+xP_{LMA}}.$$ Using equation (21) for $x$ and equation (31) for $P_{LMA}$, we obtain $$\sin ^{2}\alpha =0\allowbreak .\,861_{-0.077}^{+0.091},$$ and
$$P(\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{e})=0.\,275_{-0.049}^{+0.055}.$$
The pure sterile solution ($\sin ^{2}\alpha =0$) is disfavored at 11.2 standard deviations. From equation (36), we obtain $$P\left( \nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{s}\right) =0\allowbreak
.101_{-0.069}^{+0.066},$$ at 3$\sigma $C.L$.$which implies $$P\left( \nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{s}\right) \leq 0.299.$$ The sterile flux is non-zero at about 1.5 standard deviations. A more elaborate analysis is needed to constrain the sterile component using the approach adopted here and will be presented elsewhere [@12].
In conclusion, the ‘rise-up’ in the boron neutrino spectrum at low energies has been studied within the framework of the LMA scenario. Indirect bounds on the rise-up have been obtained from the available solar neutrino data. These bounds have been used to demonstrate as to how a precision measurement of the rise-up can be used to further constrain the neutrino parameter space allowed by the SNO salt phase data. It is found that the pure LMA solution is sufficient to explain the SNO salt phase data for $\Delta m^{2}\leq
7.9\times 10^{-5}eV^{2}$ and $\theta \leq 33.7\deg $ since larger values of $\Delta m^{2}$ will violate the upper bound given in equation (26). However, the most recent global analyses [@4; @10; @14] of the solar neutrino and the recent KamLAND data favor a value of $\Delta m^{2}$ which violates this upper bound. Consequently, pure LMA solution seems to be disfavored and other subdominant transitions seem unavoidable. The theoretical and experimental values of the boron neutrino survival probability in the pure LMA scenario for the most recent LMA parameters differ by two standard deviations. This discrepancy is too large to be explained by the subdominant SFP transitions into antineutrinos. In the present work, this discrepancy has been attributed to the subdominant transitions into the sterile neutrinos. It is concluded that the sterile neutrino flux in this scenario could be as large as 0.299 times the boron neutrino flux at $3\sigma $.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}: One of the authors (SK) gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Government of India.
[99]{} Q. R. Ahmad [*et al.*]{}, \[SNO Collaboration\], [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 011301 (2002).
K. Eguchi [*et al.*]{}, \[KamLAND Collaboration\], [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{}, 021802 (2003),arXiv:hep-ex/022021.
C. S. Lim and W. J. Marciano,[* Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D37**]{}, 1368 (1988); E. Kh. Akhmedov, Sov. Phy. JETP68, 690 (1989); B. C. Chauhan, S. Dev and U. C. Pandey, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 083002 (1999); E. Kh. Akhmedov and J. Pulido, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 485**]{}, 178 (2000), E. K. Akhmedov and J. Pulido, [*Phys. Lett.*]{}[** B 529**]{}, 193 (2002), E. K. Akhmedov and J. Pulido, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 553**]{}, 7 (2003).
P. Aliani et al, arXiv:hep-ph/0406182 v2. Some of the earlier works on this subject include: J. N. Bahcall, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Carlos Pe$\widetilde{n}$a-Garay, [*J. High Energy Phys.*]{} [**08**]{} (2001) 014; V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{} (2002) 011302; V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B**]{} 509 (2001) 19; A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami, K. Kar, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B**]{} [**519**]{} (2001) 83; A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami, K. Kar, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 65**]{} (2002) 073031; J. N.. Bahcall, P. I. Krastev, A. Yu. Smirnov, [*J. High Energy Phys.*]{} [**05**]{} (2001) 015; G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 64**]{} (2001) 093007.
A. Yu. Smirnov, arXiv:hep-ph/0305106 v2.
P. C. de Holanda and A. Yu. Smirnov, arXiv:hep-ph/0307266 v1.
S. K. Kang and C. S. Kim, arXiv:hep-ph/0306210, arXiv:hep-ph/0403059; Bhag C. Chauhan and Jo$\widetilde{a}$o Pulido, arXiv:hep-ph/0402194.
T. K. Kuo and James Pantaleone,[* Rev, Mod, Phys.*]{} [**61**]{}, 937, (1989).
John N. Bahcall and Roger K, Ulrich, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**60**]{}, 297,(1988).
Abhijit Bandyopadhyay [*et al.*]{} \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406328\].
S. N. Ahmad et al \[SNO Collaboration\], [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{} (2004) 181301, \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0309004\].
S. Dev and Sanjeev Kumar, work in progress.
“HOWTO use the SNO Solar Neutrino Spectral Data”, can be found at SNO web site [http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca]{}.
T. Araki [*et al.*]{} \[KamLAND Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0406035.
Bhag. C. Chauhan, Joao Pulido, E. Torrente-Lujan, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0304297\].
A. B. Balantekin [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0405019 v1; V. D. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 011302 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0106207\]; V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant and B. P. Wood, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**537**]{}, 179 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0204253\], and references cited therein.
[^1]: E–mail : [email protected]
[^2]: E–mail : [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recent advances in understanding of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence call for substantial revisions in our understanding of cosmic ray transport. In this paper we use gyroresonance recently obtained scaling laws for MHD modes to calculate the scattering frequency for cosmic rays in the ISM. We consider gyroresonance with MHD modes (Alfvénic, slow and fast) and transit-time damping (TTD) by fast modes. We conclude that the gyroresonance with fast modes is the dominant contribution to cosmic ray scattering for the typical interstellar conditions. In contrast to earlier studies, we find that Alfvénic and slow modes are inefficient because they are far from isotropy usually assumed.'
author:
- Huirong Yan
- 'A. Lazarian'
title: SCATTERING OF COSMIC RAYS BY MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC INTERSTELLAR TURBULENCE
---
\[sec:intro\]INTRODUCTION
==========================
The propagation of cosmic rays (CRs) is affected by their interaction with magnetic field. This field is turbulent and therefore, the resonant interaction of cosmic rays with MHD turbulence has been discussed by many authors as the principal mechanism to scatter and isotropize cosmic rays ([@Sch02]). Although cosmic ray diffusion can happen while cosmic rays follow wandering magnetic fields [@Jok], the acceleration of cosmic rays requires efficient scattering.
While most investigations are restricted to Alfvén waves propagating along an external magnetic field (the so-called slab model of Alfvénic turbulence), obliquely propagating MHD waves have been included in [@Fisk] and later studies [@Bieber; @PP]. The problem, however, is that the Alfvénic turbulence considered in their studies is isotropic turbulence, and this is contrary to the modern understanding of MHD turbulence ([@GS95], see [@CLY] for a review and references therein).
A recent study [@Lerche] found a strong dependence of scattering on turbulence anisotropy. Therefore the calculations of CR scattering must be done using a realistic MHD turbulence model. An important attempt in this direction was carried out in [@Chana]. There Alfvén modes were treated in the spirit of Goldreich-Shridhar [@GS95] (1995, henceforth GS95) model of incompressible turbulence and marginal scattering was obtained. However, a more accurate description is now available ([@CLV]) and thus there is a need to revisit the problem. Moreover, [@Chana] did not consider compressible modes, while we show below that these modes provide the dominant contribution to the scattering.
MHD STATISTICS
==============
MHD perturbations can be decomposed into Alfvénic, slow and fast modes (see [@Ginz]). Alfvénic turbulence is considered by many authors as the default model of interstellar magnetic turbulence. This is partially motivated by the fact that unlike compressible modes, the Alfvén ones are essentially free of damping in fully ionized medium (see [@Ginz; @Kulsrud]).
Unlike hydrodynamic turbulence, Alfvénic turbulence is anisotropic, with eddies elongated along the magnetic field. This happens because it is easier to mix the magnetic field lines perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field rather than to bend them. The GS95 model describes [*incompressible*]{} Alfvénic turbulence, which formally means that plasma $ \beta =P_{gas}/P_{mag}=2C_{s}^{2}/V_{A}^{2} $ is infinity. It was first conjectured in [@LG01] that GS95 scaling should be approximately true for moderately compressible plasma. For low $ \beta $ plasma Cho & Lazarian [@CL] (henceforth CL02) showed that the coupling of Alfvénic and compressible modes is weak and that the Alfvénic modes follow the GS95 spectrum [@coup]. This is consistent with the analysis of observational data ([@LP; @SL]). In what follows, we consider both Alfvén modes and compressible modes and use the description of those modes obtained in CL02 to study CR scattering by MHD turbulence in a medium with energy injection scale $ L=100 $pc, density $ n=10^{-4} $cm$ ^{-3}, $ temperature $ T=2\times 10^6 $K. Recent observations [@Beck] suggest that matter in the galactic halos is magnetic-dominant, corresponding to low $\beta$ medium, here we choose $ \beta \simeq 0.1 $. The injection length scale is important as Alfvénic turbulence exhibits scale-dependent anisotropy that increases with the decrease of the scale.
We describe MHD turbulence statistics by correlation functions. Using the notations from [@Chana], we get the expressions for the correlation tensors in Fourier space
$$\begin{aligned}
<B_i(\mathbf{k})B_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>/B_{0}^{2}=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})M_{ij }(\mathbf{k}), \nonumber \\
<v_i(\mathbf{k})B_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>/V_{A}B_{0}=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})C_{ij }(\mathbf{k}), \nonumber \\
<v_i(\mathbf{k})v_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>/V_{A}^{2}=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})K_{ij }(\mathbf{k}),\end{aligned}$$
where $ B_{\alpha,\beta} $ is the magnetic field fluctuations.
The isotropic tensor usually used in the literature is $$\label{isotropic}
K_{ij}(\mathbf{k})=C_0\{\delta_{ij}-k_ik_j/k^2\}k^{-11/3},$$ The normalization constant $C_0$ can be obtained if the energy input at the scale $L $ is defined. Assuming equipartition, the kinetic energy density $\epsilon_k=\int dk^3 \sum_{i=1}^3 K_{ii} \rho V_A^2/2 \sim B_0^2/8\pi $, we get $ C_0=L^{-2/3}/12\pi $. The analytical fit to the anisotropic tensor for Alfvén modes, obtained in [@CLV] is, $$\label{anisotropic}
K_{ij}(\mathbf{k})=C_aI_{ij}k_{\perp }^{-10/3}exp(-L^{1/3}k_{\parallel }/k_{\perp }^{2/3}),$$ where $ I_{ij}=\{\delta_{ij}-k_ik_j/k_{\perp } ^2\} $ is a 2D matrix in x-y plane, $ k_{\parallel } $ is the wave vector along the local mean magnetic field (see[@CLY]), $ k_{\perp } $ is the wave vector perpendicular to the magnetic field and the normalization constant $ C_a=L^{-1/3}/6\pi $. The tensors in [@Chana] used step function instead of the exponent. We assume that for the Alfvén modes $ M_{ij }=K_{ij }, $ $ C_{ij }=\sigma M_{ij } $ where the fractional helicity $ -1<\sigma <1 $ is independent of $ \mathbf{k} $ ([@Chana]).
Numerical calculations in CL02 demonstrated that slow modes follow GS95 scalings. The correlation tensors for slow modes in low $\beta$ plasma are [@tensor] $$\left[ \begin{array}{c}
M_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})\\
C_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})\\
K_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array}\right] ={C_a\beta^2\over 16} \sin^2(2\theta) J_{ij}k_\perp^{-{10\over3}}exp(-{L^{{1\over 3}}k_{\parallel }\over k_{\perp }^{{2\over3}}})\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\cos^2\theta \\
\sigma\cos\theta \\
1
\end{array}\right]\nonumber,$$ where $\cos\theta=k_\parallel/k $,$ J_{ij}=k_{i}k_{j}/k_{\perp }^{2} $ is also a 2D tensor in $x-y$ plane .
According to CL02, fast modes are isotropic and have one dimensional spectrum $ E(k)\propto k^{-3/2} $. In low $ \beta $ medium, the velocity fluctuations are always perpendicular to $ \mathbf{B}_{0} $ for all $ \mathbf{k} $, while the magnetic fluctuations are perpendicular to $ \mathbf{k} $. Thus $ K_{ij }, M_{ij } $ of fast modes are not equal, their x-y components are [@diffSch] $$\left[ \begin{array}{c}
M_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})\\
C_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})\\
K_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array}\right] ={L^{-1/2}\over 8\pi} J_{ij}k^{-7/2}\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\cos^{2}\theta \\
\sigma \cos\theta \\
1
\end{array}\right] ,$$
In high $ \beta $ medium, the velocity fluctuations are radial, i.e., along the direction of $ {\bf k} $. Fast modes in this regime are essentially sound waves compressing magnetic field ([@GS95], [@LG01], Cho & Lazarin, in preparation). The compression of magnetic field depends on plasma $\beta $. The corresponding x-y components of the tensors are $$\left[ \begin{array}{c}
M_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})\\
C_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})\\
K_{ij}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array}\right] ={L^{-1/2}\over 8\pi} \sin^2\theta J_{ij}k^{-7/2}\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\cos^2\theta /\beta\\
\sigma \cos\theta/\beta^{1/2} \\
1
\end{array}\right] .$$
SCATTERING BY ALFVÉNIC TURBULENCE
=================================
Particles get into resonance with MHD perturbations propagating along the magnetic field if the resonant condition is fulfilled, namely, $ \omega =k_{\parallel }v\mu +n\Omega $,($ n=\pm 1,2... $) where $ \omega $ is the wave frequency, $ \Omega =\Omega _{0}/\gamma $ is the gyrofrequency of relativistic particle, $ \mu =\cos \alpha $, where $ \alpha $ is the pitch angle of particles. In other words, resonant interaction between a particle and the transverse electric field of a wave occurs when the Doppler shifted frequency of the wave in the particle’s guiding center rest frame $ \omega _{gc}=\omega -k_{\parallel }v\mu $ is a multiple of the particle gyrofrequency. For high energy particles, the resonance happens for both positive and negative $ n $.
We employ quasi-linear theory (QLT) to obtain our estimates. QLT has been proved to be a useful tool in spite of its intrinsic limitations ([@Chana; @Sch98; @Mi97]). For moderate energy cosmic rays, the corresponding resonant scales are much smaller than the injection scale. Therefore the fluctuation on the resonant scale $ \delta B\ll B_0 $ even if they are comparable at the injection scale. QLT disregards diffusion of cosmic rays that follow wandering magnetic field lines ([@Jok]) and this diffusion should be accounted separately. Obtained by applying the QLT to the collisionless Boltzmann-Vlasov equation, the Fokker-Planck equation is generally used to describe the involvement of the gyrophase-average distribution function $ f $,
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial }{\partial \mu }\left( D_{\mu \mu }\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mu }+D_{\mu p}\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\right) +\frac{1}{p^{2}}\frac{\partial }{\partial p}\left[ p^{2}\left( D_{\mu p}\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mu }+D_{pp}\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\right) \right] ,$$ where $ p $ is the particle momentum. The Fokker-Planck coefficients $ D_{\mu \mu },D_{\mu p},D_{pp} $ are the fundamental physical parameter for measuring the stochastic interactions, which are determined by the electromagnetic fluctuations[@Sch93]:
$$\begin{aligned}
<B_i(\mathbf{k})B_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})P_{ij }(\mathbf{k}), \nonumber \\
<B_i(\mathbf{k})E_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})T_{ij }(\mathbf{k}), \nonumber \\
<E_i(\mathbf{k})B_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})Q_{ij }(\mathbf{k}), \nonumber \\
<E_i(\mathbf{k})E_j^{*}(\mathbf{k'})>=\delta (\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k'})R_{ij }(\mathbf{k}).\end{aligned}$$
From Ohm’s Law $ \mathbf{E}(\mathbf{k})=-(1/c)\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{k})\times \mathbf{B}_{0}, $ we can express the electromagnetic fluctuations $ T_{ij },R_{ij } $ in terms of correlation tensors $ C_{ij }, $ $ K_{ij } $. Adopting the approach in [@Sch93], we can get the Fokker-Planck coefficients in the lowest order approximation of $ V_{A}/c $,
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
D_{\mu \mu }\\
D_{\mu p}\\
D_{pp}
\end{array}\right] = {\Omega ^{2}(1-\mu ^{2})\over 2B_{0}^{2}}\left[ \begin{array}{c}
1\\
mc\\
m^{2}c^{2}
\end{array}\right] {\mathcal{R}}e \sum _{n=-\infty }^{n=\infty }\int_{k_{min}}^{k_{max} } dk^3 \nonumber \\
\int _{0}^{\infty }dte^{-i(k_{\parallel }v_{\parallel }-\omega +n\Omega )t} \left\{ J_{n+1}^{2}({k_{\perp }v_{\perp }\over \Omega })\left[ \begin{array}{c}
P_{{\cal RR}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
T_{{\cal RR}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
R_{{\cal RR}}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array}\right] \right. \nonumber \\
+ J_{n-1}^{2}({k_{\perp }v_{\perp }\over \Omega }) \left[ \begin{array}{c}
P_{{\cal LL}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
-T_{{\cal LL}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
R_{{\cal LL}}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array} \right] + J_{n+1}({k_{\perp }v_{\perp }\over \Omega })J_{n-1}({k_{\perp }v_{\perp }\over \Omega })\nonumber \\
\left. \left[ e^{i2\phi }\left[ \begin{array}{c}
-P_{{\cal RL}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
T_{{\cal RL}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
R_{{\cal RL}}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array}\right] +e^{-i2\phi }\left[ \begin{array}{c}
-P_{{\cal LR}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
-T_{{\cal LR}}({\mathbf{k}})\\
R_{{\cal LR}}({\mathbf{k}})
\end{array}\right] \right] \right\} \label{genmu} \end{aligned}$$
where $ k_{min}=L^{-1} $, $ k_{max}=\Omega _{0}/v_{th} $ corresponds to the dissipation scale, $m=\gamma m_H$ is the relativistic mass of the proton, $ v_{\perp } $ is the particle’s velocity component perpendicular to $ \mathbf{B}_{0} $, $ \phi =\arctan (k_{y}/k_{x}), $ $ {\cal L},{\cal R}=(x\pm iy)/\sqrt{2} $ represent left and right hand polarization[@Dup].
The integration over time gives us a delta function $ \delta (k_{\parallel }v_{\parallel }-\omega +n\Omega ) $, corresponding to static magnetic perturbations ([@Sch93; @static]). For cosmic rays, $ k_{\parallel }v_{\parallel }\gg \omega =k_{\parallel }V_{A} $ so that the resonant condition is just $ k_{\parallel }v\mu +n\Omega =0 $. From this resonance condition, we know that the most important interaction occurs at $ k_{\parallel }=k_{res}=\Omega /v_{\parallel } $.
Noticing that the integrand for small $ k_{\perp } $ is substantially suppressed by the exponent in the anisotropic tensor (see Eq. (\[anisotropic\])) so that the large scale contribution is not important, we can simply use the asymptotic form of Bessel function for large argument. Then if the pitch angle $ \alpha $ not close to 0, we can derive the analytical result for anisotropic turbulence, $$\label{ana}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
D_{\mu \mu }\\
D_{\mu p}\\
D_{pp}
\end{array}\right] =\frac{v^{2.5}\cos \alpha ^{5.5}}{2\Omega^{1.5} L^{2.5}\sin\alpha}\Gamma [6.5,k_{max}^{-\frac{2}{3}}k_{res}L^{\frac{1}{3}}]\left[ \begin{array}{c}
1\\
\sigma mV_{A}\\
m^{2}V_{A}^{2}
\end{array}\right] ,$$ where $ \Gamma [a,z] $ is the incomplete gamma function. The presence of this gamma function in our solution makes our results orders of magnitude larger than those in [@Chana] for the most of energies considered (see Fig.1a). However, the scattering frequency $ \nu =2D_{\mu \mu }/(1-\mu ^{2}) $ are much smaller than the estimates for isotropic model. Unless we consider very high energy CRs ($ \ge 10^8 GeV $) with the corresponding Larmor radius comparable to the turbulence injection scale, we can neglect scattering by the Alfvénic turbulence. What is the alternative way to scatter cosmic rays?
![The scattering frequency $\nu $ vs. the kinetic energy $ E_k $ of cosmic rays (a) by Alfvénic turbulence, (b) by fast modes. In (a), the dash-dot line refers to the scattering frequency for isotropic turbulence. The ’$ \times \protect \protect \protect \protect $’ represents our numerical result for anisotropic turbulence, the solid line is our analytical result from Eq.(\[ana\]). Also plotted (dashed line) is the previous result for anisotropic turbulence in [@Chana]. In (b), the dashed line represents the scattering by fast modes immune from damping, the solid and dashdot line are the results taking into account collisionless damping. []{data-label="fig:incom"}](cosray.eps "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"} ![The scattering frequency $\nu $ vs. the kinetic energy $ E_k $ of cosmic rays (a) by Alfvénic turbulence, (b) by fast modes. In (a), the dash-dot line refers to the scattering frequency for isotropic turbulence. The ’$ \times \protect \protect \protect \protect $’ represents our numerical result for anisotropic turbulence, the solid line is our analytical result from Eq.(\[ana\]). Also plotted (dashed line) is the previous result for anisotropic turbulence in [@Chana]. In (b), the dashed line represents the scattering by fast modes immune from damping, the solid and dashdot line are the results taking into account collisionless damping. []{data-label="fig:incom"}](comp.eps "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"}
SCATTERING by fast modes
========================
Our result that anisotropic turbulence is inefficient in CR scattering agrees well with the conclusions reached in [@Chana] and [@Lerche]. The contribution from slow modes is not larger than that by Alfvén modes since the slow modes have the similar anisotropies and scalings. More promising are fast modes, which are isotropic ([@CL]). For fast modes we discuss two types of resonant interaction: gyroresonance and transit-time damping; the latter requires longitudinal motions. However, fast modes are subject to collisionless damping which suppresses scattering[@damp]. The damping rate $\gamma _{d}=\tau _{d}^{-1}$ for the low $ \beta $ case ([@Ginz]) is
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{lan}
\gamma _{d} &=& \frac{\sqrt{\pi\beta} }{4}V_{A}k\frac{\sin ^{2}\theta }{\cos \theta }\times [\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_H}}\exp(-\frac{m_e}{m_H\beta\cos ^{2}\theta }) \nonumber \\
&+& 5\exp(-\frac{1}{\beta\cos ^{2}\theta })],\end{aligned}$$
where $ m_{e} $ is the electron mass. We see that the damping increases with $ \beta $. According to CL02, fast modes cascade over time scales $ \tau _{fk}=\tau _{k}\times V_{A}/v_{k}=(k\times k_{min})^{-1/2}\times V_{A}/V^{2}, $ where $ \tau _{k}=(kv_{k})^{-1} $ is the eddy turn-over time, $ V $ is the turbulence velocity at the injection scale.
Consider gyroresonance scattering in the presence of collisionless damping. The cutoff of fast modes corresponds to the scale where $ \tau _{fk}\gamma _{d}\simeq 1 $ and this defines the cutoff scale $k_c^{-1} $. As we see from Eq.(\[lan\]), the damping increases with $\theta$ unless $\theta$ is close to $\pi/2$.
Using the tensors given in Eq.(4) we obtain the corresponding $D_{\mu\mu}$ for the CRs interacting with fast modes by integrating Eq.(\[genmu\]) from $ k_{min} $ to $ k_{c} $ (see Fig.(\[fig:incom\]b)). When $ k_c^{-1} $ is less than $ r_L $, the results of integration for damped and undamped turbulence coincides. Since the $ k_{c} $ decreases with $ \beta $, the scattering frequency decreases with $ \beta $.
Adopting the tensors given in Eq.(5), it is possible to calculate the scattering frequency of CRs in high $\beta $ medium. For instance, for density $ n=0.5 $cm$ ^{-3}, $ temperature $ T=8000$K, magnetic field $ B_{0}=1\mu $G, the mean free path is smaller than the resonant wavelength for the particles with energy larger than $0.1GeV$, therefore collisional damping rather than Landau damping should be taken into account. Nevertheless, our results show that the fast modes still dominate the CRs’ scattering in spite of the viscous damping.
Apart from the gyroresonance, fast modes potentially can scatter CRs by transit-time damping (TTD) ([@Sch98]). TTD happens due to the resonant interaction with parallel magnetic mirror force $ -(mv_{\perp }^{2}/2B)\nabla _{\parallel }\mathbf{B} $. For small amplitude waves, particles should be in phase with the wave so as to have a secular interaction with wave. This gives the Cherenkov resonant condition $ \omega -k_{\parallel }v_{\parallel }\sim 0 $, corresponding to the $ n=0 $ term in Eq.(\[genmu\]). From the condition, we see that the contribution is mostly from nearly perpendicular propagating waves ($\cos\theta\sim 0$). According to Eq.(4),we see that the corresponding correlation tensor for the magnetic fluctuations $M_{ij}$ are very small, so the contribution from TTD to scattering is not important.
Self-confinement due to the streaming instability has been discussed by different authors([@Ces; @Chana; @Long]) as an effective alternative to scatter CRs and essential for CR acceleration by shocks. However, we will discuss in our next paper that in the presence of the turbulence the streaming instability will be partially suppressed owing to the nonlinear interaction with the background turbulence.
Thus the gyroresonance with the fast modes is the principle mechanism for scattering cosmic rays. This demands a substantial revision of cosmic ray acceleration/propagation theories, and many related problems may need to be revisited. For instance, our results may be relevant to the problems of the Boron to Carbon abundances ratio. We shall discuss the implications of the new emerging picture elsewhere.
SUMMARY
=======
In the paper above we have shown that
1\. Scattering by fast modes is the dominant scattering process provided that turbulent energy is injected at large scales.
2\. Gyroresonance is the most important for pitch angle scattering. Transit-time damping (TTD) of the resonant waves is subdominant because the corresponding magnetic fluctuations are nearly perpendicular to the mean magnetic field.
3\. The scattering frequency by fast modes depends on collisionless damping for viscous damping, therefore it varies with plasma $ \beta $.
We acknowledge valuable discussions with Benjamin Chandran, Jungyeon Cho, Peter Goldreich, Randy Jokipii, Vladimir Mirnov, Reinhard Schlickeiser, James Cornell, Simon Swordy. We thank Joe Cassinelli, Elisabete Dal Pino, Vladimir Zirakashvili for useful comments. This work is supported by the NSF grant AST0125544.
[10]{}
R. Schlickeiser, [*Cosmic Ray Astrophysics*]{} (Spinger-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2002)
J.R. Jokipii, Astrophys. J., **146**, 480 (1966)
L.A. Fisk, M.L. Goldstein, & G. Sandri, Astrophys. J., **190**, 417 (1974)
J.W. Bieber, C.W. Smith, & W.H. Matthaeus, Astrophys. J., **334**, 470 (1988)
J.M. Pryadko & V. Petrosian, Astrophys. J., **515**, 873 (1999)
P. Goldreich & H. Sridhar, Astrophys. J., **438**, 763 (1995)
J. Cho, A. Lazarian, & H. Yan, ASP, in press, astro-ph/0112366 (2002)
I. Lerche & R. Schlickeiser, A&A, **378**, 279 (2001)
B. Chandran, Phys. Rev. Lett., **85**(22), 4656 (2000)
J. Cho, A. Lazarian, & E.T. Vishniac, Astrophys. J., **564**, 291 (2002)
V.L. Ginzburg, [*Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in Plasma*]{} (New York: Gordon & Breach, 1961)
R. Kulsrud & W.P. Pearce, Astrophys. J., **156**, 445 (1969)
Y. Lithwick and P. Goldreich, Astrophys. J. **562**, 279 (2001)
J. Cho & A. Lazarian, Phys. Rev. Lett., **88**(24), 5001 (2002)
Simulations by Cho & Lazarian in preparation show that this is also true in high $\beta$ medium.
A. Lazarian & D. Pogosyan, Astrophys. J., **537**, 720 (2000)
S. Stanimirovic & A. Lazarian, Astrophys. J., **551**, L53 (2001)
R. Beck, Space Sci. Rev., **99**, 243 (2001)
Apparently $ M_{ij}, C_{ij}$ are 3D matrixes. However, the third dimension is not needed for our calculations.
These tensors are different from that in [@Sch98]. The fact that the fluctuations $ \delta \mathbf{B} $ in fast modes are in the $ \mathbf{k} $-$ \mathbf{B} $ plane place another constrain on the tensor so that the term $ \delta _{ij} $ doesn’t exist.
J.A. Miller, Astrophys. J. **491**, 939 (1997)
R. Schlickeiser & J.A. Miller, Astrophys. J., **492**, 352 (1998)
R. Schlickeiser & U. Achatz, J. Plasma Phy. **49**, 63 (1993)
For $D_{\mu p}$, the expression is only true for Alfvén modes. There are additional compressional terms for compressable modes. Cosmic rays have such high velocities that the slow variation of the magnetic field with time can be neglected.
We counted only the resonant term in [@Chana]. The nonresonant term is spurious as noted by [@Chana].
Since the turbulence injection scale is less than the mean free path, only collisionless effects are involved.
C. Cesarsky, Annu. Rev. Astr. Ap., **18**, 289 (1980)
M.S. Longair, [*High Energy Astrophysics*]{} ( Cambridge University Press, 1997)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- 'M. Polyak, School of Mathematics, Tel-Aviv University, 69978 Tel-Aviv, Israel'
- 'O. Viro, Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University S-751 06 Uppsala, Sweden;POMI, Fontanka 27, St.Petersburg, 191011, Russia.'
author:
- Michael Polyak
- Oleg Viro
title: On the Casson Knot Invariant
---
In our previous paper [@PV] we introduced a new type of combinatorial formulas for Vassiliev knot invariants and presented lots of formulas of this type. To the best of our knowledge, these formulas are by far the simplest and the most practical for computational purposes. Since then Goussarov has proved the main conjecture formulated in [@PV]: any Vassiliev knot invariant can be described by such a formula, see [@GPV].
In [@PV] the examples of formulas were presented in a formal way, without proofs or even explanations of the ideas. We promised to interpret the invariants as degrees of some maps in a forthcoming paper and mentioned that it was this viewpoint that motivated the whole our investigations and appeared to be a rich source of various special formulas.
In a sense, this viewpoint was not new. Quite the contrary, this is the most classical way to think on knot invariants. Indeed, a classical definition of a knot invariant runs as follows: some geometric construction gives an auxiliary space and then the machinery of algebraic topology is applied to this space to produce a number (or a quadratic form, a group, etc.). This scheme was almost forgotten in the eighties, when quantum invariants appeared. An auxiliary space was replaced by a combinatorial object (like knot diagram or closed braid presentation of a knot), while algebraic topology was replaced by representation theory and statistical mechanics. Vassiliev invariants and calculation of the quantum invariants in terms of Vassiliev invariants recovered the role of algebraic topology, but it is applied to the space of all knots, rather than to a space manufactured from a single knot. Presentations of Vassiliev invariants as degrees of maps would completely rehabilitate the classical approach.
However, this is not our main intention. Various presentations for Vassiliev invariants reveal a rich geometric contents. The usual benefits of presenting some quantity as a degree of a map are that a degree is easy to calculate by various methods and, furthermore, degrees are manifestly invariant under various kinds of deformations.
We were primarily motivated by the well-known case of the linking number. It is the simplest Vassiliev invariant of links. The linking number can be computed in many different ways, see e.g [@Rolfsen]. However, all formulas can be obtained from a single one: the linking number of a pair of circles is the degree of the map of a configuration space of pairs (a point on one circle, a point on the other circle) to $S^2$ defined by $(x,y)\mapsto \frac{x-y}{|x-y|}$. Both the Gauss integral formula, and the combinatorial formulas in terms of a diagram are deduced from this interpretation via various methods for calculation of a degree.
We discovered that this situation is reproduced in the case of Vassiliev invariants of higher degree. Both integral formulas found by Kontsevich [@Konts] and Bar-Natan [@Bar-Nat] (of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov and the Chern-Simons type), and the combinatorial formulas of Lannes [@Lannes] and our note [@PV], can be deduced from a presentation of an invariant as the degree of a similar map. However, since the configuration spaces are getting more complicated as the degree increases, the number of various formulas is getting surprisingly large. In fact our approach is close to the one of Bott-Taubes [@BT], however we do not restrict ourselves to integral formulas of the Chern-Simons type, but rather try to include formulas of all types in this scheme.
In this paper we focus on the simplest Vassiliev knot invariant $v_2$. This invariant is of degree 2. It can be characterized as the unique Vassiliev invariant of degree 2 which takes values $0$ on the unknot and $1$ on a trefoil. It was known, however, long time before this characterization became possible (when Vassiliev invariants were introduced). Indeed, it can be defined as $\frac12\GD_K''(1)$, the half of the value at 1 of the second derivative of the Alexander polynomial (or as the coefficient of the quadratic term of the Conway polynomial). It is the invariant which plays a key role in the surgery formula for the Casson invariant of homology spheres [@AM]. Following a recent folklore tradition, we shall call this knot invariant also the [*Casson invariant*]{} or the [*Casson knot invariant*]{}, when there is a danger of confusion with the Casson invariant of homology spheres.
We decided to devote this paper to the Casson knot invariant for several reasons. This is the simplest knot invariant of finite type. On the other hand, it is related to many phenomena. For instance, its reduction modulo 2 is the Arf invariant, which is the only invariant of finite degree which is invariant under knot cobordisms [@Ng]. Furthermore, the Casson knot invariant is related to Arnold’s invariants of generic plane curves [@Polyak] and [@LW]. It appears as well in the theory of Casson invariant for homology spheres and plays an important role in the recent progress on finite degree invariants of 3-manifolds. Technically, all phenomena and problems connected to an interpretation of Vassiliev knot invariants as degrees of maps arise already in the case of Casson knot invariant. Recently it became clear how to treat the general case. One can consider the universal invariant taking values in the algebra $\overrightarrow{{\mathcal}G}$ introduced in [@P?] and based on constructions of the present paper with orientations of configuration spaces defined as in S. Poirier [@Poi].
We postpone a presentation of the universal invariant as a generalized degree of a map to a forthcoming paper [@P?]. Here we concentrate on the geometry related to the Casson invariant. This allows us to consider all remarkable geometric constructions and phenomena which would be inevitably omitted in any paper dedicated to a construction of the universal invariant.
We begin with our combinatorial formula announced in [@PV]. It is proved according to a traditional combinatorial scheme on the base of general definition of Vassiliev invariants. In fact the main ingredient of this proof is Kauffman’s calculation [@Kauff] of the second coefficient of the Conway polynomial. We use the formula to prove an upper bound on the Casson knot invariant via the number of double points of a knot diagram.
This is done in Section \[s1\]. Then we proceed to the main subject and construct the configuration spaces and their maps. The first attempt in Section \[s2\] gives rise to an interpretation of the Casson invariant as a local degree. The disadvantage of this interpretation is that it is restricted to the case when the knot is in a general position with respect to a fixed direction of projection, and hence it is not manifestly invariant under isotopy and does not lead immediately to other combinatorial formulas.
In Section \[s3\] we enlarge the source space by adding several patches which are similar to the configuration spaces appearing in Chern-Simons theory. Although the new space still has a boundary, the boundary is mapped to a fixed hypersurface of the target manifold. Thus $v_2$ gets an interpretation as a global (though relative) degree of a map.
In Section \[s4\] we derive new combinatorial formulas for $v_2$ taking other regular values of the map constructed in Section \[s3\]. In particular, this leads to a calculation in terms of associators which appear in a presentation of the knot diagram as a nonassociative tangle.
In Section \[s5\] we discuss other configuration spaces and presentations of the Casson knot invariant as the degree of the corresponding maps. Various methods to compute the corresponding degrees are used to derive new combinatorial and integral formulas.
An essential part of this work was done when the first author was visiting the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in Bonn, which he wishes to thank for its hospitality.
A Gauss Diagram Formula for the Casson Invariant {#s1}
================================================
Gauss diagrams {#s1.1}
--------------
A knot diagram is a generic immersion of circle to plane, enhanced by the information on overpasses and underpasses at double points. A generic immersion of a circle to plane is characterized by its [*Gauss diagram.*]{} The Gauss diagram is the immersing circle with the preimages of each double point connected with a chord. To incorporate the information on overpasses and underpasses, we orient each chord from the upper branch to the lower branch. Furthermore, each chord $c$ is equipped with the sign $\Ge(c)$ of the corresponding double point (local writhe number). See Figure \[f2\]. We call the result a [*Gauss diagram* ]{} of the knot.
By a [*based*]{} Gauss diagram we mean a Gauss diagram with a marked point on the circle, distinct from the end points of the chords.
The Formula and its Corollaries {#s1.2}
-------------------------------
In [@PV] we stated the following theorem.
\[T1\] If $G$ is any based Gauss diagram of a knot $K$, then $$\label{v2}
v_2(K)=\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}, G\right\rangle.$$
The right hand side is the sum $\sum\Ge(c_1)\Ge(c_2)$ over all subdiagrams of $G$ isomorphic to $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$, where $c_1$, $c_2$ are the chords of the subdiagram. General discussion on the formulas of this kind see in [@PV].
\[exv2\] As it is easy to see from Figure \[f2\], $v_2(4_1)=-1$.
\[Sym\]If $G$ is any based Gauss diagram of a knot $K$ then $$\label{v2sym}
v_2(K)=\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xdown.eps}}, G\right\rangle.$$
Corollary \[Sym\] immediately follows from the fact that the rotation of the knot by $\pi$ around the $x$-axis results in a Gauss diagram of $K$ with all arrows of $G$ inverted, while their signs are preserved.
\[Arf\] If $G$ is a based Gauss diagram of a knot $K$, then the Arf invariant of $K$ is equal modulo 2 to the number of subdiagrams of $G$ isomorphic to $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$.
There are a lot of methods for a calculation of the Casson knot invariant and the Arf invariant. See Kauffman [@Kauff], Lannes [@Lannes], [@Lannes'], Gilmer [@Gilmer]. As far as we know, Theorems \[T1\] and \[Arf\] provide the easiest and the most practical ways for calculating $v_2$ and the Arf invariant. The proof of Theorem \[T1\] given below follows the lines of Kauffman’s algorithm [@Kauff] for calculation of $\GD''_K(1)$.
\[Estimate\] For any knot $K$ which admits a diagram with $n$ crossing points $|v_2(K)|\le[\frac{n^2}8]$.
\[rem1\] Lin and Wang [@LW] found an estimate of $|v_2(K)|$ which is twice weaker than Theorem \[Estimate\].
\[rem2\] The estimate of Theorem \[Estimate\] is sharp for the case of odd $n$: if $K$ is the torus knot of the type $(n,2)$ with any odd $n\ge3$ (it has $n$ crossings), then $v_2(K)$ is equal to $\frac{n^2-1}8$. For the case of even $n$ the inequality of Theorem \[Estimate\] may be strengthened. An obvious consideration that the number of chords intersecting the given one is always even, permits to decrease the estimate at least by 1, but most probably this can be improved further. It is interesting whether the inequality $v_2\ge-[\frac{n^2}8]$, which follows from Theorem \[Estimate\], can be strengthened.
The Proof of Theorem \[T1\] {#s1.3}
---------------------------
We use the following skein relation for the Casson knot invariant: $$\label{skeinforv2}
v_2(\vcenter{\epsffile{poscros.eps}})-v_2(\vcenter{\epsffile{negcros.eps}})
=lk(\vcenter{\epsffile{smtcros.eps}}).$$ In this formula, following a tradition, we present links (and knots) by their fragments, which contain differences from other links under consideration. By $lk(\vcenter{\epsffile{smtcros.eps}})$ it is denoted the linking number of the components of link $\vcenter{\epsffile{smtcros.eps}}$.
The relation is well-known. It is easy to check that together with the condition $v_2(unknot)=0$ it defines a knot invariant, this invariant is of degree 2 and takes the value 1 on trefoil.
To calculate $v_2$ of the knot $K$ presented by a diagram $G$, we transform $K$ to the unknot, going from the base point along the orientation of $K$ and replacing an undercrossing by an overcrossing, if at the first passage through the point we go along the undercrossing. When we pass over the whole diagram, it becomes descending, and hence represents the unknot. Each time we change a crossing $s$, the value of $v_2$ changes by $-\Ge(s)lk(\vcenter{\epsffile{smtcros.eps}})$, where $\Ge(s)$ is the sign of the crossing. Since $v_2(unknot)=0$, it gives $$\label{v2middle}
v_2(K)=\sum\Ge(s)lk(L_s),$$ where $L_s$ runs over links which appeared as smoothings at points where the crossing changed.
To calculate $lk(L_s)$, we can sum up the signs of all the crossing points of $L_s$ in which the component containing the base point goes below the other component. These points correspond to chords of $G$ intersecting the chord $c(s)$ corresponding to $s$ and directed to the side of $c(s)$ containing the base point. At the moment all arrows of the original diagram $G$ with heads between the base point and the head of $c(s)$ have been inverted. Therefore $lk(L_s)$ is equal to the sum of signs of arrows crossing $c(s)$ and having heads between tail of $c(s)$ and the base point. In other words, $lk(L_s)$ is $\sum\Ge(c_2)$ where the summation runs over all chords involved, together with $c(s)$, into subdiagrams of the type $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$.
Substituting this to we obtain .
Proof of Corollary \[Estimate\] {#s1.4}
-------------------------------
Let $G$ be a based Gauss diagram of $K$ with $n$ chords. Subdivide the set $C$ of all chords of $G$ into two subsets $C^+$ and $C^-$, where $C^+$ and $C^-$ consist of all chords of the type $\vcenter{\epsffile{left.eps}}$ and $\vcenter{\epsffile{right.eps}}$, respectively. Let $|C^+|=k$, $|C^-|=n-k$, $0\le k\le n$ and let $n_1$ and $n_2$ be the number of subdiagrams of $G$ isomorphic to $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$ and $\vcenter{\epsffile{xdown.eps}}$, respectively. Any subdiagram of $G$ isomorphic to $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$ or $\vcenter{\epsffile{xdown.eps}}$ consists of one chord from each subset $S^\pm$, thus $n_1+n_2\le k(n-k)$. It remains to notice that, as follows from Theorem \[T1\] and Corollary \[Sym\], $$v_2\le\min\{n_1,n_2\}\le\frac{k(n-k)}2\le
\left[\frac{n^2}8\right].$$
An Elementary Theory of the Casson Knot Invariant {#s1.5}
-------------------------------------------------
Formula provides an elementary way to introduce the Casson knot invariant. This formula, being used as a definition, gives a numeric function of a knot diagram with a marked point. At first glance, it is not clear if this is invariant with respect to the isotopy. However this is not difficult to check.
First, let us prove that $\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}, G\right\rangle$ does not depend on the base point. When the base point moves along the circle of $G$, the expression $\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}, G\right\rangle$ can change only at the moment of passing through an arrowhead. Denote this arrow by $c$. Right before this moment the terms involving $c$ equal to the product of $\Ge(c)$ by the sum of signs of all arrows crossing $c$ in the same direction. Right after this moment, these terms are replaced by the product of $\Ge(c)$ by the sum of signs of all arrows crossing $c$ in the opposite direction. Therefore to prove independence of the right hand side of on the base point it suffices to notice, that for each chord $c$ of the Gauss diagram, the sum of signs of all arrows of the Gauss diagram crossing $c$ in one direction, is equal to the sum of signs of arrows crossing $c$ in the opposite direction. Indeed, these sums are equal to the linking number of the two-component link, obtained by smoothening the double point corresponding to $c$.
The invariance under Reidemeister moves follows from the study of the corresponding changes of a Gauss diagram. See Figure \[Reidem\], where some of these changes are shown.
Under the first and third moves subdiagrams isomorphic to $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$ do not change. Under the second move each new subdiagram of this type includes exactly one of the two new chords. Therefore new subdiagrams cancel out in pairs.
From a Combinatorial Formula to Degrees of Maps {#s2}
===============================================
The Motivation: the Linking Number {#s2.00}
----------------------------------
Formula is similar to a combinatorial formula for linking number. Recall that the linking number of disjoint oriented circles $L_1,L_2\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ is equal to the sum of signs of all crossings in a diagram of the link $L_1\cup L_2$, where the $L_1$ passes over $L_2$. As we know, this can be interpreted as the formula for a calculation of the degree of map $$\label{Gf}\Gf:L_1\times L_2\to
S^2:(x,y)\mapsto\frac{x-y}{|x-y|}.$$ This suggests to look for a similar interpretation of .
An Interpretation of the Casson Invariant via a Local Degree {#s2.1}
------------------------------------------------------------
Each summand in the expression for the right hand side of is a local degree for a map which is constructed as follows. For a knot $K\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ with a base point $*\in K$ denote by $C_{X}$ the space of 4-tuples $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in K^4$ of points ordered in the natural way, defined by the orientation of $K$: when one goes on $K$ along the orientation, the points occur in the sequence $*, x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,*$. Denote by $C^0_{X}$ the subspace of $C_{X}$ defined by inequalities $*\ne x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne x_4\ne *$. The orientation of $K$ and the order of coordinates determine an orientation of the manifold $C^0_{X}$. Define a map $$\Gf^0_{X}:C^0_{X}\to S^2\times S^2: (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto
(\frac{x_1-x_3}{|x_1-x_3|},\frac{x_4-x_2}{|x_4-x_2|}).$$ The map $\Gf^0_{X}$ extends uniquely to the whole $C_{X}$ by continuity. Denote the extension by $\Gf_{X}$.
In the notations of the preceding paragraph $X$ stands for our picture $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$.
The preimage of the point $$(s,s)=(\text{south pole}, \text{ south pole})\in S^2\times S^2$$ under $\Gf_{X}$ consists of configurations of points corresponding to subdiagrams of the Gauss diagram isomorphic to $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$. The contribution of a subdiagram to the right hand side of is equal to the local degree of $\Gf_{X}$ at the corresponding point of the preimage. Indeed, $\Gf_{X}$ is locally equivalent to the Cartesian product of two copies of the map $\Gf$, defined above by . On the other hand, the local degree of $\Gf$ is the sign of the corresponding chord.
Therefore $v_2(K)$ seems to be the degree of the map $\Gf_{X}:C_{X}\to S^2\times S^2$. However, we have to be cautious: the source space $C_{X}$ of this map is not a closed manifold. It is a manifold with boundary and corners. Of course, we still can give a homology interpretation of the degree taking for the source space $C_{X}$ the relative homology $H_4(C_{X},C_{X}{\smallsetminus}C^0_{X})$ and for the target $S^2\times S^2$ the relative homology $H_4(S^2\times S^2, S^2\times S^2\smallsetminus(s,s))$.
We Run into Problems {#s2.2}
--------------------
This interpretation works as long as the knot is in a position such that its vertical projection is generic, i.e. gives rise to a knot diagram and the base point does not coincide with a double point. In particular, the projection is an immersion without triple points and points of self-tangency.
However, the usual property of a degree to be invariant under deformations does not follow and requires separate considerations. Indeed, a generic knot isotopy involves situations when the projection is not generic. These are exactly the moments when either the base point passes the double point or the diagram experiences Reidemeister moves. Let us treat these problems separately.
Exiling Base Point to Infinity {#s2.3}
------------------------------
The moments, when the base point passes a double point, correspond to two 3-dimensional faces of our 4-dimensional space $C_{X}$. One of them consists of configurations with $*=x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne x_4\ne *$. The other one is defined by $*\ne x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne x_4= *$. Denote them by $\GS X_{1*}$ and $\GS X_{4*}$, respectively.
Although there exists a natural homeomorphism $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto(x_2,x_3,x_4,x_1)$ between them, we cannot kill $\GS X_{1*}$ and $\GS X_{4*}$ by gluing via this homeomorphism, since it does not commute with the map $\Gf_{X}$.
To overcome this problem we resort to an old trick, which was used for example by Vassiliev [@V] in his original definition of Vassiliev knot invariants: to place the base point at the infinity. A $C^2$-smooth knot in $S^3$ with a base point is mapped by a stereographic projection from the base point to a smooth knotted line in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with an asymptote. Moreover, by an arbitrary small diffeotopy one can turn a neighborhood of the base point on the original knot into a geodesic. This turns the image of the knot into a [*long knot,*]{} i.e., it coincides with a (straight) line outside of some ball. Without a loss of generality, we will assume this line to be the $y$-axis.
Since we need the space $C_{X}$ to be compact, in the case of long knot $K$ it is constructed in a slightly different way. First we compactify $K$ by adding a point at infinity. Denote the compactified $K$ by $\tilde K$. Set $C_{X}$ to be the closure in $\tilde K^4$ of $C^0_{X}\subset K^4$. Then extend $\Gf^0_{X}$ to $C_{X}$ by continuity, as above.
This solves our problem: although the faces $\GS X_{1*}$ and $\GS X_{4*}$ of $C_{X}$ (consisting of points with $\infty=*=x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne x_4\ne *$ and $\infty=*\ne x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne x_4= *$, respectively) are still 3-dimensional, their images under $\Gf_{X}$ are 2-dimensional. Thus from homological point of view they are unessential.
Losing and Recovering the Degree During the Reidemeister Moves {#s2.4}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consider now the strata of the boundary of $C_{X}$ which manifest themselves at Reidemeister moves. For instance, at the third Reidemeister move (i.e. when the projection has a triple point), the isotopy is not a proper map over $(s,s)$ (which means that the preimage of $(s,s)$ meets the boundary). In other words some points of the preimage of $(s,s)$ jump out of $C^0_{X}$ for an instant. The standard theory of degree based on relative homology is designed for proper maps, and we cannot use it. One could hope that this happened because of a wrong choice of the point and the situation can be improved by shifting $(s,s)$ off the diagonal of $S^2\times S^2$.
However, instead of being improved the situation is getting even worse: points of the preimage may not only appear on the boundary of $C_{X}$ for an instant, but disappear for a certain period of time. During this period the degree may jump several times. In Figures \[triple\] we show how it happens. Three chords participate in this interaction. End points of two chords, involved in a subdiagram of the type $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$, meet and pass through each other. The chords become disjoint. But then the opposite process occurs, with another pair of chords. At that moment the original degree of $\Gf_{X}$ is recovered. This suggests to look for a place where the degree was hidden.
From a Local to a Global Degree {#s3}
===============================
A Route from a Local to a Global Degree {#s2.6}
---------------------------------------
There is a nice solution of this puzzle: the chord which is involved in both pairs serves as a bridge between the point, where the first pair gets out of the game, and the point, where the second pair comes, and the second chord of the first pair may glide over this bridge. See Figure \[tripgraph\]. On the way, there is a configuration of two oriented segments parallel to the fixed directions. One of the segments connects points on the knot, while the other one connects a point of the knot with a point on the first segment.
$\centerline{\epsffile{triple.eps}}$
$\centerline{\epsffile{tripgraph.eps}}$
This resembles 3-valent graphs appearing in the Chern-Simons theory approach to Vassiliev invariants, see Bar-Natan [@Bar-Nat] and Bott-Taubes [@BT]. Inspired by this picture, we combine our approach with the Chern-Simons approach below in this section. More literally the same picture is used in Section \[s5.2\].
In the forthcoming sections we construct another configuration space $C_{Y}$ related to a long knot and a continuous mapping $\Gf_{Y}:C_{Y}\to S^2\times S^2\times S^2$. Then we glue six copies of $C_{Y}$ and six copies of $C_{X}\times S^2$ together into a single 6-dimensional stratified space ${\mathcal}C$ with a fundamental class $[{\mathcal}C]\in H_6({\mathcal}C, {\mathcal}S)$ where ${\mathcal}S$ is a union of some low-dimensional strata of ${\mathcal}C$. The maps $\Gf_{X}\times \id_{S^2}$ and $\Gf_{Y}$ give rise to a continuous map $\Gf:{\mathcal}C\to S^2\times S^2\times S^2$, which maps ${\mathcal}S$ into a 5-dimensional set $D\subset S^2\times S^2\times S^2$, consisting of triples $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ of coplanar vectors which are either coplanar or contain the vector $(0,\pm1,0)\in S^2\subset{\mathbb R}^3$ (the latter is due to our convention that long knots coincide with the $y$-axis at the infinity). We prove that the degree of this map is $6v_2(K)$ (i.e., $\Gf[{\mathcal}C]=6v_2(K)[S^2\times S^2\times S^2]$, where $[{\mathcal}C]$ is the natural generator of $H_6({\mathcal}C,{\mathcal}S)$ and $[S^2\times S^2\times S^2]$ is the orientation generator of $H_6(S^2\times S^2\times S^2)$).
The Principal Faces of $C_{X}$ {#s2.5}
------------------------------
Prior to construction of a space completing $C_{X}$ to a cycle, we have to enlist the codimension one faces of $C_{X}$. Two of them, $\GS X_{1*}$ and $\GS X_{4*}$, were studied above in Section \[s2.3\]. Passing to long knots made them unessential.
The other principal strata of the boundary can be described as follows. For any $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ denote by $\GS X_{i\ i+1}$ the subset of $C_{X}$ consisting of points $\Gg\in C_{X}$, such that the components $x_{j}$ of $\pi(\Gg)$ are distinct from $*=\infty$, and distinct from each other except for $x_i=x_{i+1}$.
\[2.1.principle\_faces\] Let $A$ be one of the pairs $1*$, $12$, $23$, $34$, or $4*$. Then the space $\GS X_{A}$ is a 3-dimensional manifold open in $C_{X}\smallsetminus C^0_{X}$. The union $C^0_{X}\cup\GS X_{A}$ is a manifold with boundary $\GS X_{A}$. The complement of $\bigcup_{A}\GS X_A$ in $C_{X}\smallsetminus C^0_{X}$ has dimension 2.
This is a straightforward consequence of the construction of $C_{X}$. In fact, one can identify $C_{X}$ with a closed 4-simplex. In the coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$, $x_4$ in $C_{X}$ the strata of $C_{X}\smallsetminus C^0_{X}$ are described by obvious linear equations and inequalities. Note that the faces $\GS X_{12}$, $\GS X_{23}$, $\GS X_{34}$ are naturally homeomorphic to the same space. Namely, denote by $C^0_{V}$ the space of 3-tuples $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in K^3$ of points ordered in the natural way defined by the orientation of $K$ with $*\ne x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne *$. This is a 3-dimensional manifold equipped with the orientation determined by the order of coordinates and the orientation of $K$.
\[2.2.xi\] The maps $$\begin{aligned}&\xi_1:\GS X_{12}\to
C^0_{V}:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto(x_2,x_3,x_4)\\
&\xi_2:\GS X_{23}\to C^0_{V}:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto(x_1,x_3,x_4)\\
&\xi_3:\GS X_{34}\to
C^0_{V}:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto(x_1,x_2,x_3)\end{aligned}$$ are homeomorphisms. The degree of $\xi_i$, $i=1,2,3$ with respect to the orientation induced on $\GS_{i\ i+1}$ as on the boundary of $\GG\cup\GS_{0i}$ is $(-1)^i$.
The Configuration Space $C_{Y}$ {#s2.7}
-------------------------------
Consider the space $C^0_{Y}$ of 4-tuples $$(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)\in K^3\times{\mathbb R}^3,$$ where $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ are distinct from each other and $x_0$ and ordered in the natural way which is determined by the orientation of $K$. Here in the notations $Y$ represents picture $\vcenter{\epsffile{ygraph.eps}}$. The order of the coordinates, and the orientations of $K$ and ${\mathbb R}^3$, determine an orientation of the manifold $C^0_{Y}$. Define a map $$\Gf^0_{Y}:C^0_{Y}\to S^2\times S^2\times S^2:
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)\mapsto\left(\frac{x_1-x_0}{|x_1-x_0|},
\frac{x_3-x_0}{|x_3-x_0|},\frac{x_0-x_2}{|x_0-x_2|}\right).$$
As in the previous section, we need to embed $C^0_{Y}$ to some compact space and extend $\Gf^0_{Y}$ to it. The former is easy: $C^0_{Y}\subset \tilde K^3\times S^3$, but $\Gf^0_{Y}$ does not admit a continuous extension to $\tilde K^3\times S^3$. We may use a standard way of overcoming this difficulty: to consider the graph $\GG$ of $\Gf^0_{Y}$ as a subset of $\tilde K^3\times S^3\times S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ and take the closure. Denote the closure by $C_{Y}$ and its image under the natural projection $\pi:C_{Y}\to\tilde K^3\times S^3$ by $B_{Y}$. This is a sort of a resolution of singularities: the restriction to $\GG$ of $\pi:C_{Y}\to B_{Y}$ identifies $\GG$ with $C^0_{Y}$. Via this identification the natural projection $C_{Y}\to S^2\times S^2\times
S^2$ extends the original map $\Gf^0_{Y}$. Denote this extension by $\Gf_{Y}$.
Our space $C_{Y}$ can be identified with a subspace of a quotient space of the widely-known and well-studied space $C_{3,1}$, obtained from $C^0_{Y}$ by the Fulton-MacPherson [@FM] compactification construction. (Similarly, $C_{X}$ is a quotient space of the space $C_4$ obtained by an analogous compactification of $C^0_{X}$.) Various aspects of this construction were presented with details in [@AS] and [@BT]. The difference between $C_{Y}$ and a space studied in [@BT] is that we study a long knot (or a knot in $S^3$ with a base point), and, furthermore, we make the minimal resolution of singularities needed to define $\Gf_{Y}$, while Bott and Taubes use a larger Fulton-MacPherson compactification [@FM] of the configuration space. Thus our space $C_{Y}$ turns out to be a subspace of a quotient space of $C_{3,1}$ from [@BT]. However, for our purposes we do not need a refined analysis of the natural stratification of $C_{3,1}$ presented in [@BT]. Instead, we use the following elementary consideration of the boundary $C_{Y}\smallsetminus\GG$ of $\GG$.
Principal Faces of $C_{Y}$ {#s2.8}
--------------------------
Let $\Gg=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0,u_1,u_2,u_3)$ be a point of $C_{Y}\smallsetminus\GG$. Since $$\pi(\Gg)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)\in B_{Y}$$ belongs to the boundary of $C^0_{Y}$, either $x_0=\infty$ $(= S^3\smallsetminus{\mathbb R}^3)$, or $x_1=*=\infty$, or $x_3=*=\infty$, or some of $x_i$ coincide. Consider all the cases separately.
For any subset $A$ of $\{0,1,2,3,*\}$ denote by $\GS Y_{A}$ the subset of $C_{Y}$ consisting of points $\Gg=(x_0, x_1,x_2,x_3,u_2,u_2,u_3)\in C_{Y}$ such that in the configuration $x_0, x_1,x_2,x_3,*$ two points coincide if and only if the corresponding elements of $\{0,1,2,3,*\}$ belong to $A$. For instance, $$\GS Y_{01*}=\{\Gg\in C_{Y}\,:\,*= x_0=x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne *\}.$$ Of course, $\GS Y_{A}$ with $A=\{1,3\}$ and $\{2, *\}$ are empty.
Several boundary strata $\GS Y_A$ are of codimension 2 or higher in $C_{Y}\smallsetminus\GG$.
\[2.8.small\_strata\] Let $A$ be a subset of $\{1,2,3,*\}$ containing at least 3 elements. Then $\dim(\GS Y_A)\le 4$.
Since $0\notin A$, the map $\Gf^0_{Y}$ extends uniquely to $\Gp(\GS Y_A)\subset B_{Y}$ by continuity. Thus, by the construction of $C_{Y}$, the stratum $\GS Y_A$ is projected homeomorphically to $\Gp(\GS Y_A)$. As the codimension of $\Gp(\GS Y_A)$ in $B_{Y}$ is $|A|-1\ge 2$, $\dim(\GS Y_A)=\dim(\Gp(\GS Y_A))\le 4$.
The rest of non-empty boundary strata are of codimension 1 in $C_{Y}\smallsetminus\GG$. The strata $\GS Y_{0i}$, $i=1,2,3$ are of primary interest, as, similarly to $\GS X_{i\ i+1}$, they are homeomorphic to $C^0_{V}\times S^2$.
\[2.8.eta\] For $i=1,2,3$, the map $$\eta_i:\GS Y_{0i}\to C^0_{V}\times S^2:
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0,u_1,u_2,u_3)\mapsto((x_1,x_2,x_3),u_i)$$ is a homeomorphism of degree $(-1)^i$ with respect to the orientation induced on $\GS Y_{0i}$ as on the boundary of $\GG\cup\GS Y_{0i}$ and the product of the orientation of $C^0_{V}$ defined above by the standard orientation of $S^2$.
Some other strata, which seem to be rather big, admit orientation reversing homeomorphisms. In the next section this allows us to cancel them out.
\[2.2.E\] Let $A=\{0,1,2\}$ or $\{0,2,3\}$. The stratum $\GS Y_A$ is a codimension 1 submanifold of a manifold $C^0_{Y}\cup\GS Y_A$. The maps $$\Gz_1:\GS Y_{012}\to\GS
Y_{012}:
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0,u_1,u_2,u_3)\mapsto
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0,u_2,u_1,u_3),$$ $$\Gz_2:\GS Y_{023}\to\GS
Y_{023}:
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0,u_1,u_2,u_3)\mapsto
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0,u_1,u_3,u_2)$$ are homeomorphisms which can be extended to orientation reversing homeomorphisms of a neighborhood of $\GS Y_A$ in $C^0_{Y}$.
The extensions can be defined by the following formulas: $$(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)\mapsto
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_1+x_2-x_0),$$ $$(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)\mapsto
(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_2+x_3-x_0)$$
Gluing Pieces Together {#s.2.9}
----------------------
Now we are to construct ${\mathcal}C$ as outlined in Section \[s2.6\]. We consider 6 copies of $C_{X}\times S^2$ and $C_{Y}$, i.e. the product $(C_{X}\times S^2\cup C_{Y})\times S_3$. Here the symmetric group $S_3$ is equipped with the discrete topology. The space ${\mathcal}C$ is obtained as the quotient space of $(C_{X}\times S^2\cup C_{Y})\times S_3$ by the following identifications.
1. $\GS X_{12}\times S^2\times\Go$ is identified with $\GS Y_{01}\times\Go\circ(1,3,2)$ via $(\xi_1\times\id_{S^2})\circ\eta_1^{-1}$;
2. $\GS X_{23}\times S^2\times\Go$ is identified with $\GS Y_{02}\times\Go\circ(2,3)$ via $(\xi_2\times\id_{S^2})\circ\eta_2^{-1}$;
3. $\GS X_{34}\times S^2\times\Go$ is identified with $\GS Y_{01}\times\Go$ via $(\xi_3\times\id_{S^2})\circ\eta_3^{-1}$;
4. $\GS Y_{012}\times\Go $ is identified with $\GS Y_{012}\times \Go\circ(1,2)$ via $\Gz_1$;
5. $\GS Y_{023}\times\Go $ is identified with $\GS Y_{023}\times \Go\circ(2,3)$ via $\Gz_2$;
6. the induced identifications on the boundaries of the strata above
For $\Go\in S_3$, let $\bar\Go:S^2\times S^2\times S^2\to
S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ be the permutation of the factors defined by $\Go$. One can easily check that, as it was promised above, the maps $\bar\Go\circ\Gf_{X}\times \id_{S^2}:C_X\times S^2\times\Go\to
S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ and $\bar\Go\circ\Gf_{Y}:C_Y\times\Go\to
S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ give rise to a continuous map $\Gf:{\mathcal}C\to S^2\times S^2\times S^2$. See Figure \[gluing\].
Despite of all these identifications, ${\mathcal}C$ is not closed yet, that is although its high-dimensional strata are orientable and gluing reverses orientations, the high-dimensional homology group $H_6(C)$ is trivial. The boundary five-dimensional strata are obtained from $\GS Y_A$ with $A\subset\{0,1,2,3,*\}$ containing both $0$ and $*$ or a pair of consecutive elements of the sequence $\{*,1,2,3,*\}$, or $A=\{0,1,2,3\}$. Denote the union of these strata by ${\mathcal}S$. It is easy to see that $H_6({\mathcal}C,{\mathcal}S)={\mathbb Z}$. Indeed, the six-dimensional strata $C^0_{Y}\times \Go$ and $C^0_{X}\times S^2\times\Go$ are connected and oriented. They are attached to each other by orientation reversing diffeomorphisms of five-dimensional strata on their boundary into a connected space ${\mathcal}C$. Finally, ${\mathcal}S$ is the union of all the five-dimensional strata not involved in the gluing.
Now let us study the image of ${\mathcal}S$ under $\Gf$ and show that it is contained in the set $D$ of triples $(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ of vectors which are either coplanar or contain vector $\pm a$, where $a=(0,1,0)\in S^2\subset{\mathbb R}^3$.
\[2.8.small\_im\] Let $A$ be a subset of $\{1,2,3,*\}$. Then $\Gf_{Y}$ maps $\GS Y_A$ into $D$.
Observe, that if $A$ contains two elements of $\{1,2,3,*\}$, then it contains a pair of consecutive elements of the sequence $\{*,1,2,3,*\}$. If $A\supset\{1,*\}$ or $A\supset\{3,*\}$, then $u_1=-a$ or $u_3=a$, respectively. If $A\supset\{1,2\}$ or $A\supset\{2,3\}$, then $u_1=-u_2$ or $u_2=-u_3$, respectively.
\[2.8.coplanar\] Let $A$ be a subset of $\{0,1,2,3,*\}$ containing both $0$ and $*$. Then $\Gf_{Y}$ maps $(\GS Y_A)$ into $D$.
When $x_0$ tends to infinity, all three vectors $u_1$, $u_2$, $u_3$ lie in the plane containing $a$ and the direction of the move of $x_0$.
\[2.9\] Let $A=\{0,1,2,3\}$. Then $\Gf_{Y}$ maps $(\GS Y_A)$ into $D$.
All three vectors $u_1$, $u_2$, $u_3$ lie in the plane containing the direction of the tangent vector to $K$ at $x_0=x_1=x_2=x_3$.
\[main\_th\] The space ${\mathcal}C$ has a well-defined fundamental class $[{\mathcal}C]\in H_6({\mathcal}C,{\mathcal}S)$. The map $\Gf:{\mathcal}C\to S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ induces homomorphism $H_6({\mathcal}C,{\mathcal}S)\to H_6(S^2\times S^2\times S^2,D)$, which maps $[{\mathcal}C]$ to $6v_2(K)[S^2\times S^2\times S^2]$.
Lemmae \[2.8.small\_im\]- \[2.9\] prove the first statement of Theorem \[main\_th\]. Now we prove the rest.
To evaluate the degree, we return to the arguments given in the first subsection of this section. Assume that our knot $K$ is in general position with respect to the vertical projection. Calculate the degree by counting (with signs) points of the preimage of a regular value $r\not\in D$ of $\Gf:{\mathcal}C\to S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ close to $(s,s,s)$. As we observed in Section \[s2.1\], those of them which belong to each of the six copies of $C_{X_*}\times S^2$ contribute $v_2(K)$. It remains to notice that the preimage does not intersect the copies of $C_{Y_*}$. Indeed, each point of the preimage belonging to one of these copies would correspond to a configuration of $(x_1, x_2, x_3)\in K^3$ such that $x_2$ is positioned in ${\mathbb R}^3$ almost strictly above $x_1$ and $x_3$. The points $x_1$ and $x_3$ are not close to each other because they are separated on $K$ by $x_2$. The projection of $K$ is assumed to be generic. In particular, it does not have triple points. Therefore if $r$ is sufficiently close to $(s,s,s)$, this configuration cannot appear. Note also, that although $D$ divides $S^2\times S^2\times S^2$, and the regular value $r$ may be chosen in any component of the complement of $D$, the above evaluation of the local degree does not depend on this choice. This completes the proof of Theorem \[main\_th\].
Straightforward Applications {#s.straight}
----------------------------
There are different ways for calculating the degree of a map. Two of them are classical.
First, one can take a regular value of the map and count the points of its preimage with signs (which are the local degrees of this map at the point). For instance, choosing a point sufficiently close to $(s,s,s)\in S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ we get again our combinatorial formula . Choosing a point sufficiently close to $(-s,-s,-s)\in S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ we get . Other choices of regular values give rise to other completely different combinatorial formulas for $v_2$. Indeed, the strata of ${\mathcal}C$, which are copies of $C_Y$, have been added just to make the space closed, but under the original choice of the regular value they did not give any input in the combinatorial formulas. However under other choices of the regular value they become visible and change the type of the formulas. We will deal with this in the next section.
The second classical way is to take a differential form of top degree on the target, normalize it by the condition that the integral of this form over the whole manifold is equal to one, pull it back to the source and integrate over the whole source manifold. In this way one can deduce from Theorem \[main\_th\] Bar-Natan’s integral formula [@Bar-Nat] for $v_2(K)$.
These two methods can be mixed which gives rise to a method generalizing both of them. See Section \[s5.1\] below.
From Regular Values to New Combinatorial Formulae {#s4}
=================================================
Counting Tinkertoy Diagrams {#s4.1}
---------------------------
If we choose a generic regular value of $\Gf$ and do not impose any restriction on the position of a knot, counting preimages of the the regular value reduces to counting configurations of arrows in the space of the following two types. The configurations of the first type are pairs of arrows connecting points of the knot. The arrows are attached to the knot according to arrow diagram $\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}$ and are directed in two of the three fixed directions. The configurations of the second type are tripods made of three arrows connecting a point in the space with three points on the knot. The arrows are attached according to the diagram $\vcenter{\epsffile{ygraph.eps}}$ and are directed in the three fixed directions.
Similar configurations have been considered by D. Thurston [@Thurston] under the name of [*tinkertoy diagrams.*]{} The only difference is that his diagrams consist of unoriented segments, while ours are made of arrows. So, we will use the same term [*tinkertoy diagram.*]{}
Theorem \[main\_th\] implies curious geometric consequences concerning numbers of various tinkertoy diagrams on a given knot. However, we do not elaborate this topic in a full generality. Instead, we obtain new combinatorial formulas related to special kinds of knot diagrams.
Regular Values near Both Poles {#s4.1.1}
------------------------------
One of the interesting choices of the regular value is to take a point close to $(s,s,-s)$. Recall that since the vectors $s$, $s$, $-s$ are coplanar and hence $(s,s,-s)\in D$ , the point $(s,s,-s)$ cannot be used as a regular value of $\Gf$ to calculate $v_2(K)$ via Theorem \[main\_th\]. The same happens with $(s,s,s)$ and to get our combinatorial formula we took a regular value of $\Gf$ sufficiently close to $(s,s,s)$. All points sufficiently close to $(s,s,s)$ give the same combinatorial formula.
However points close to $(s,s,-s)$ give rise to different combinatorial formulas. Since we are interested in limit situations, it is reasonable to consider smooth paths $t\mapsto(s_1(t),s_2(t),s_3(t))$ with $\lim_{t\to\infty}(s_1(t),s_2(t),s_3(t))=(s,s,-s)$, check if the numbers of tinkertoy diagrams stabilize after some value of $t$ and write down the combinatorial formula obtained for sufficiently large $t$. However, first, let us consider the tinkertoy diagrams corresponding to a generic point close to $(s,s,-s)$.
Pairs of Arrows {#s4.1.2}
---------------
Tinkertoy diagrams of the first kind (i.e., pairs of arrows with the end-points on the knot) consist of almost vertical, i.e. almost parallel to $z$-axis, arrows. Hence these arrows appear near double points of the knot projection to $xy$-plane. However, not all of them are directed downwards: one can be directed upwards. Therefore the tinkertoy diagrams of the first kind appearing at pairs of double points of the knot projection to $xy$-plane make a contribution different from the contribution in the case of a regular value close to $(s,s,s)$. Recall that then the contribution in the case of $(s,s,s)$ was just $\left\langle6\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle$. Now it is $$\left\langle2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}+2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps
}}+2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle.$$
A pair of almost vertical chords can be found also near the same double point of the knot projection. On a tinkertoy diagram of the first type the arrowheads are separated on the knot by the arrowtails (and by the base point $*=\infty$ on the other side). So the arrowheads cannot be close to each other on the knot. Therefore although a pair of almost vertical chords can be found near the same double point of the knot projection, in the case of $(s,s,s)$ tinkertoy diagrams of the first type do not appear near the same double point. In the case of $(s,s,-s)$ this may happen, see Figure \[contrib\]a. A double point $c$ where a tinkertoy diagram corresponding to a pair of vectors $(s_i,s_3)$ with $i=1$ or $2$ appears, may be described by the following combinatorial rule. Consider the plane $P$ spanned by $s_i$ and $s_3$ and passing through $c$. Choose a vector $v$ in the intersection of $P$ with the plane of projection so that the orientations of $P$ defined by the frames $(s_i,s_3)$ and $(s_3,t)$ coincide. Denote by $t_1$, $t_2$ the tangent vectors to the branches of the knot projection in $c$ (oriented and ordered by the orientation of our long knot). Then the condition is that the orientations of the $xy$-plane of projection, defined by the frames $(v,t_1)$, $(v,t_2)$ and $(t_1,t_2)$ coincide (due to generic choice of $s_i$, $s_3$, vectors $t_1$, $t_2$ are transversal to $P$). See Figure \[contrib\]b.
Thus to keep the contribution from the tinkertoy diagrams of the first type fixed, one needs to keep planes spanned by $s_1$, $s_3$ and $s_2$, $s_3$ unchanged as $(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ approaches $(s,s,-s)$.
Triangles Inscribed in Knot Diagram {#s4.1.3}
-----------------------------------
Tripod tinkertoy diagrams behave in a more complicated way. If the regular value $(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ is chosen near $(s,s,-s)$ generically, then the free vertex $x_0$ of the tripod is positioned high over the knot, as a vertex of sharp triangular pyramid with corners on the knot. The corner corresponding to $s_3$ should be between two other corners as they appear along the knot. This corner will be referred as [*northern.*]{} If the knot was positioned in the plane of the projection, the pyramids of this sort would correspond to triangles homothetic to each other and inscribed in the knot diagram in such a way that on the knot the northern vertex lies between two other vertices. If $(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ is sufficiently close to $(s,s,-s)$ then the differences between the tripod tinkertoy diagrams based on the knot and on the knot diagram become inessential. In this case the contribution coming from tripods depends only on the $xy$-plane projection of the knot.
Now we can fix a curve in $S^2\times S^2\times S^2$ approaching $(s,s,-s)$ in such a way that the combinatorial formula for $v_2(K)$ defined via Theorem \[main\_th\] by counting tinkertoy diagrams associated with the point of this curve stabilizes as the point approaches $(s,s-s)$:
Choose a triangle $T$ in $xy$-plane generic with respect to the knot diagram under consideration. The genericity here means that the sides of $T$ are not parallel to the tangent lines to the branches of the knot projection at double points. Let $(X_1,Y_1)$, $(X_2,Y_2)$, $(X_3,Y_3)$ be vertices of $T$. Denote by $s_i(t)$ with $i=1,2,3$, $t>0$ the unit vectors $\frac{(X_i,Y_i,-t)}{\sqrt{X_i^2+Y_i^2+t^2}}$ for $i=1,2$ and $-\frac{(X_3,Y_3,-t)}{\sqrt{X_3^2+Y_3^2+t^2}}$ for $i=3$. This is a smooth curve with $\lim_{t\to\infty}(s_1(t),s_2(t),s_3(t))=(s,s,-s)$. As we saw, the set of tinkertoy diagrams associated with $(s_1(t),s_2(t),s_3(t))$ stabilizes as $t\to\infty$ and the resulting combinatorial formula for $6v_2(K)$ depends only on the diagram of $K$. It contains three terms:
1. $\left\langle2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}+
2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}+
2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle,$
2. the number of double points of the projection positioned in the way described above with respect to the sides connecting the northern vertex $(X_3,Y_3)$ with the other two vertices,
3. and the algebraic number of triangles homothetic to $T$ and inscribed in the knot projection in such a way that on the knot the northern vertex lies between the two others.
The triangles are counted with signs. An interested reader can find a combinatorial rule for the sign of an inscribed triangle. Of course, it is nothing but the local degree of $\Gf$ at the corresponding point.
Triangles inscribed in a knot projection are not customary for knot theory. Choosing more sophisticated paths approaching $(s,s,-s)$, we will derive new combinatorial formulas involving more common characteristics of knot projection.
Degeneration of Triangles {#s4.1.4}
-------------------------
Fix a positive $\GD$ and consider a family of triangles $T_t$ in $xy$-plane with vertices $(-1,0)$, $(\GD,0)$, $(0,\frac1t)$. These are triangles with the same base $[-1,\GD]$ and height tending to $0$ as $t\to\infty$. Replace in the construction of the path $t\to(s_1(t),s_2(t),s_3(t))$ the triangle $T$ with $T_t$: put $s_1(t)=\frac{(-1,0,-t)}{\sqrt{1+t^2}}$, $s_2(t)=\frac{(\GD,0,-t)}{\sqrt{\GD^2+t^2}}$ and $s_3(t)=-\frac{(0,1/t,-t)}{\sqrt{t^2+1/t^2}}$.
Assume that at double points of the knot projection there is no branch with tangent parallel to $x$-axis. Then the tinkertoy diagrams associated to the points of the path under consideration stabilizes as $t\to\infty$. The diagrams of the first type look as in the previous case. Because of the special choice of the triangles, the combinatorial rule for calculating the number of double points with tinkertoy diagram of the first type simplifies and gives the number of double points of the knot projection where both branches are oriented upwards or both downwards.
The tripod tinkertoy diagrams are of two sorts. The ones of the first sort are related to the points of the knot projection where the $y$-coordinate restricted to the knot projection has a local maximum. The corresponding inscribed triangle shrinks to this point. The contribution to the formula is $-1$.
The tinkertoy diagrams of the second sort are related to triples of points of the knot projection satisfying the following conditions. The points lie on the same line parallel to $x$-axis. The ratio of the distances between the middle point and two end points equals $\GD$. The middle point arises from the northern vertex, and hence lies between the other two points both on this horizontal line and on the knot. The contribution of such a triple is $\Ge=\pm1$ defined by the following rule.
Denote the points of the triple by $a$, $b$, $c$ in order of their appearance on the knot. Moving the horizontal line containing $(a,b,c)$ up, we include $(a,b,c)$ in a one-parameter family of triples $(a(y),b(y),c(y))$ of points of the knot projection. Denote by $\Gs$ the sign of the derivative of $|c(y)-b(y)|-|a(y)-b(y)|$ at the initial position. For example, on the left hand side of Figure \[GD-tangle\] $\Gs=-1$, while on the right hand side $\Gs=1$. Denote by $q$ the number of branches of the knot projection passing through $a$, $b$, $c$ upwards. Then $\Ge=(-1)^q\Gs$.
The formula which is obtained in this way still involves geometry of the knot, though the geometry is reduced to planar geometry of the knot projection. Choosing an appropriate $\GD$ or deforming a knot diagram, one can make the formulas purely combinatorial. We will do this in Sections \[s4.2\]-\[s4.4\].
Other Paths to Degeneration {#s4.1.5}
---------------------------
Choosing other paths to $(s,s,-s)$ one can get many other combinatorial formulas. Even a simple renumeration of the vertices of $T_t$ changes the result. We consider two renumeration.
For the first of them, put $s_1(t)=\frac{(-1,0,-t)}{\sqrt{1+t^2}}$, $s_2(t)=\frac{(0,1/t,-t)}{\sqrt{t^2+1/t^2}}$ and $s_3(t)=-\frac{(\GD,0,-t)}{\sqrt{\GD^2+t^2}}$. Literally repeating the arguments of Section \[s4.1.4\] we have to make the following changes.
First, the same combinatorial rule for calculating the number of double points with tinkertoy diagram of the first type gives twice the number of double points of $f$ where either both branches are oriented upwards and their intersection number[^1] is $+1$, or both branches are oriented downwards and the intersection number is $-1$.
Second, counting the contribution from tripods we observe that the one of local maxima disappears. The reason is that we have to count only inscribed triangles whose northern vertex lies on the knot between two other vertices. In this case, the rightmost vertex is northern, so such a triangle cannot be inscribed at the maximum respecting the order.
Third, by the same reason, triples of points of the knot projections lying on the same horizontal line should appear in another order on the knot: the rightmost point on the line should be the middle one on the knot.
Another renumeration is provided by $s_1(t)=\frac{(\GD,0,-t)}{\sqrt{\GD^2+t^2}}$, $s_2(t)=\frac{(0,1/t,-t)}{\sqrt{t^2+1/t^2}}$ and $s_3(t)=-\frac{(-1,0,-t)}{\sqrt{1+t^2}}$. Similarly to the above, the contribution of double points gives twice the number of double points of $f$ where either both branches are oriented upwards and their intersection number is $-1$, or both branches are oriented downwards and the intersection number is $+1$. The contribution made by tripods comes from triples of points of the knot projections lying on the same horizontal line such that the leftmost point on the line is the middle one on the knot.
Regular and Nonassociative Immersions {#s4.2}
-------------------------------------
Now we have to make preparations for reformulating results in a purely combinatorial fashion. Let $S$ be an oriented smooth one-dimensional manifold without boundary and $f:S\to {\mathbb R}^2$ an immersion.
A double point $d\in{\mathbb R}^2$ of $f$ or the image in ${\mathbb R}^2$ of a critical point of the composition $\begin{CD}S@>f>>{\mathbb R}^2@>{p_y}>>{\mathbb R}\end{CD}$ is called a [*critical point*]{} of $f(S)$. A line passing through a critical point of $f(S)$ and parallel to $x$-axis is called a [*critical level.*]{}
Assume that the immersion $f$ is [*generic*]{} in the sense that
1. it has only transversal double self-intersections,
2. its composition with the projection to $y$-axis has only non-degenerate critical points,
3. no critical point of its composition with the projection to $y$-axis is a double point and
4. each of its critical levels contains only one critical point.
Fix a real number $\GD>1$. A triple $a<b<c$ of points on a line is called [*$\GD$-symmetric*]{} if $\GD^{-1}<\frac{c-b}{b-a}<\GD$. It is easy to see that any horizontal line, which meets $f(S)$ sufficiently close to a critical point, intersects $f(S)$ in three points, which are not $\GD$-symmetric.
A generic immersion $f$ is said to be [*$\GD$-regular*]{} if there are neighborhoods of the critical levels such that any horizontal line which intersects $f(S)$ in a non-$\GD$-symmetric triple of points lies in one of the neighborhoods of a critical level and two of the three points are close to the critical point.
It is clear that for any generic immersion $f$ there exists sufficiently large $\GD$ such that $f$ is $\GD$-regular.
A generic immersion $f$ with a finite number of critical levels is [*$\GD$-nonassociative*]{} if the following conditions hold for any horizontal line containing a $\GD$-symmetric triple $a<b<c$ of points of $f(S)$:
1. the line contains neither critical points nor other triples of $\GD$-symmetric points of $f(S)$,
2. $(a,c)\cap f(S)=b$,
3. the $\GD$-symmetric triple disappears in two different ways as the line moves up and down with $\frac{c-b}{b-a}$ varying from $\GD^{-1}$ to $\GD$.
The two possible types of a neighborhood of $[a,c]$ are shown in Figure \[GD-tangle\].
Again, one can see that for any generic immersion $f$ there exists sufficiently large $\GD$ such that $f$ can be deformed by a diffeotopy of the plane to a $\GD$-nonassociative immersion.
Non-associative immersions are related to nonassociative tangles considered in [@Bar-Nat2], [@Cartier], which motivated our choice of this term.
The picture of a $\GD$-nonassociative immersion can be divided into standard horizontal strips by lines separating the fragments containing $\GD$-symmetric triples and critical levels. Each of the strips should contain either a single critical point or a fragment shown in Figure \[GD-tangle\]. This decomposition is referred to as a decomposition to elementary nonassociative fragments. It admits a purely combinatorial description in terms of bracketing, see [@Bar-Nat2]. An elementary fragment containing $\GD$-symmetric triple (i.e., a fragment shown in Figure \[GD-tangle\]) is called an [*associator.*]{}
Elementary Characteristics of Regular and Nonassociative Immersions {#s4.3}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $f:S\to{\mathbb R}^2$ be a generic immersion. Denote by $M$ the number of maximum points of the composition of the immersion and the projection to $y$-axis.
Denote by $X$ the number of the double points where either both branches are oriented upwards or downwards. If $S={\mathbb R}^1$, this number is splitted as $X=X_++X_-$, where $X_+$ is the number of double points of $f$ where either both branches are oriented upwards and their intersection number is $+1$, or both branches are oriented downwards and the intersection number is $-1$.
An immersion $f:{\mathbb R}^1\to{\mathbb R}^2$ such that $f(x)=(0,x)$ for $x\in {\mathbb R}$ with sufficiently large $|x|$ is called a [*long curve*]{}. Thus, a long curve coincides at infinity with the standard parametrisation of the vertical axis.
Casson Invariant via Nonassociative Diagram {#s4.4}
-------------------------------------------
Consider a $\GD$-nonassociative long curve ${\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^2$ and an associator $A$ appearing in its decomposition. The three branches can be enumerated in two ways: from left to right and as their preimages appear in the source. Denote by $\Gs(A)$ the element of $S_3$ which assigns the number of the branch counted according to the orientation on the source to the number of the same branch counted from left to right in the target. Denote by $q(A)$ the number of branches of $A$ which are oriented upwards. Define the sign $\Ge(A)$ of $A$ to be $(-1)^{q(A)}{\sign(\Gs(A))}$, if $A$ is as on the left hand side of Figure \[GD-tangle\], and $-(-1)^{q(A)}{\sign(\Gs(A))}$, if $A$ is as on the right hand side of Figure \[GD-tangle\]. Note that the sign $\sign(\Gs(A))$ and hence $\Ge(A)$ depend only of the cyclic order of the branches. Thus $\Ge(A)$ is defined also for an associator in an immersion of $S^1$.
For a nonassociative long curve and $\Go\in S_3$ put $N(\Go)=\sum\Ge(A)$, where $A$ runs over all the associators with $\Gs(A)=\Go$ appearing in the decomposition of the immersion.
Let $N$ be the total algebraic number of associators. It is defined for a nonassociative immersion of either ${\mathbb R}^1$ or $S^1$. In the case of ${\mathbb R}^1$ it splits: $N=\sum_{\Go\in
S_3}N(\Go)$.
\[4.4.A\] Let $K$ be a long knot whose projection to $xy$-plane is a $\GD$-nonassociative immersion for some $\GD>0$. Let $G$ be the corresponding Gauss diagram. Then
$$\label{4.4.A.2}
v_2(K)=\frac12\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle +\frac14(N(1)+N(1,3))
+\frac14X-\frac14M$$
$$\label{4.4.A.1}
v_2(K)=\frac12\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle +\frac14(N(2,3)+N(1,3,2))
+\frac12X_+$$
$$\label{4.4.A.3}
v_2(K)=\frac12\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle
+\frac14(N(1,2)+N(1,2,3)) +\frac12X_-$$
Here $X$, $X_+$, $X_-$ and $M$ are the characteristics of the projection of $K$ defined in Section \[s4.3\], and $\left\langle
\vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}} +\vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ ,
G\right\rangle$ is the sum $\sum\Ge(c_1)\Ge(c_2)$ over all subdiagrams of $G$ isomorphic to either $\vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}$, or $\vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}$, where $c_1$, $c_2$ are the chords of the subdiagram, see Section \[s1.2\].
Theorem \[4.4.A\] is stated for a diagram of a [*long*]{} knot. Here is its reformulation for classical (closed) knots.
\[4.4.C\] Let $K$ be a knot whose projection to $xy$-plane is a $\GD$-nonassociative immersion for some $\GD>0$. Let $G$ be the corresponding Gauss diagram. Then $$\label{4.4.C.eq}
v_2(K)=\frac14\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{x.eps}}\ ,
G\right\rangle +\frac1{24}N
+\frac18X-\frac1{24}M +\frac1{24}$$
Obviously, $$\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}\ + \
\vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\ + \ \vcenter{\epsffile{xdown.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle=\left\langle
\vcenter{\epsffile{x.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle$$ Now the result follows from \[T1\], \[Sym\] and \[4.4.A\]. Appearance of $\frac1{24}$ is related to the fact that closing a diagram long knot produces a new maximum point.
Casson Invariant via Regular Diagram {#s4.5}
------------------------------------
Below by the index of a point $c$ with respect to a curve $\Gg$ we mean the intersection number of $R_c$ and $\Gg$, where $R_c$ is the open horizontal ray starting at $c$ and directed to the right.
Consider a $\GD$-regular long curve $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}^2$. The preimage of a double point $d$ of $f$ divides ${\mathbb R}$ into three parts: two rays and a segment. Denote by $i_{\text{int}}(d)$ the index of $d$ with respect to the image of this segment under $f$.
Denote by $i_{\text{out}}(d)$ the index of $d$ with respect to the image under $f$ of the union of the rays. Let $\Ge(d)$ be the intersection number of the branches of $f({\mathbb R})$ at $d$. See Figure \[signs\]. In Figure \[fexample\], $\Ge(d_1)=-1$, $\Ge(d_2)=1$, $i_{\text{int}}(d_1)=0$, $i_{\text{out}}(d_1)=1$, $i_{\text{int}}(d_2)=-1$, $i_{\text{out}}(d_2)=1$.
Put $I_{\text{out}}=\sum\Ge(d)i_{\text{out}}(d),$ $I_{\text{int}}=\sum\Ge(d)i_{\text{int}}(d),$ where the summations run over all double points $d$ of $f$. For the curve in Figure \[fexample\], $I_{\text{int}}=-1$ and $I_{\text{out}}=0$.
Local extrema of the composition of $f$ and the projection to the $y$-axis are called extremal points. At an extremal point $e$ the curve $f$ goes either in a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction, see Figure \[signs\]. Let $\Ge(e)$ be $1$ in the counter-clockwise case and $-1$ otherwise. In Figure \[fexample\], $\Ge(e_1)=\Ge(e_2)=1$ and $\Ge(e_3)=\Ge(e_4)=-1$.
The preimage of an extremal point $e$ of $f$ divides ${\mathbb R}$ into two rays. The curve $f({\mathbb R})$ is decomposed into the halves which are the images of these rays. Denote by $i_{\text{r}}(e)$ and $i_{\text{l}}(e)$, respectively, the index of $e$ with respect to the half of $f({\mathbb R})$ approaching $f(e)$ from the right and left, respectively. Put $I_{\text{r}}=\sum\Ge(e)i_{\text{r}}(e),$ $I_{\text{l}}=\sum\Ge(e)i_{\text{l}}(e),$ where the summations run over all extremal points $e$ of $f$. For the curve in Figure \[fexample\], $I_{\text{r}}=-1$ and $I_{\text{l}}=0$.
\[4.5.A\] Let $K$ be a long knot whose projection to $xy$-plane and $y$-axis are generic. Let $G$ be the Gauss diagram corresponding to the projection to the $xy$-plane. Then $$\label{4.5.A.2}
v_2(K)=\frac12\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle
-\frac14(I_{\text{out}}+I_{\text{r}})
+\frac14X-\frac14M$$ $$\label{4.5.A.1}
v_2(K)=\frac12\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle
+\frac12I_{\text{int}}
+\frac12X_+$$ $$\label{4.5.A.3}
v_2(K)=\frac12\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}\
+\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle
-\frac14(I_{\text{out}}+I_{\text{l}}) +\frac12X_-$$ Here $X$, $X_+$, $X_-$ and $M$ are the characteristics of the projection of $K$ defined in Section \[s4.3\], and $\left\langle
\vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}} +\vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ ,
G\right\rangle$ is the sum $\sum\Ge(c_1)\Ge(c_2)$ over all subdiagrams of $G$ isomorphic to either $\vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}$, or $\vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}$, where $c_1$, $c_2$ are the chords of the subdiagram, see Section \[s1.2\].
Theorem \[4.5.A\] is stated for a diagram of a [*long*]{} knot. However, it can be modified appropriately giving rise to a formulation similar to Corollary \[4.4.C\].
For a generic immersion $f:S^1\to{\mathbb R}^2$ put $E=\sum \Ge(e)i(e)$, where $e$ runs over extremal points of $f$ and $i(e)$ is the index of $e$ with respect to $f$. The preimage of a double point $d$ of $f$ divides $S^1$ into two arcs. The curve $f(S^1)$ is decomposed into the halves which are the images of these arcs. One of them turns at $d$ in the clockwise direction, the other one turns counter-clockwise. Denote by $q_+(d)$ and $q_-(d)$, respectively, the index of $d$ with respect to the former and latter, respectively. Put $Q=\sum(q_+(d)-q_-(d))$, where $d$ runs over all double points of $f$.
\[4.5.B\] Let $K$ be a knot whose projection to $xy$-plane and $y$-axis are generic. Let $G$ be the Gauss diagram corresponding to the projection to the $xy$-plane. Then $$\label{4.5.C.eq}
v_2(K)=\frac14\left\langle \vcenter{\epsffile{x.eps}}\ ,
G\right\rangle -\frac1{24}E +\frac12Q
+\frac18X-\frac1{24}M +\frac1{24}$$
The proof is similar to the proof of \[4.4.C\]. Turn a closed curve to a long curve by cutting the leftmost string and moving the cut points up and down. Clearly, $E$ turns into $I_{\text{l}}+I_{\text{r}}$. Also, it is easy to check that $Q$ turns $I_{\text{int}}-I_{\text{out}}$. Furthermore, $M$ increases by 1. Now the result follows from \[T1\], \[Sym\] and \[4.5.A\].
Digression: Relation to Arnold’s Invariants of Plane Curves {#s4.1.6}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notice that in all the formulas of this Section there is a part depending only on the knot projection. Moreover the rest of the formula is common for all of the formulas: $\left\langle2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}+
2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}+
2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle.$ Thus the parts of the formulas depending only on the plane curve represent the same characteristic of the plane curve. Denote it by $I$.
It is easy to identify it with a linear combination $8St+4J^+$ of invariants $St$ and $J^+$ of a generic immersion introduced by Arnold [@Arnold].
Indeed, consider an ascending diagram of the unknot with the given planar projection. Since $v_2$ of unknot is $0$, $$I =-\left\langle2\
\vcenter{\epsffile{xup.eps}}+ 2\ \vcenter{\epsffile{xleft.eps}}+ 2\
\vcenter{\epsffile{xright.eps}}\ , G\right\rangle,$$ where $G$ is the corresponding Gauss diagram of the unknot. The latter coincides with the Gauss diagram formula for $4(2St+J^+)$ proved in [@Polyak].
$\frac14I$ coincides with the invariant which was extracted by Lin and Wang [@LW] from Bar-Natan’s integral formula [@Bar-Nat] representing $v_2(K)$.
All the formulas for $v_2(K)$ described above in this section can be considered as formulas for $8St+4J^+$.
New Configuration Spaces and Formulae {#s5}
=====================================
A Digression on the Degree of a Map {#s5.1}
-----------------------------------
The two classical methods for calculating the degree of a map discussed in Section \[s.straight\] above, admit the following common generalization. Let $M$ and $N$ be oriented smooth closed manifolds of dimension $n$. Let $N$ be connected and $L$ be its oriented smooth closed connected submanifold. Let $f:M\to N$ be a differentiable map transversal to $L$. The orientations of $N$ and $L$ define an orientation of the normal bundle of $L$ in $N$. Because of transversality, $f^{-1}(L)$ is a smooth submanifold of $M$. The normal bundle of $f^{-1}(L)$ is naturally isomorphic to the pull back of the normal bundle of $L$ and gets oriented. This orientation together with the orientation of $M$ defines an orientation of $f^{-1}(L)$. Therefore, both $L$ and $f^{-1}(L)$ are oriented smooth closed manifolds of the same dimension and the map $g:f^{-1}(L)\to L$ defined by $f$ has a well-defined degree. Obviously, this degree coincides with the degree of $f$.
It can be calculated by both of the classical methods. However the first method gives the expression for the degree literally coinciding with the one obtained by this method applied to the original map. The second method gives a new expression for the degree. In the case when $L$ is a point, this coincides with the expression obtained by the first method. In the case $L=N$, this coincides with the expression provided by the second method applied to $f$. So, this is indeed a generalization of both methods.
There are obvious generalizations of this observation. First, $M$ can be a stratified pseudomanifold. Then the transversality condition is formulated as follows: the restrictions of $f$ to strata of dimension $\ge \dim L$ are transversal to $L$. Second, a relative situation can be considered: $M$ and $N$ are replaced by pairs $(M,M_0)$ and $(N,N_0)$ with $H_n(N,N_0)={\mathbb Z}$ and $H_{\dim L}(L,L_0)={\mathbb Z}$ where $L_0=L\cap N_0$. Then the degree of a map $f:(M,M_0)\to(N,N_0)$ is equal to the degree of the induced map $$(f^{-1}(L),f^{-1}(L_0))\to(L,L_0).$$
Despite of apparent simplicity of this trick, it allows us to obtain several new geometrically interesting presentations of $v_2$. We apply it to the map $\Gf:({\mathcal}C,{\mathcal}S)\to (S^2\times S^2\times
S^2,D)$ and various $L\subset S^2\times S^2\times S^2$. However, this scheme is not easy to follow. The first difficulty is related to the transversality condition. The map has to be transversal to $L$ on each stratum of ${\mathcal}C$ (of all the dimensions). The number of strata is rather large. Moreover, in all the interesting cases there are strata on which the transversality condition is not satisfied. Another difficulty is that in the most interesting cases $L\subset D$. This problem is similar to the one we encountered in Section \[s4\]. There we stepped back to a generic situation and then passed to limit. Here we can follow the same pattern, but prefer to consider the geometry related to $L$ in detail.
The initial point of this consideration is still the structure of $\Gf^{-1}(L)$. However now we first take the intersection of $\Gf^{-1}(L)$ with the union ${\mathcal}C^0$ of all 6-dimensional strata of ${\mathcal}C$. Denote it by ${\mathcal}C^0_L$. Then take the closure of ${\mathcal}C^0_L$ in ${\mathcal}C$. Denote the resulting space $\overline{\Gf^{-1}(L)\cap{\mathcal}C^0}$ by ${\mathcal}C_L$. It is smaller and simpler than $\Gf^{-1}(L)$: even some high-dimensional strata of $\Gf^{-1}(L)$ do not show up. This does not mean that we start over again from scratch. We use the way how the high-dimensional strata of ${\mathcal}C$ are attached to each other. Furthermore, since on these strata $\Gf$ is transversal to $L$, we can define the orientations using the scheme above. Calculation of the degree is reduced to the case studied above via consideration of the preimage of a regular value.
Locking the Free Point on a Chord {#s5.2}
---------------------------------
Choose for $L$ the diagonal $$\{(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in S^2\times S^2\times
S^2\mid u_2=u_3\}.$$
One can check that for a knot in general position the restriction of $\Gf$ to each 6-dimensional stratum of ${\mathcal}C$ is transversal to $L$. Let us identify $L$ with $S^2\times S^2$ by $(u_1,u_2,u_3)\mapsto (u_1,u_2)$ and denote by $\Gf_L:{\mathcal}C_L\to S^2\times S^2$ the map induced by $\Gf$.
${\mathcal}C_L$ is a four-dimensional pseudo-manifold. Its four-dimensional strata are the components of $\Gf^{-1}(L)\cap{\mathcal}C^0$. The components originated from $C_Y^0\times \Go$ can be identified with subspaces of $C^0_Y$ obtained by locking the free point $x_0$ on a line connecting $x_i$ and $x_j$ with $1\le i< j\le 3$. These subspaces are even closer to the initial motivation for introducing auxiliary strata, see Figure \[tripgraph\].
The strata related to $C_Y^0$ look as follows. For $i=1,2,3$, denote by $C^0_{Y,i}$ the subspace of $C^0_Y$ defined by the condition
1. $x_0$ lies on the line connecting $x_2$ and $x_3$ between them, if $i=1$,
2. $x_0$ lies on the line connecting $x_1$ and $x_3$ outside $[x_1,x_3]$, if $i=2$,
3. $x_0$ lies on the line connecting $x_2$ and $x_1$ between them, if $i=3$.
In the obvious sense, these spaces are associated with the diagrams shown in Figure \[fU\].
Denote by $C_{Y,i}$ the closure of $C^0_{Y,i}$ in $C_Y$.
The intersection of $\Gf^{-1}(L)$ with $C_Y^0\times\Go$ can be identified with:
1. $C_{Y,1}^0$ if $\Go=1$ or $(2,3)$;
2. $C_{Y,2}^0$ if $\Go=(1,2)$ or $(1,3,2);$
3. $C_{Y,3}^0$ if $\Go=(1,3)$ or $(1,2,3)$.
Under these identifications, $\Gf_L$ turns into the maps extending the ones defined by the following formulas on $C^0_{Y,i}$ with $i=1,2,3$ respectively:
1. $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0) \mapsto
\left(\frac{x_1-x_0}{|x_1-x_0|},\frac{x_3-x_0}{|x_3-x_0|}\right)$;
2. $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0) \mapsto
\left(\frac{x_0-x_2}{|x_0-x_2|},\frac{x_3-x_0}{|x_3-x_0|}\right)$;
3. $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0) \mapsto
\left(\frac{x_3-x_0}{|x_3-x_0|},\frac{x_1-x_0}{|x_1-x_0|}\right)$.
Four other four-dimensional strata of ${\mathcal}C_L$ can be identified with $C^0_X$. These strata are the intersections of $\Gf^{-1}(L)$ with $C_X^0\times S^2\times \Go$, for $\Go=1,(2,3),(1,2),
(1,3,2)$. On two of these strata $\Gf_L$ is identified with $\Gf^0_X$ and on two others, with $\Gf^0_X$ followed by the permutation of the factors in $S^2\times S^2$.
For the two remaining $\Go\in S_3$ (i.e., $(1,3)$ and $(1,2,3)$), the intersections of $\Gf^{-1}(L)$ with $C^0_X\times
S^2\times \Go$ can be naturally identified with the product $C^0_{II}\times S^2$, where $$\label{C0II}C^0_{II}=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in C^0_X\mid
x_1-x_3=\Gl(x_4-x_2) \text{ with } \Gl>0\}.$$ Under this identification, $\Gf_L$ turns to $\Gf^0_{II}\times\id_{S^2}$, where $$\Gf^0_{II}:C^0_{II}\to
S^2:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mapsto\frac{x_1-x_3}{|x_1-x_3|}.$$
The identifications which have been made in the construction of ${\mathcal}C$ reduce the boundary of ${\mathcal}C^0_L$ in ${\mathcal}C_L$. The remaining 3-dimensional strata of the boundary coincide with the 3-dimensional strata of ${\mathcal}C_L\cap {\mathcal}S$. Denote the closure of these boundary strata by ${\mathcal}S_L$.
Observe that each 4-dimensional stratum of ${\mathcal}C_L$ described above appears twice, with the same mapping to $S^2\times S^2$. This happens because $L$ is defined by $u_2=u_3$ and the permutation $(2,3)$, which acts in ${\mathcal}C$, commutes with $(2,3)$, which acts in $S^2\times
S^2\times S^2$. Therefore, we can quotient out ${\mathcal}C_L$ by the induced involution. The resulting space ${\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2$ has six 4-dimensional strata: $C^0_{Y,1}$, $C^0_{Y,2}$, $C^0_{Y,3}$, two copies of $C^0_X$, and the stratum $S^2\times C^0_{II}$.
Denote by $D^l\subset S^2\times S^2$ the set $$\{(u_1,u_2) \mid
u_1=-u_2\}\cup \{(u_1,u_2)\mid u_1=\pm a\}\cup \{(u_1,u_2)\mid u_2=\pm
a\}.$$ It is a bouquet of three copies of $S^2$. Note that $D^l$ has codimension $2$ in $S^2\times S^2$, in contrast to $D$, which has codimension $1$ in $S^2\times S^2\times S^2$. A straightforward modification of Theorem \[main\_th\] looks as follows.
\[main\_th\_L\] The space ${\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2$ has a well-defined fundamental class $[{\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2]\in H_4({\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2,{\mathcal}S_L/{\mathbb Z}_2)$. The map $\Gf_L:{\mathcal}C_L\to S^2\times S^2$ induces homomorphism $$H_4({\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2,{\mathcal}S_L/{\mathbb Z}_2)\to H_4(S^2\times S^2,D^l),$$ which maps $[{\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2]$ to $3v_2(K)[S^2\times S^2]$.
Configurations of Parallel Arrows
---------------------------------
Aa part of ${\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2$ coincides with $C^0_{II}\times S^2$, which is mapped to $S^2\times S^2$ by $\Gf_{II}\times\id_{S^2}$. This part of ${\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2$ differs in its nature from the rest of the main strata. It turns out that this part can be splitted out.
Observe that $C_{II}^0$ is is the preimage of the diagonal under the map $\Gf^0:C^0_X\to S^2\times
S^2$. The orientation of $C_{II}^0$ (defined by the orientation of ${\mathcal}C_L$) can be computed as described in Section \[s5.1\]. To a generic point $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in C^0_{II}$, there correspond the projection $\pi$ along $x_1-x_3$ and two crossings of this projection: $c_{13}=\pi(x_1)=\pi(x_3)$ and $c_{42}=\pi(x_4)=\pi(x_2)$. At such a point, one can take as local coordinates $x_1$ and $x_3$. The local degree of $\Gf_{II}^0$ with respect to the orientation defined by the coordinate system $(x_1,x_3)$ is the sign $\Ge(c_{13})$ of $c_{13}$. The local degree of $\Gf_{II}^0$ at this point is the product of this sign and $\Ge(c_{42})$. Hence the orientation of $C_{II}^0$ differs from the orientation defined by the coordinate system $(x_1,x_3)$ by $\Ge(c_{42})$ .
Denote by $C_{II}$ the closure of $C_{II}^0$ in $C_X$ and denote by $\Gf_{II}$ the extension of $\Gf^0_{II}$ to $C_{II}$. The 1-strata of $\p C_{II}$, whose images under $\Gf_{II}$ do not coincide with $a$, are $\GS II_{i,i+1}=C_{II}\cap\GS X_{i,i+1}$, $i=1,2,3$. There are embeddings $$e_1:\GS II_{1,2}\to\GS II_{2,3}:(x_1,x_1,x_2,x_3)\to(x_1,x_2,x_2,x_3),$$ $$e_2:\GS II_{3,4}\to\GS II_{2,3}:(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_3)\to(x_1,x_2,x_2,x_3).$$ Let ${\mathcal}C_{II}$ be the quotient space of $C_{II}$ obtained by identification of $\GS II_{2,3}$ with $\GS II_{1,2}\cup\GS II_{3,4}$ via these embeddings. It is easy to check that $\Gf_{II}$ defines a map ${\mathcal}C_{II}\to S^2$. Denote this map by the same symbol $\Gf_{II}$.
\[main\_th\_II\] ${\mathcal}C_{II}$ has a well-defined fundamental class $[{\mathcal}C_{II}]\in
H_2({\mathcal}C_{II},\p{\mathcal}C_{II})$. The map $\Gf_{II}:{\mathcal}C_{II}\to S^2$ induces homomorphism $H_2({\mathcal}C_{II},\p{\mathcal}C_{II})\to H_2(S^2,a)$, which maps $[{\mathcal}C_{II}]$ to $v_2(K)[S^2]$.
The local degree of $\Gf_{II}$ at a generic point $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in{\mathcal}C_{II}$ is $\Ge(c_{13})\Ge(c_{42})$. Summing up the local degrees at all points of the preimage of some regular value, we obtain the right hand side of .
Let us return to the space ${\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2$ of Section \[s5.2\]. Remove $C^0_{II}\times S^2$ from ${\mathcal}C_L/{\mathbb Z}_2$ and sue the edge of the cut by $e_1\times\id_{S^2}$ and $e_1\times\id_{S^2}$. Denote the result by ${\mathcal}C^l$ (superindex $l$ stands for “line” alluding to locking the free point on a line). Denote by $\Gf^l$ the map ${\mathcal}C^l\to S^2\times S^2$ defined by $\Gf_L$. Denote by ${\mathcal}S^l$ the subspace of ${\mathcal}C^l$ obtained from ${\mathcal}S_L$. Combining Theorems \[main\_th\_L\] and \[main\_th\_II\], we get the following theorem.
\[main\_th\_l\] The space ${\mathcal}C^l$ has a well-defined fundamental class $[{\mathcal}C^l]\in H_4({\mathcal}C^l,{\mathcal}S^l)$. The map $\Gf^l:{\mathcal}C^l\to S^2\times S^2$ induces homomorphism $H_4({\mathcal}C^l,{\mathcal}S^l)\to H_4(S^2\times S^2,D^l)$, which maps $[{\mathcal}C^l]$ to $2v_2(K)[S^2]$.
Application: New Integral Formula {#s5.2'}
---------------------------------
Theorem \[main\_th\_l\] gives rise to an integral formula for $v_2$ by choosing the standard volume form on $S^2\times S^2$, pulling it back by $\Gf^{l*}$ and integrating over ${\mathcal}C^l$. Put $$\Go=\frac{x\,
dy\wedge dz+y\,dz\wedge dx+z\,dx\wedge
dy}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}}.$$ Recall that for a knot $K$ we denote by $C^0_{V}$ the space of 3-tuples $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in K^3$ of points ordered in the natural way defined by the orientation of $K$ with $*\ne x_1\ne x_2\ne x_3\ne *$.
\[int-ch-formula\] $$\begin{gathered}
v_2(K)=\int_{C_X^0}\Go(x_1-x_3)\wedge\Go(x_4-x_2) + \\
\frac12\int_{C_V^0}\int_{t\in(0,1)}
\Go(x_1-x_2)\wedge\Go((x_2-x_3)+t(x_1-x_2))+\\
\frac12\int_{C_V^0}\int_{t\in (0,1)}
\Go(x_2-x_3)\wedge\Go((x_1-x_2)+t(x_2-x_3))+\\
\frac12\int_{C_V^0}\int_{t\in(-\infty,0)\cup (1,\infty)}
\Go(x_3-x_1)\wedge\Go((x_1-x_2)+t(x_3-x_1)) \end{gathered}$$
Slicing by Parallel Planes {#s5.3}
--------------------------
Now choose for $L$ the 3-torus $$\{(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in S^2\times S^2\times S^2\mid
u_1\cdot a=u_2\cdot a=u_3\cdot a=0\}.$$ For a knot in general position the restriction of $\Gf$ to each 6-dimensional stratum of ${\mathcal}C$ is transversal to $L$. Denote by $\Gf_L:{\mathcal}C_L\to S^1\times S^1\times S^1$ the map induced by $\Gf$. Now ${\mathcal}C_L$ is a 3-dimensional pseudo-manifold, which has twelve 3-dimensional strata.
Six of them, which are $\Gf^{-1}(L)\cap\left(C^0_X\times S^2 \times \Go\right)$ with $\Go\in
S_3$, can be identified with $C^a_X\times S^1\times \Go$, where $$C_X^a=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in C_X^0\mid (x_1-x_3)\cdot
a=(x_4-x_2)\cdot a=0\}.$$ In other words, $C_X^a$ is the space whose points are 4-tuples $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)$ of points on the knot such that each of the pairs $(x_1,x_3)$ and $(x_2,x_4)$ lies in a plane orthogonal to $a$, see Figure \[slices\].
The other six strata, which are $\Gf^{-1}(L)\cap\left(C_Y\times \Go\right)$ with $\Go\in
S_3$, can be identified with $C^a_Y\times \Go$, where $$C_Y^a=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)\in C_Y^0\mid (x_1-x_0)\cdot
a=(x_2-x_0)\cdot a=(x_3-x_0)\cdot a=0\}.$$ The space $C_Y^a$ consists of 4-tuples $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_0)$ of points lying in the same plane orthogonal to $a$ such that $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ belong to $K$. See Figure \[slices\].
As above in Section \[s5.2\], 2-dimensional strata of the boundary of ${\mathcal}C_L$ coincide with the 2-dimensional strata of ${\mathcal}C_L\cap {\mathcal}S$. They are contained in the closure of $\cup_{\Go} C^a_Y\times \Go$. A point of these strata can be interpreted as a triple of points contained in the same plane orthogonal to $a$, which is tangent to the knot at one of these points and intersects the knot in one of the other two points. Such a configuration appears as a limit of 4-tuples belonging to $C_Y^a$ when two of the points on the knot collide.
Denote the closure of these boundary strata by ${\mathcal}S_L$.
Denote by $D^a\subset S^1\times S^1\times S^1$ the set $$\{(u_1,u_2,u_3) \mid u_1=-u_2\}\cup \{(u_1,u_2,u_3)\mid u_2=-u_3\}\cup
\{(u_1,u_2,u_3)\mid u_3=-u_1\}.$$
Applying now the scheme described in Section \[s5.1\], we obtain the following theorem.
\[main\_th\_a\] ${\mathcal}C_L$ has a well-defined fundamental class $[{\mathcal}C_L]\in H_4({\mathcal}C_L,{\mathcal}S_L)$. The map $\Gf_L:{\mathcal}C_L\to S^1\times S^1\times S^1$ induces homomorphism $H_3({\mathcal}C_L,{\mathcal}S_L)\to H_3(S^1\times S^1\times S^1,D^a)$, which maps $[{\mathcal}C_L]$ to $6v_2(K)[S^1\times S^1\times S^1]$.
Yet Another Integral Formula {#s5.4}
----------------------------
Theorem \[main\_th\_a\] gives rise to an integral formula for $v_2$ by choosing the standard volume form on $S^1\times S^1\times S^1$, pulling it back by $\Gf_{L}^*$ and integrating over ${\mathcal}C_L$. Put $$\Ga=\frac1{2\pi}\frac{x\,
dz-zd\,x}
{x^2+z^2}.$$ This is the normalized length form on the circle in the $xz$-plane.
For fixed $t_1,t_2\in{\mathbb R}$, a 4-tuple $P=(w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4)$ of points $w_i$ on $xz$-plane is called a [*$(t_1,t_2)$-slice*]{} if there exists $(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in C_X^a$ such that $x_1$ and $x_3$ have $y$-coordinates equal to $t_1$, $x_2$ and $x_4$ have $y$-coordinates equal to $t_2$, and the projection of $x_i$ to $xz$-plane is $w_i$. Denote by $p$ the number of $x_i$’s such that the projection to $y$-axis of a positively oriented tangent vector to the knot is negative. For a fixed $t\in{\mathbb R}$, a triple $Q=(w_1,w_2,w_3)$ of points $w_i$ on $xz$-plane is called a [*$t$-slice*]{} if there exists $(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)\in C_Y^a$ such that $x_i$ has $y$-coordinate equal to $t$ and the projection to $xz$-plane is $w_i$. Denote by $q$ the number of $x_i$’s with $i=1,2,3$ such that the projection to $y$-axis of a positively oriented tangent vector to the knot is negative.
\[liyboj\] $$\begin{gathered}
v_2(K)=\int_{-\infty<t_1<t_2<\infty}\sum_{(t_1,t_2)-\text{slice}}
(-1)^p\Ga(w_1-w_3)\wedge\Ga(w_4-w_2) + \\
\int_{-\infty<t<\infty}\sum_{t-\text{slice}}
\int_{w_0\in{\mathbb R}^2{\smallsetminus}\cup_{i=1}^3}
\Ga(w_1-w_0)\wedge \Ga(w_0-w_2) \wedge \Ga(w_3-w_0)\end{gathered}$$
The first integral is similar to the integral in the Kontsevich formula for $v_2(K)$, see [@Konts] and [@Bar-Nat]. However, in our formula we have instead of $dw/w$ only the imaginary part of $dw/w$. Thus the contribution of the real part of $dw/w$ to the Kontsevich formula is replaced by the second integral. A similar relation between the associators in non-associative tangles and the contribution of $C_Y$ already appeared in Section \[s4.2\]–\[s4.4\]. This may shed light onto yet non-understood relation between the integral formulas of Kontsevich [@Konts], [@Bar-Nat] and Bott-Taubes [@BT].
[99]{}
S. Akbulut and J. McCarthy, [*Casson’s invariant for oriented homology 3-spheres — an exposition*]{}, Princeton Math. Notes 36, Princeton University Press, 1990. V.I.Arnold, [ *Topological invariants of plane curves and caustics*]{}, University lecture series (Providence RI) [**5**]{} (1994) S.Axelrod and I.M.Singer, [*Chern-Simons Perturbatin Theory,*]{} in Proceedings of the XXth DGM Conference, edited by S.Catto and A. Rocha (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), 3–45; [*Chern-Simons Perturbation, II*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**39**]{} (1994) 173–213. D. Bar-Natan, [*On the Vassiliev knot invariants*]{}, Topology [**34**]{} (1995) 423–472. D. Bar-Natan, [*Non-associative tangles,*]{} in [*Geometric topology*]{} (proceedings of the Georgia international topology conference), (W. H. Kazez, ed.), 139–183, AMS and International Press, Providence, 1997. R. Bott, C. Taubes, [*On the self-linking of knots*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{} (1994), 5247–5287. P. Cartier, [*Construction combinatoire des invariants de Vassiliev-Kontsevich des noeuds*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**316**]{} (1993), 1205–1210. W. Fulton, R. MacPherson, [*A Compactification of Configuration Spaces*]{}, Ann. Math. [**139**]{} (1994), 183–225. P. Gilmer, [*A method for computing the Arf invariants for links*]{}, Quantum Topology, Series on Knots and Everything Vol. 3, ed. L. Kauffman and R. Baadhio, World Sci., Singapore, 1993, 174–181. M. Goussarov, M. Polyak, O. Viro, [*Finite Type Invariants of Classical and Virtual Knots*]{}, preprint math.GT/9810073. Louis H. Kauffman, [*On Knots*]{}, Annals of Math. Studies 115, Princeton University Press (1987). M. Kontsevich, [*Vassiliev’s knot invariants*]{}, Adv. Sov. Math. [**16**]{} (1993), 137–150. Jean Lannes, [*Sur les invariants de Vassiliev de degré infeŕieur ou égal à 3*]{}, Enseign. Math. (2) [**39**]{} (1993) no. 3-4, 295–316. Jean Lannes, [*Sur l’invariant de Kervaire des noueds classiques*]{}, Comment. Math Helvetici, [**60**]{} (1985) 179–192. Xiao-Song Lin and Zhenghan Wang, [*Integral geometry of plane curves and knot invariants*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**44**]{} (1996), no. 1, 74–95. Ka Yi Ng, [*Groups of ribbon knots*]{}, Topology [**37**]{} (1998) 441–458. S. Piunikhin, [*Combinatorial expressions for universal Vassiliev link invariant*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**168-1**]{} 1–22. Sylvain Poirier, [*Rationality results for the configuration space integral of knots*]{}, preprint math.GT/9901028. Michael Polyak and Oleg Viro, [*Gauss Diagram Formulas for Vassiliev invariants*]{}, Int. Math. Research Notices, [**11**]{} (1994) 445–453. Michael Polyak, [*Invariants of curves and fronts via Gauss diagrams*]{}, Topology [**37**]{} (1998) 989–1009. Michael Polyak, [*On the algebra of arrow diagrams*]{}, preprint http://www.math.tau.ac.il/\~ polyak/. Dale Rolfsen, [*Knots and links*]{}, Publish or Perish, Inc., 1990. D. Thurston, [*Integral expressions for the Vassiliev knot invariants*]{}, Harvard University senior thesis, April 1995. V.A.Vassiliev, [*Cohomology of knot spaces*]{}, Theory of singularities and its applications (Providence) (V.I.Arnold, ed.) AMS, Providence, 1990.
[^1]: To define the intersection number, one needs orientation and order of branches. Both are defined by the orientation of the source line ${\mathbb R}$ of the immersion.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The BL Lac object 4FGL J0955.1+3551 has been suggested as a possible source of ultra energetic neutrinos detected by the Icecube observatory. The target was observed in January 2020 at the Large Binocular Telescope. Our spectroscopy (4100-8500 $\textrm{\AA}$) yields a firm redshift z = 0.557 as deduced by the absorption lines of the host galaxy. The upper limit of the minimum equivalent width on emission lines is $\sim $0.3 $\textrm{\AA}$. From the source image we are able to resolve the host galaxy for which we measure an absolute magnitude M(R) = -22.9 and R$_{e}$ = 8 kpc, that is values which are typical of the host galaxies of BL Lacs.'
author:
- |
Simona Paiano$^{1,2}$[^1], Renato Falomo$^{3}$, Paolo Padovani$^{4,5}$, Paolo Giommi$^{6,7,8}$, Adriana Gargiulo$^{2}$, Michela Uslenghi$^{2}$, Andrea Rossi$^{9}$, Aldo Treves$^{10,11}$\
$^{1}$INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via Frascati 33, I-00040, Monteporzio Catone, Italy\
$^{2}$INAF - IASF Milano, via Corti 12, I-20133, Milano, Italy\
$^{3}$INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, I-35122, Padova, Italy\
$^{4}$European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, D-85748 Garching bei München, Germany\
$^{5}$Associated to INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via Frascati 33, I-00040 Monteporzio Catone, Italy\
$^{6}$Institute for Advanced Study, Technische Universit[ä]{}t M[ü]{}nchen, Lichtenbergstrasse 2a, D-85748 Garching bei München, Germany\
$^{7}$Associated to Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, ASI, via del Politecnico s.n.c., I-00133 Roma Italy\
$^{8}$ICRANet, Piazzale della Repubblica 10, I-65122, Pescara, Italy\
$^{9}$INAF - Osservatorio di Astrofisica e Scienza dello Spazio, via Piero Gobetti 93/3, 40129 Bologna, Italy\
$^{10}$Universita’ dell’Insubria, via Valeggio, 22100, Como, Italy\
$^{11}$INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via Bianchi 46, I-23807, Merate (Lecco), Italy\
date: 'Received: ; Accepted: '
title: 'The redshift and the host galaxy of the neutrino candidate 4FGL J0955.1+3551 (3HSP J095507.9+355101)'
---
\[firstpage\]
neutrinos — galaxies: active and redshifts — BL Lacertae objects: general — gamma-rays: galaxies
Introduction
============
BL Lac objects (BLL) are the dominant population of the extragalactic $\gamma$-ray sky, both in the 0.1 – 50 GeV band, where the *Fermi* mission is sensitive, and at 100 – 1000 GeV, where the data are provided by atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. At higher energies and redshift z$>$0.1 direct photon detection is impeded by electron/positron pair production with photons of the extragalactic background light (EBL). The basic picture of BLL invokes the presence of relativistic jets in the observer direction. The modeling of the sources requires the knowledge of their distance, which in the case of BLL, is hard to establish, because by definition of the class the spectral lines are absent or very weak (equivalent width, EW $<$ 5 $\textrm{\AA}$). In the past several years some of us have been studying optical spectra of BLL with resolution and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) optimized to detect such weak features [@landoni2014; @paiano2017tev; @paiano20173fgl; @paiano2017ufo1; @paiano2019ufo2].
A major progress on BLL research has been the recent association of high energy (PeV) neutrino events of astrophysical origin detected by the IceCube Collaboration [e.g. @icecube2018txs; @icfermi; @magic2018txs; @Giommi_2020b and references therein] with BLL, which are a blazar sub-class. These neutrinos permit to shed light on the most energetic processes, which, as mentioned above, are otherwise screened off by the EBL. We have therefore started a new program to determine the redshifts of BLL associated with high energy neutrinos. Our first target has been TXS 0506+056, which is the prototype of neutrino emitting BLL [@icecube2018txs; @icfermi; @Padovani_2018]. The result was the detection of very weak \[O II\], \[O III\] and \[N II\] emission lines (EW $\sim$0.1 $\textrm{\AA}$), which established the redshift at z = 0.3365 [@paiano2018txs]. Redshifts of other neutrino candidate sources have also been reported by some of us [@paiano2018ATel0627; @paiano2019ATel4c41; @paiano2019ATel2255].
Here we consider the case of the $\gamma$-ray source 4FGL J0955.1+3551 (3HSP J095507.9+355101, named J0955 in the following). This is a blazar (g$\sim$20.4) that is considered a possible neutrino counterpart as it was found inside the error box of the IceCube neutrino event 200107A detected on 2020 January 07 [GCN-\#26655, @icecube2020GCN0955]. Triggered by this event, the *Swift* observatory was pointed at the source and revealed it at its highest ever X-ray flux [Atel\#13394, @giommi2020ATel0955]. The analysis of multifrequency data shows that the synchrotron peak is at $\nu_{\rm peak}^S$ $\sim 5\times 10^{17} - 2 \times~10^{18}$ Hz making J0955 a member of the rare class of extreme blazars [see @Biteau_2020 for a very recent review]. Details on the source, its nature and multiwavelength spectral energy distribution, and a theoretical interpretation are given in the accompanying letter by [@Giommi_2020c].
The only literature optical spectrum of the object is provided by the SDSS survey. Based on this very poor signal-to-noise (S/N$\sim$5) spectrum @plotkin2008 tentatively classified the source as BL Lac object and suggested a possible redshift z = 0.557 due to moderate host galaxy contamination. However no specific line identifications are provided.
In this letter we report an optical spectroscopy and imaging study of the target which aims to determine the redshift and the nature and photometric properties of the host galaxy. We assume in this work the cosmological parameters H$_0=$ 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7, and $\Omega_{m}$=0.3.
Observations and Data Analysis
==============================
On January 29, 2020 we observed the optical counterpart of J0955 at the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT; two twin 8.4m telescopes at Mt Graham in Arizona), using the MultiObject Double Spectrographs MODS-1 and MODS-2 [@pogge2010] in dual grating mode (grisms G400L and G670L), using the slit width of 1.2$^{\prime\prime}$, a dichroic at 5600 $\textrm{\AA}$, covering the spectral ranges 4100-5500 $\textrm{\AA}$ and 5750-8500 $\textrm{\AA}$, and yielding spectral resolution R = $\lambda/\Delta\lambda\sim$1000. For each setting, we obtained 14 independent exposures of 900 seconds for a total exposure time of 3.5 hours.
Spectroscopy data reduction was carried out at the Italian LBT Spectroscopic Reduction Center adopting the standard procedure for long-slit spectroscopy with bias subtraction, flat-fielding, and bad-pixel correction. Each spectrum was cleaned of cosmic-ray contamination using the L.A. Cosmic algorithm [@vandokkum2001lacos]. Wavelength calibration was obtained using the spectra of Hg, Ar, Xe, and Kr lamps, providing an accuracy of $\sim$0.1 $\textrm{\AA}$ over the whole spectral range. Relative flux calibration was derived from the observations of spectro-photometric standard stars and we anchored the absolute flux to the magnitude of the source from acquisition images. Finally, the spectrum was dereddened by applying the extinction law of [@cardelli1989dered], assuming E(B–V) = 0.01 as from the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive 6.7
In addition to the spectroscopy data, we obtained a short exposure image (60 s) in r band. In order to derive the properties of the host galaxy we performed a two-dimensional fit of the LBT image using the Astronomical Image Decomposition and Analysis (AIDA) package [@uslenghi2008aida]. AIDA is an IDL-based software specifically designed to provide a simultaneous decomposition into the nucleus and the surrounding nebulosity. Details can be found in our previous studies of QSO host galaxies [see e.g. @falomo2008; @falomo2014; @kotilainen2007; @kotilainen2009; @decarli2012]. We then used AIDA to characterize the host galaxy properties from a 2D fit of the source adopting a model including the nucleus (modeled by the point spread function \[PSF\]) and the host galaxy assuming a Sersic profile convolved with the proper PSF. The PSF has been derived by fitting four stars with a 2D analytical model composed by a superposition of gaussians and exponential functions. The core of the PSF has a FWHM of 0.65$^{\prime\prime}$.
Results
=======
Spectroscopy
------------
The spectrum (Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]) has a S/N$\sim$55 and S/N$\sim$70 for the blue and red part, respectively, and is characterized by non-thermal emission with the power-law shape (F$_{\lambda}\propto\lambda^{\alpha}$) with spectral index of $\alpha\sim$-1.1.
The spectrum clearly exhibits absorption features identified as due to Ca II doublet, G-band 4305, Mg I 5175 from the host galaxy (see Tab. 1 for the wavelength, ID, and the equivalent width). This allows us to derive the firm redshift of 0.557.
We computed the nominal EW sensitivity in six intervals of the spectrum, avoiding the prominent telluric absorption features [see details about the procedure in Appendix A of @paiano2017tev]. This translates into an average minimum (3$\sigma$ level) detectable EW$\sim$0.3 $\textrm{\AA}$. Based on the minimum EW = 0.35 $\textrm{\AA}$, estimated in the spectral region where the emission lines of \[O II\] and \[O III\] are expected, at the source redshift and assuming a FWHM of 500 km/s we find that the line luminosity limits are $<$ 2.2$\times$10$^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $<$ 1.8$\times$10$^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, respectively.
$\lambda$ ($\textrm{\AA}$) EW ($\textrm{\AA}$) ID
---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------
6125.0 3.5$\pm$ 0.2 Ca II 3934 $\textrm{\AA}$
6178.5 2.7$\pm$ 0.3 Ca II 3968 $\textrm{\AA}$
6702.5 1.3$\pm$ 0.2 G-band 4305 $\textrm{\AA}$
8050.5 1.6$\pm$ 0.2 Mg I 5175 $\textrm{\AA}$
: Optical spectral features found in the J0955 spectrum: *Col.1*: Central wavelength of the feature; *Col.2*: Equivalent width of the feature, *Col.3*: Identification of the line. []{data-label="tab:table1"}
Imaging
-------
![The r band image of the BL Lac object J0955 observed by LBT and MODS1 (central brightest source). The are two resolved close companions at 1.4$^{\prime\prime}$ and 2.9$^{\prime\prime}$ from the target. Field shown is 12$^{\prime\prime}$.[]{data-label="fig:imaging"}](4FGLJ0955p35_ima-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="39.00000%"}
The optical image of the target is shown in Fig. \[fig:imaging\]. The source magnitude at the time of the observations was r = 19.4$\pm$0.2. There are two extended companion objects close to the target (see Figure \[fig:contour\]). One (A) of r = 21.8 at 2.9$^{\prime\prime}$ and a closer one (B) of r$\sim$22.5 at 1.4$^{\prime\prime}$. At the redshift of J0955 (z = 0.557) these companions are at projected distance of 18 kpc and 9 kpc. The occurrence of close companion galaxies is not unusual for BL Lac objects [e.g. @falomo1996; @falomo2014rev] and in a number of cases it was found that they are physically associated with the BL Lac object [@pesce1994; @sbarufatti2006]. In the case of J0955 no redshift information are yet available for these companions.
![Contour plot of the field around the BL Lac object 4FGL J0955.1+3551 observed by LBT and MODS1 (filter r; 60 sec). There are two resolved companions: A (r = 21.8) at 2.9$^{\prime\prime}$ (18 kpc projected distance) and B (r = 22.5) at 1.4$^{\prime\prime}$ (9 kpc projected distance). []{data-label="fig:contour"}](4FGLJ0955p35_contourplot-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="42.00000%"}
After masking out the companions, we performed a 2-dimensional fit of the source (see Sect. 2) and found it is well resolved (see Fig. \[fig:fit\]). The host galaxy turned out to have a magnitude r = 20.7$\pm$0.3 and an effective radius R$_e$ = 1.2$^{\prime\prime}$. At the redshift of the source these correspond to an absolute magnitude M(R) = -22.9 and R$_{e}$ = 8 kpc, very typical values for the host galaxies of BLL objects [@sbarufatti2005].
![The average radial brightness profile of the BL Lac object J0955 (filled squares) is decomposed into the nucleus (described by the PSF; dotted line) and the host galaxy (Sersic profile convolved with the proper PSF; dashed line). The best fit is given by the solid line.[]{data-label="fig:fit"}](4FGLJ0955p35_fit-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
We secured high quality optical spectroscopy and imaging of the BLL J0955, proposed as the counterpart of the neutrino event by IceCube observations [@icecube2020GCN0955]. From the spectrum we are able to clearly determine the redshift z = 0.557 of the source from absorption features of its host galaxy. At this redshift the $\gamma$-ray luminosity turns out to be $L_{\gamma} \sim 1 - 4 \times 10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (see the accompanying paper by @Giommi_2020c for details). No emission line are detected in the observed spectral range down to an equivalent width sensitivity of 0.3 $\textrm{\AA}$ corresponding to line luminosities $\lesssim$2$\times$10$^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, i.e. an order of magnitude fainter than those measured for TXS 0506+056 ($\sim$2$\times$10$^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$).
In spite of the short exposure time of the image we are also able to resolve the object and characterize the properties of its host galaxy ( M(R) = -22.9) that turned out to be typical for its class. We estimate the mass of the central black hole (BH) *M*$_{\rm BH}$ $\sim$3$\times$10$^{8}$ *M*$_{\odot}$ using the relation between the masses of the supermassive BHs and the absolute magnitude of ellipticals [@bettoni2003]. This value is characteristic of the BH mass of the BLL class [@falomo2003].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Ansoldi S., et al., 2018, ApJL, 863, L10 Bettoni D., Falomo R., Fasano G., Govoni F., 2003, A&A, 399, 869 Biteau J., et al., 2020, NatAs, 4, 124 Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245 Decarli R., Falomo R., Kotilainen J. K., Hyv[ö]{}nen T., Uslenghi M., Treves A., 2012, AdAst, 2012, 782528 Falomo R., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 241 Falomo R., Carangelo N., Treves A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 505 Falomo R., Treves A., Kotilainen J. K., Scarpa R., Uslenghi M., 2008, ApJ, 673, 694 Falomo R., Bettoni D., Karhunen K., Kotilainen J. K., Uslenghi M., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 476 Falomo R., Pian E., Treves A., 2014, A&ARv, 22, 73 Giommi P., Glauch T., Resconi E., 2020a, ATel, 13394, 1 Giommi P., Glauch T., Padovani P., Resconi E., Turcati A., Chang Y. L., 2020b, MNRAS, submitted (arXiv:2001.09355) Giommi P., Padovani P., Glauch T., Resconi E., F. Oikonomou, S. Paiano, 2020c, MNRAS Letters, submitted (arXiv:2003.06405) IceCube Collaboration, 2018, Science, 361, 147 IceCube Collaboration, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AGILE, ASAS-SN, HAWC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift/NuSTAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403 teams, 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378 IceCube Collaboration, 2020, GCN, 26655, 1 Kotilainen J. K., Falomo R., Labita M., Treves A., Uslenghi M., 2007, ApJ, 660, 1039 Kotilainen J. K., Falomo R., Decarli R., Treves A., Uslenghi M., Scarpa R., 2009, ApJ, 703, 1663 Landoni M., Falomo R., Treves A., Sbarufatti B., 2014, A&A, 570, A126 Landoni M., Paiano S., Falomo R., Scarpa R., Treves A., 2018, ApJ, 861, 130 Padovani P., Giommi P., Resconi E., T. Glauch, B. Arsioli, N. Sahakyan, M. Huber, 2018, MNRAS, 480, 192 Paiano S., Landoni M., Falomo R., Treves A., Scarpa R., Righi C., 2017a, ApJ, 837, 144 Paiano S., Landoni M., Falomo R., Treves A., Scarpa R., 2017b, ApJ, 844, 120 Paiano S., Falomo R., Franceschini A., Treves A., Scarpa R., 2017c, ApJ, 851, 135 Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Scarpa R., 2018a, ApJL, 854, L32 Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Landoni M., Scarpa R., 2018b, ATel, 12269, 1 Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Franceschini A., Scarpa R., 2019a, ApJ, 871, 162 Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Righi C., Scarpa R., Lindfors E., 2019b, ATel, 12802, 1 Paiano S., Padovani P., Falomo R., Giommi P., Scarpa R., Treves A., 2019c, ATel, 13202, 1 Pesce J. E., Falomo R., Treves A., 1994, AJ, 107, 494 Plotkin R. M., et al., 2008, AJ, 135, 2453 Pogge R. W., et al., 2010, SPIE, 7735, 77350A, SPIE.7735 Sbarufatti B., Treves A., Falomo R., 2005, ApJ, 635, 173 Sbarufatti B., Falomo R., Treves A., Kotilainen J., 2006, A&A, 457, 35 Uslenghi M., Falomo R., 2011, SPIE, 8135, 813524, SPIE.8135 van Dokkum P. G., 2001, PASP, 113, 1420
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We analyze the dynamics of a Bianchi I cosmology in the presence of a viscous fluid, causally regularized according to the Lichnerowicz approach. We show how the effect induced by shear viscosity is still able to produce a matter creation phenomenon, meaning that also in the regularized theory we address, the Universe is emerging from a singularity with a vanishing energy density value. We discuss the structure of the singularity in the isotropic limit, when bulk viscosity is the only retained contribution. We see that, as far as viscosity is not a dominant effect, the dynamics of the isotropic Universe possesses the usual inviscid power-law behavior but in correspondence of an effective equation of state, depending on the bulk viscosity coefficient. Finally, we show that, in the limit of a strong non-thermodynamical equilibrium of the Universe mimicked by a dominant contribution of the effective viscous pressure, a power-law inflation behavior of the Universe appears, the cosmological horizons are removed and a significant amount of entropy is produced.'
author:
- Giovanni Montani
- Marta Venanzi
title: Bianchi I cosmology in the presence of a causally regularized viscous fluid
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The initial cosmological singularity has been demonstrated to be a true, generic property of the Universe [@BKL70; @BKL82; @Montani]. However, while the dynamics of the early Universe has been essentially understood, its physical and thermodynamical nature is far to be under control. On one hand, quantum gravity effects are able of altering the standard dynamical features proposed in [@BKL82; @K93; @Mo95], giving rise to fascinating alternatives (see for instance [@Ash],[@Pal]) and particle creation effects can also be relevant [@Star; @Mo2001]. Calling for attention is also the string cosmology paradigm, as discussed for instance in [@Barrow]. On the other hand, such an extreme region of evolution exhibits a rapid expansion and non-trivial out-of-equilibrium phenomena become possibly important, including the appearance of viscous features in the cosmological fluid. More specifically, one usually distinguishes the bulk viscosity from the shear viscosity: while the former accounts for the non-equilibrium effects associated to volume changes, the latter is a result of the friction between adjacent layers of the fluid. As a matter of fact, shear viscosity does not contribute in isotropic cosmologies, whereas it may significantly modify the dynamics of an anisotropic Universe, as we shall see below. The simplest representation of a relativistic viscous fluid is provided by the so-called Eckart energy momentum tensor [@Eckart]. However, this formulation results to be affected by non-causal features, allowing the propagation of superluminar signals [@HL]. In order to amend such a non-physical behavior, a revised approach has been proposed by Israel [@Israel], solving the non-causality problem via the introduction of phenomenological relaxation times. Having in mind the basic role the Bianchi I cosmology has in understanding the generic behavior of an inhomogeneous Universe near the singularity, in [@BK_Bianchi] and [@BK_Israel] such a model is studied as sourced by a viscous fluid, in both the Eckart and in the Israel approach respectively. One of the most intriguing issue coming out from such a study must be undoubtedly identified in the possibility of a singularity, from which the Universe emerges with negligible energy density and then a process of matter creation takes place.\
In the present analysis, we face the study of this aforesaid peculiar solution in terms of an alternative causal regularization of the Eckart energy-momentum tensor, proposed by Lichnerowicz in [@LICH1]. Such a revised formulation is based on the introduction of the so-called *index of the fluid*, de facto a regulator scaling the four-velocity field, so defining a *dynamical velocity* of the fluid. This approach has been tested on some real systems, receiving interesting confirmation to its viability [@Disc1; @Disc2]. However, being derived via a phenomenological approach, the Lichnerowicz energy momentum tensor must be completed by the specification of an ansatz linking the fluid index to the thermodynamical variables of the system, so closing the dynamical problem. In what follows, we implement the Lichnerowicz treatment to the viscous Bianchi I cosmology, by pursuing two different tasks. On one hand, we study the solution with matter creation, fixing the fluid index via the request of incompressibility. Results show that the Universe evolves trough an intrinsic shear-driven anisotropic solution, meaning that also in the Lichnerowicz scenario the solution with matter creation exists and, actually, such a phenomenon is enhanced, being therefore not related to non-physical effects of the Eckart formulation. On the other hand, we analyze the isotropic limit near the singularity, by reducing the three scale factors of the Bianchi I model to be equal. The latter is known in literature as the flat Robertson-Walker Universe, for which only bulk viscosity may be relevant due to the homogeneity and isotropy of the model, preventing shear among different layers. In this specific study we see that, as far as bulk viscosity is not dominant, the regularization provided by the index of the fluid preserves the same power-law behavior of the inviscid isotropic Universe. In other words, the bulk viscosity coefficient enters trough an effective equation of state, ranging the same parameters domain of an ideal fluid (i.e. between dust and stiff matter). Finally, we show how, if the bulk viscosity becomes sufficiently dominant, it is possible to get an equation of state having an effective polytropic index less than $\nicefrac{2}{3}$, leading to a power-law inflation solution. The latter is characterized by a massive entropy creation and no longer causal separation exists across the Universe regions.
Basic formalism {#basic-formalism .unnumbered}
===============
The Lichnerowicz original stress-energy tensor describing relativistic viscous fluids stands as follows [@LICH1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TmunuC}
\begin{split}
T_{\mu\nu}&=(\rho+p)u_{\mu}u_{\nu}+pg_{\mu\nu}-\left(\varsigma-\frac{2}{3}\eta\right)\pi_{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}C^{\alpha}\\ &-\eta\pi_{\mu}^{\alpha}\pi_{\nu}^{\beta}\left(\nabla_{\alpha}C_{\beta}+\nabla_{\beta}C_{\alpha}\right),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ is the energy density, $p$ is the pressure, $g_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the metric tensor with the signature $(-+++)$ and $u^{\mu}$ is the four-velocity properly normalized as $$u_{\mu}u^{\mu}=-1\,.$$ The bulk and shear viscous contributions are represented by the $\zeta$ and $\eta$ coefficients, respectively. Here, $$\pi_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}+u_{\mu}u_{\nu}$$ is the projection tensor. Furthermore, $C^\mu$ represents the so-called dynamical velocity which is related to $u^\mu$ by $$\label{C}
C^{\mu}=Fu^{\mu},$$ $F$ being the index of the fluid.\
A simple algebra shows that expression (\[TmunuC\]) can be rearranged as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tmunu}
\begin{split}
T_{\mu\nu}&=(\rho+p')u_{\mu}u_{\nu}+p'g_{\mu\nu} \\
&-\eta\,F\,\left[\nabla_{\mu}u_{\nu}+\nabla_{\nu}u_{\mu}+u_{\mu}u^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}u_{\nu}+u_{\nu}u^{\alpha}\nabla_{\alpha}u_{\mu}\right],
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $p'$ is the total pressure containing the standard thermodynamical contribution and the negative component due to viscosity, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
p'\equiv p-\lambda\nabla_{\alpha}C^{\alpha}, && \lambda\equiv\zeta-\frac{2}{3}\eta.\end{aligned}$$ The introduction of $F$ was first due by Lichnerowicz in order to describe viscous processes in relativistic dynamics, attempting to avoid superluminal signals. We can think of $F$ as a contribution which eliminates the non-causality features of the Eckart’s formulation by regularazing the velocity ($F$ will be therefore referred below as the *regulator* of the theory). The cosmological consequences of the Lichnerowicz description in isotropic cosmologies have been examined in [@Disc2]. In [@Disc1]-[@Disc4], the index of the fluid is parametrized as $$\label{F}
F=\frac{p+\rho}{\mu}\, ,$$ where $\mu$ is the rest mass-density which satifies the conservation law $$\label{restmass}
\nabla_{\alpha}(\mu u^{\alpha})=0.$$ The main advantages of the Lichnerowicz theory have been pointed out in [@Disc2]. A key-point consists in the fact that expression (\[Tmunu\]) reduces to the traditional description provided by Eckart upon setting $F=1$. Furthermore, one of the main assumptions of the well-posedness theorems requires that [@Disc3; @Disc4] $$\label{F1}
F>1.$$ Lichnerowicz was lead to introduce a new formulation for viscosity first because of the study of incompressible perfect fluids for which the following relation holds\
$$\label{incomp}
\nabla_{\mu}C^{\mu}=0.$$ The basic aim of the present paper is to investigate the dynamical role of the regulator $F$ in two relevant asymptotic regimes. On one hand, we wondered how the solution with matter creation, derived in [@BK_Bianchi] for the Bianchi I solution, depends on the causal regularization of the theory (i.e. does this effect survive in the presence of the Lichnerowicz formulation?). On the other hand, we are interested to a cosmologically relevant regime, corresponding to the flat isotropic limit, for which only the bulk viscosity must be retained (the shear viscosity being suppressed due to the isotropy hypothesis). Both these regimes are investigated via a power-law solution, which is able to capture the dominant term behavior in the asymptotic solution. Such a technique offers a satisfactory answer to the questions above and follows the original treatment in [@BK_Bianchi; @BK_Israel]. Nevertheless, the cosmological relevance of the isotropic case leads us to numerically investigate the dynamics of the system, even far from the initial singularity. A subtle point in the Lichnerowicz approach to the regularization of a viscous fluid is the determination of the regulator $F$ in terms of the thermodynamical parameters. The two relevant regimes here addressed require different descriptions for the regulator expression. The most delicate case is the one associated to the matter creation, for which both the energy density and the Universe volume vanish asymptotically to the singularity. Then, the construction of a reliable ansatz for large asymptotic values of $F$ appears a non-trivial task. Nonetheless, a simple solution to this puzzle is offered by the condition of incompressibility defined by (\[incomp\]), which, as we shall see below, is also appropriate for the comparison to the original analysis in [@BK_Bianchi]. The isotropic flat Universe case can be instead easily faced by retaining the same choice as in [@Disc1], i.e. $F$ is provided by the ratio between the enthalpy and mass density of the Universe as stated in (\[F\]). This formulation appears well-grounded owing to the fact that the thermal history of the Universe naturally ensures that $F$ is large in the early Universe and it tends to unity in the present stage of evolution (say for a redshift $z<100$, when the pressure term becomes negligible).
Field equations {#field-equations .unnumbered}
===============
The line-element of the Bianchi I model in the synchronous reference frame reads as $$\label{metricaBI}
ds^{2}=-dt^{2}+R_1(t)^2\,dx^{2}+R_2(t)^2\,dy^{2}+R_3(t)^2\,dz^{2}$$ and hence the metric determinant is given by the following relation $$\sqrt{-g}=R_1 R_2 R_3\equiv R^{3}.$$ Above, $x, y, z$ denote Euclidean coordinates and $R_1(t)$, $R_2(t)$ and $R_3(t)$ are dubbed cosmic scale factors. As well-known (see [@Montani],[@Landau1] and [@Gravitation]) such a model describes in vacuum an intrinsic anisotropic Universe, but in the presence of matter it can also admit the isotropic limit [@KirillovMo]. Let us now introduce the following quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H}
\begin{split}
H&\equiv\left(ln\,R\right)^{.}\\
&=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\dot{R_1}}{R_1}+\frac{\dot{R_2}}{R_2}+\frac{\dot{R_3}}{R_3}\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the dot denotes the time derivative. In order to have a compatible system, we set up the Einstein equations in a comoving frame with the matter source in which $u^{0}=1$ and $u^{i}=0$, $i=1,2,3$.\
In this frame, $p'=p-\lambda\dot{F}-3 \lambda F H$ and the stress-energy tensor components are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tmunu_comp}
\begin{split}
T^0_0&=-\rho, \\
T^i_i&=p'-2\eta F \frac{\dot{R_i}}{R_i}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the Einstein equations for the Bianchi I spacetime, having the viscous Lichnerowicz tensor as source (here only the $ii$ and $00$-components are non-vanishing), can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\ddot{R_2}}{R_2}+\frac{\ddot{R_3}}{R_3}+\frac{\dot{R_2}\dot{R_3}}{R_2 R_3}&=-\chi\left(p'-2\eta F\frac{\dot{R_1}}{R_1}\right), \label{Einst1} \\
\frac{\ddot{R_1}}{R_1}+\frac{\ddot{R_3}}{R_3}+\frac{\dot{R_1}\dot{R_3}}{R_1 R_3}&=-\chi\left(p'-2\eta F\frac{\dot{R_2}}{R_2}\right), \label{Einst2} \\
\frac{\ddot{R_1}}{R_1}+\frac{\ddot{R_2}}{R_2}+\frac{\dot{R_1}\dot{R_2}}{R_1 R_2}&=-\chi\left(p'-2\eta F\frac{\dot{R_3}}{R_3}\right), \label{Einst3} \\
\frac{\dot{R_1}\dot{R_2}}{R_1 R_2}+\frac{\dot{R_1}\dot{R_3}}{R_1 R_3}+\frac{\dot{R_2}\dot{R_3}}{R_2 R_3}&=\chi\rho, \label{Einst4} \end{aligned}$$ $\chi$ being the Einstein constant.\
From the spatial components (\[Einst1\],\[Einst2\],\[Einst3\]), it is possible to show that the system admits the following integrals of motion $$\label{integrale1}
\frac{\dot{R_{i}}}{R_{i}}=H+s_{i}R^{-3}e^{\varphi}.$$ Here $\dot{\psi}\equiv -2\chi\eta F$ and the quantities $s_i$ are such that $s_{1}+s_{2}+s_{3}=0$. The evolution of $H$ is obtained using the trace of the $ii$-components combined with the $00$-component (\[Einst4\]) of the Einstein equation so getting $$\label{H_punto}
\dot{H}=\chi\rho-\frac{1}{2}\chi h-3H^{2}+\frac{3}{2}\chi\zeta FH+\chi(\frac{1}{2}\zeta-\frac{1}{3}\eta)\dot{F},$$ where $$\label{enthalpy}
h=\rho+p$$ represents the specific enthalpy. Moreover, the hydrodynamic equations $\nabla_{\nu}T_{\mu}^{\nu}=0$ (only the $0$-component is not vanishing here) provide the following evolution for $\rho$ $$\label{rho_punto}
\dot{\rho}=-4\chi\eta F\rho-3Hh+9H^{2}\varsigma F+12H^{2}\eta F+3H\varsigma\dot{F}-2H\eta\dot{F}.$$ The first integrals (\[integrale1\]) can be re-cast in a more compact form by the use of (\[H\_punto\]) and (\[Einst4\]) as $$\label{integrale2}
\rho=\frac{1}{\chi}\left(3H^{2}-q^{2}R^{-6}e^{2\varphi}\right),$$ where $q^{2}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\left(s_{1}^{2}+s_{2}^{2}+s_{3}^{2}\right)$. It worth noting that setting $q^2=0$ corresponds to the isotropic case. Equations (\[H\]), (\[H\_punto\]), (\[rho\_punto\]) and (\[integrale2\]) together with the $ii$-components of the field equations represent the full set of the dynamical equations characterizing the present model. In order to close the system we introduce a polytropic index $\gamma$ and we consider an equation of state of the form $$\begin{aligned}
h=&\gamma\rho, && 1\leq\gamma\leq2\end{aligned}$$ where, e.g., $\gamma=1$ corresponds to dust matter and $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$ to the radiation cases, respectively.
Asymptotic solutions with matter creation {#asymptotic-solutions-with-matter-creation .unnumbered}
=========================================
As well known [@BKL70], approaching the initial singularity, the Bianchi I solution in vacuum is Kasner-like and the presence of a perfect fluid is negligible. In [@BK_Bianchi], it has been shown instead that in the presence of a shear viscous contribution the situation significantly changes but a Kasner-like solution still exists and it is characterized by a vanishing behavior of the energy density. Here, we want to verify if such a peculiarity survives when the Eckart representation of the viscous fluid is upgraded in terms of the Lichnerowicz causal reformulation. It is rather easy to realize via a simple asymptotic analysis, that the ansatz in [@Disc1] fails in the region of small value of $\rho$. In fact, the latter predicts $F\sim\rho R^3$ and clearly vanishes near the singularity if $\rho\sim0$ (as $R^3$ is going naturally to zero toward the singularity). In investigating the solutions in this region we need therefore to search for a different representation of $F$. A possibility is to infer its form by picking the case of an incompressible fluid. From equation (\[incomp\]) and by using the line-element (\[metricaBI\]), one immediately gets the following expression for $F$ $$F=\frac{F_{0}}{R^{3}},$$ where we used the convention for which the subscript number denotes an integration constant. The latter is a convention which we will use throughout this paper. Clearly, $F$ grows to infinity as approaching the singularity, without contradicting the constraint (\[F1\]) and assuring well-behaving solutions without superluminal signals. In this regard, it is rather natural to realize that the value of $F$ should significantly grow in extremely relativistic regimes as near the cosmological singularities. As suggested in [@BK_Bianchi], we assume that in the region of low density the viscous coefficients can be expressed as power-laws of the energy density with exponents greater than unity, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\eta&=\eta_{1}\rho^{\alpha_{1}}, && \zeta=\zeta_{1}\rho^{\beta_{1}}, &&\rho\rightarrow 0, && \alpha_{1}\geq1, \beta_{1}\geq1. \label{visc1}\end{aligned}$$ It is worth noting that for an incompressible fluid the $\zeta$-terms automatically drop out from the field equations. This is also the case treated in [@BK_Bianchi] because there the bulk viscosity contributions is asymptotically negligible for small energy densities, taking $\beta_{1}>\alpha_{1}$. In our analysis, in order to search for a consistent solution, we assume that the density vanishes faster than the volume $R^{3}$ as the system approaches the singular point $(H,\rho)=(+\infty,0)$ in the $(H,\rho)$ plane[^1]. Moreover, in the right-handed side of equation (\[H\_punto\]) we can retain the quadratic term in $H$ only. Then, the limiting form of the equations (\[H\_punto\]) and (\[rho\_punto\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{H}&=-3H^{2} \label{Hpunto2}, \\
\dot{\rho}&=-3\gamma\rho H+18\eta_{0}F_{0}\frac{\rho^{\alpha_{1}}}{R^{3}}H^{2} \label{rhopunto2}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $\dot{\varphi}\rightarrow0$ as it contains a positive power-law of the energy density and hence we can fix, without loss of generality, $\varphi\equiv 0$. The constraint equation (\[integrale2\]) reduces to the following relation $$\label{integrale3}
H=\sqrt{3}qR^{-3}.$$ Then, one can easily check that the leading order asymptotic solutions for $t\rightarrow0$ of the simplified Einstein equations (\[Hpunto2\]), (\[rhopunto2\]), (\[integrale3\]) read as $$\begin{aligned}
H&=\frac{1}{3t}, && \rho=Kt^{\frac{2}{\alpha_{1}-1}}, && R^{3}&=\sqrt{3}qt,\\
R_{i}&=\left(\sqrt{3}qt\right)^{p_{i}}, && p_{i}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{s_{i}}{3q}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is a constant depending on the parameters of the model. In order the solutions to be asymptotically self-consistent, the relations above are applicable only when $\alpha_{1}>3$, slightly different with respect to the results given by the Eckart approach in [@BK_Bianchi] where $\alpha_{1}>1$. It is worth noting that we found that the energy density in this causal model decays more rapidly to zero with respect to the non-regularized case studied in [@BK_Bianchi] by Belinskii and Khalatnikov (BK) where $$\rho^{BK}\sim t^{\frac{1}{\alpha_{1}-1}},\qquad\alpha_{1}>1.$$ In other words, we see how the Lichnerowicz approach leads to a cosmological model in which the universe emerges from the singularity with a greater matter-rate creation with respect to the Eckart case.
Viscous dynamics in the isotropic Universe {#viscous-dynamics-in-the-isotropic-universe .unnumbered}
==========================================
We now focus our investigation in the opposite regime where the energy density takes a diverging value near the singularity. Then, let us consider the isotropic limit of the solution, leading to the flat Robertson-Walker Universe, by setting $q^2=0$ in the first integral (\[integrale2\]). The latter reduces to $$\label{integrale3}
\rho=\frac{1}{\chi}3H^{2}.$$ As a natural consequence of isotropy and compatibility issues with the Einstein equations, shear viscosity is not permitted in the model and bulk viscosity is the only retained contribution in the energy momentum expression (\[Tmunu\]). Indeed, in a homogeneous Universe, isotropically expanding, no friction between different layers can occur and the shear viscosity can affect inhomogeneous perturbations only. This set up has already been examined in [@BK_FRW] for an Eckart fluid via the dynamical system approach, and in [@Disc1] via the Lichnerowicz treatment in an attempt to explain dark-energy related current issues. Here we drew our attention to the behavior of the solutions in the limit of large density values. We address the problem by parameterizing $F$ according to expression (\[F\]) or, $$F=\frac{\gamma \rho R^3}{\mu_0},$$ where we have used the fact that $\mu=\mu_0 {R}^{-3}$ because of the rest-mass conservation law (\[restmass\]). It is easy to check that the time derivative of $F$ yields $$\dot{F}=\left(3H+\frac{\dot{\rho}}{\rho}\right)F.$$ Then, in this limiting case, the Einstein equations take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{H}&=\chi\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\gamma\right)\rho-3H^{2}+3\chi\zeta FH+\frac{1}{2}\chi\zeta F\frac{\dot{\rho}}{\rho}, \label{Hpunto3} \\
\dot{\rho}&=-3H\gamma\rho+18H^{2}\varsigma F+3H\varsigma F\frac{\dot{\rho}}{\rho}. \label{rhopunto3}\end{aligned}$$ For the bulk viscosity coefficient in the limit of large density, we still have a power-law behavior of the type: $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta=\zeta_{2}\rho^{\beta_{2}}, && \rho\rightarrow\infty, && 0\leq\beta_{2}\leq\frac{1}{2}\,. \label{visc2}
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that we are using a different subscript with respect to equation (\[visc1\]), corresponding to a different asymptotic region of the energy density. The solutions of the full-set of the field equations given by (\[H\]), (\[integrale3\]), (\[Hpunto3\]) and (\[rhopunto3\]) are investigated assuming that the energy density and the volume are evolving like powers of time according to the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{timepowers}
\rho=\rho_{0}t^{y}, && R^{3}=R_{0}^{3}t^{x}, && y<0, && x>0,
\end{aligned}$$ as the time $t\rightarrow 0$. As a consequence, the viscosity evolves trough the following expression $$\zeta=\zeta_2{\rho_0}^{\beta_{2}}{t}^{\beta_{2} y}.$$ From equation (\[timepowers\]) with the use of (\[H\]) we immediately get $$\label{Htimepower}
H=\frac{x}{3t}.$$ Using equation (\[Hpunto3\]) and being $\dot{H}\sim t^{-2}$, it is necessary that $y=-2$ in order the system to be self-consistent. Similar arguments lead us to conclude that $$\label{x_beta}
x=2\beta_{2}+1.$$ Then, one finds the following evolutions in terms of $t$ for the energy density and the scale-factor $$\begin{aligned}
\rho=\frac{x^{2}}{3\chi}t^{-2}, \label{rho4}\\
R={R_0} t^{\frac{2}{3\gamma_{eff}}}, && \gamma_{eff}\equiv\frac{2}{2\beta_{2}+1}. \label{gammaeff}
\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced an effective equation of state $\gamma_{eff}$. One can check that $\gamma$ is related to $\beta_{2}$ via the following expression $$\label{gamma1}
\gamma=\frac{2}{2\beta_{2}+1}\left[\frac{1}{1-4\beta_{2}(2\beta_{2}+1)^{\beta_{2}}\frac{\zeta_{2}R_{0}^{3}}{(3\chi)^{\beta_{2}}\mu_{0}}}\right].$$ Furthermore, one can see that the regulator evolves with time as $$\label{F_t}
F\sim t^{2\beta_{2}-1}$$ which is asymptotically growing when $0\leq\beta_{2}<1/2$ and reduces to a positive constant when $\beta_{2}=1/2$, leading to well-behaving regularized solutions. An interesting additional feature stands out from the behavior of the scale factor $R$. When the Robertson-Walker geometry is coupled to an ideal fluid the volume typically evolves as $R_{RW}\sim t^{\frac{2}{3\gamma}}$. Here we observe that we still have an isotropic limit, as it is found in [@BK_Bianchi], but instead of being negligible, the viscosity acquires a fundamental role in the dynamics of the Universe, driving the evolution trough an effective equation of state. Indeed, the range of the possible values of $R$ in (\[gammaeff\]) perfectly coincides with the standard non-viscous homogeneous and isotropic universe. In particular,
- for $\beta_{2}=1/2$ we have $R\sim t^{\nicefrac{2}{3}}$: the universe maps a dust-dominated Friedmann Universe with an effective equation of state $\gamma_{eff}=1$;
- for $\beta_{2}=0$ we get $R\sim t^{\nicefrac{1}{3}}$: the solution evolves toward a stiff-matter dominated Universe with an effective equation of state $\gamma_{eff}=2$;
which allows us to conclude that the introduction of $F$ in the Friedmann universe has the role to encode all the viscous effects in the dynamics and what we see at the end is the usual ideal fluid equation of state. We say in this sense that bulk viscosity is regularized.\
Now we emphasize that by extrapolating our solutions to the regime $\beta_{2}>\nicefrac{1}{2}$ we obtain an intriguing dynamical property of the Universe. In fact, from equation (\[gammaeff\]) for $\beta_{2}=1/2+\varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon>0$ we immediately get $$\gamma_{eff}=\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}\rightarrow p=-\frac{\varepsilon}{(1+\varepsilon)}\rho.$$ For $\varepsilon>\nicefrac{1}{2}$ (i.e. $\beta_{2}>1$ and $\gamma_{eff}<\nicefrac{2}{3}$) this dynamical behavior corresponds to a powerlaw inflation solution, induced by a negative effective pressure $p<-\nicefrac{1}{3}\rho$. Indeed, it is easy to realize that the cosmological horizon $$d_h(t)\equiv R(t) \int_{0}^{t}\frac{dt'}{R(t')}$$ takes in this case a divergent value. In this scenario the Universe corresponds to a unique causal region and we can think of it as a viable solution to the horizon paradox. It is worth noting that, since we are dealing with an isotropic flat Universe, we get $H\sim \sqrt{\rho}$ (see equation (\[integrale3\])). Then, the restriction $\beta_{2}< \nicefrac{1}{2}$ in the expression (\[visc2\]), derived for an Eckart representation of the fluid ($F\equiv 1$), acquires a clear physical meaning. In fact, as far as such a restriction holds, the negative effective pressure, due to bulk viscosity, behaves like $\rho^{\beta_{2}+\nicefrac{1}{2}}<\rho$, for large $\rho$ values. This means that the standard (positive) thermodynamical pressure $p = (\gamma - 1)\rho$ remains always the dominant contribution. This is coherent with the idea that the bulk viscosity representation of non-equilibrium effects is valid only on a perturbative level. Clearly, the presence of the regulator $F$ slightly changes this situation since it enhances the weight of viscosity in the dynamics and this is at the ground of the present results. Nonetheless, the regime $\beta_{2}>1$ can be qualitative interpreted as a fluid-like representation for strong non-equilibrium effects, not surprising in the limit of the singularity, when the geometrical velocity of Universe collapse diverges. Thus, the power-law inflation solution we find in such an extreme regime can be thought as the qualitative feature induced by a cosmological continuous source, whose thermodynamical evolution can not be approximated via equilibrium stages. If we accept a fluid representation for such a limiting scenario, we can argue that the superluminar geometrical velocity of the early phases of the Universe expansion is able to open the horizon size, making the cosmological space causally connected as a whole.\
It is now worthwhile to stress a remarkable feature of the obtained solution which makes it essentially different from the same limit treated in [@BK_Bianchi]. Indeed, there, the isotropic solution was considered for $t\rightarrow 0_-$ simply because it corresponds to a singular point in the dynamical system approach of equations (\[H\]), (\[H\_punto\]), (\[rho\_punto\]) and (\[integrale2\]). Here we deal with increasing $t$ values and our dynamics describes an expanding universe from the initial singularity. This choice characterizing the evolution regime is physically allowed when one considers the behavior of the entropy per comoving volume. The latter has the form $$\sigma \sim \rho^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}R^{3}\sim t^{2 \left(\frac{1}{\gamma_{eff}}-\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}.$$ Since from equation (\[gamma1\]) we see that $$\label{gamma2}
\gamma=\gamma_{eff} \left[\frac{1}{1-4\beta_{2}(2\beta_{2}+1)^{\beta_{2}}\frac{\zeta_{1}R_{0}^{3}}{(3\chi)^{\beta_{2}}\mu_{0}}}\right]>\gamma_{eff},$$ it is straightforward to infer that the entropy per comoving volume increases due to dissipation processes when the universe expands. This brings us to conclude that we are dealing with a cosmological paradigm in which the universe emerges from the singularity causally connected as a whole and with a significant entropy creation (this effect is enhanced by increasing $\beta_{2}$ values). This suggests how extreme non-equilibrium thermodynamics near the singularity could play a relevant role in solving some unpleasant paradoxes of the standard cosmological model, namely the horizon and entropy ones. Further remarks should now be done about the obtained solutions (\[Htimepower\]), (\[rho4\]), (\[gammaeff\]) and (\[F\_t\]). Despite the power-law approach given by (\[timepowers\]) is able to provide a satisfactory characterization of the asymptotic behavior of the model under consideration, the underlying cosmological relevance which comes with it leads us to support the solutions with an additional numerical investigation. In this regard, we show in the right panel of figure (1) how the power-law approximation is largely predictive near enough to the singularity, while discrepancies take over as the Universe volume expands. On the other hand, one expects that far from the singularity we assist to a gradual decrease of the role of the viscosity. In figure (1) (left panel) it is shown that the numerical solution for large times tends to overlap the standard inviscid flat Robertson-Walker dynamics. The cosmological picture coming out is consistent with the paradigm of an Universe characterized by a viscous non-equilibrium dynamics close to the Big-Bang whose viscous features are suppressed as the volume expands, recovering the isentropic homogeneous and isotropic Universe (as a consequence of the decreasing value of the energy density).
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
{width="47.00000%" height="7.5cm"} {width="47.00000%" height="7.5cm"}
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
The numerical analysis performed above enforces the idea that strong viscous effects (happening for $\gamma _{eff}<2/3$) can be viewed as a consistent solution to the horizon and entropy paradox, by means of a power-law dynamics in the very early Universe evolution. We further make some considerations about the stability of the obtained solutions. In this regard, we observe that in [@carlmont] the problem of the stability of a flat isotropic Universe has been analyzed in presence of bulk viscosity, according to the Eckart formulation. In the direction forward in time (the same one we are interested here), it is shown how the Universe is stable under scalar perturbations. This result is expected to be maintained in the present formulation too, simply because the regulator $F(t)$ is large near the singularity (according to the ansatz (\[F\]). By other words, one can infer that the presence of $F$ simply enhances the effect fo the viscosity, preserving the stability properties derived in [@carlmont]. This conjecture acquires a reliable meaning in the considered power-law approximation of the solution, where the presence of the regulator can be easily restated in terms of an effective value for $\beta_{2}$ in the corresponding Eckart formulation (i.e. asymptotically to the singularity $F$ becomes a power-law in the energy density of the viscous fluid). We conclude this section by observing that the power-law solution (\[Htimepower\]), (\[rho4\]), (\[gammaeff\]) can be extended to the negative and positive curved Robertson-Walker geometry [^2], as far as the effective polytropic index $\gamma_{eff}$ remains greater than $2/3$. Under such a restriction, the spatial curvature term (behaving like $R^{-2}$), is asymptotically negligible near the singularity with respect to both the energy density $\rho$ and the viscous contribution. The situation is different in the case of the power-law inflation, when $\gamma_{eff} < 2/3$, since the curvature term can play a relevant role. However, this is a typical feature of the inflationary-like solutions, whose existence requires the spatial gradients to be sufficiently smooth [@KT90]. From a physical point of view, if we cut our asymptotic regime at the Planck time (assuming that before the quantum dynamics is concerned), we could require that the spatial curvature is, at that time, sufficiently small and then it will become negligible forward in time.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
We have studied the influence of a viscous cosmological fluid on the Bianchi I Universe dynamics in the neighborhood of the initial singularity. The characterizing aspect of the presented analysis consists of describing the viscous fluid via the Lichnerowicz formulation, introducing a causal regulator (the index of the fluid) in order to ensure a causal dynamics. We have also pointed out how this additional new degree of freedom must be properly linked to the geometrical and thermodynamical variables. We have investigated the role of the two viscosity coefficients in two different limits, when only one of them is dynamically relevant. The shear viscosity has been taken into account in the case of an incompressible fluid, evaluating the modification that the regulator introduces in the well-known solution with matter creation derived in [@BK_Bianchi]. We have shown that such a peculiar phenomenon, characterized by an asymptotically vanishing energy density, not only survives in the Lichnerowicz formulation but it is actually enhanced. The presence of a bulk viscosity term has been analyzed in the isotropic limit of the Bianchi I cosmology and again asymptotically to the initial singularity. We derived a power-law solution, which outlines some interesting features: i) the standard non-viscous Friedmannian behavior is encountered when bulk viscosity is a small deviation from equilibrium ($\beta_{2}<\nicefrac{1}{2}$), but this time the fluid presents an equation of state with an effective dependence on viscosity; ii) when bulk viscosity fully dominates the dynamics with allowance made for strong non-equilibrium effects ($\beta_{2}>1$), we see that the universe evolves trough a power-law inflation solution to the initial singularity, implying the divergence of the cosmological horizon and the subsequent disappearance of the Universe light-cone. Entropy production has been addressed in the isotropic Robertson-Walker limit and specifically for dominant viscosity, where entropy tremendously grows. Despite one may argue whether or not the above-mentioned fluid description is possible in this extreme regime of dominant bulk viscosity, the issues above strongly suggest that a comprehensive understanding of the Universe birth and of the so-called horizon and entropy paradox can not be achieved before a clear account of the non-equilibrium thermodynamical evolution near the singularity will be properly provided.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This paper has been developed within the CGW collaboration (www.cgwcollaboration.it) and supported by the *TornoSubito* project. We would like to thank Riccardo Moriconi for his valuable assistance in the numerical integration of the model. M. V. is thankful to Dr. Shabnam Beheshti who significantly motivated and assisted this work and to Queen Mary, University of London for providing all the necessary facilities.
[9]{} V. A. Belinskii, I. M. Khalatnikov, E. M. Lifshttz. *Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the relativistic cosmology*. Adv. Physics, 19(80), 525-573 (1970). V. A. Belinskii, I. M. Khalatnikov, E. M. Lifshitz. *A general solution of the Einstein equations with a time singularity*, Adv. Physics, 31 (6), 639-667 (1982). G. Montani, M. V. Battisti, R. Benini, G. Imponente. *Primordial Cosmology*. World Scientific (2008). A. A. Kirillov. *On the question of the characteristics of the spatial distribution of metric inhomogeneities in a general solution to einstein equations in the vicinity of a cosmological singularity*. Soviet Physics JETP 76, p. 335 (1993). G. Montani. *On the general behavior of the universe near the cosmological singularity*, Classical and Quantum Gravity 12, 10, pp. 2505-2517 (1995). A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, P. Singh. *Quantum nature of the big bang: Improved dynamics*. Physical Review D 74, 8, p. 084003 (2006). S. Pal. *Physical aspects of unitary evolution of Bianchi-I quantum cosmological model*. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 4 (2016). Ya. B. Zeldovich, A. A. Starobinsky. *Particle Production and Vacuum Polarization in an Anisotropic Gravitational Field*. Sov. Phys. JETP, 34(6), 1159-1166 (1972). G. Montani. *Influence of particle creation on flat and negative curved FLRW universes*. Classical and Quantum Gravity 18, pp. 193–203 (2001). J.D. Barrow. *String-driven inflationary and deflationary cosmological models*. Nucl. Phys. B, 310, 743 (1988). C. Eckart. *The thermodynamics of irreversible processes III. Relativistic theory of the simple fluid*. Physical Review, 58 (1940). W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom. *Generic instabilities in first-order dissipative fluid theories*. Phys. Rev. D, 31(4) (1985). W. Israel. *Nonstationary irreversible thermodynamics: A causal relativistic theory*. Ann. Phys., 100(1-2):310– 331 (1976). V. A. Belinskii, I. M. Khalatnikov. *Influence of viscosity on the character of cosmological evolution*. Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 42, p. 205 (1975). V. A. Belinskii, E. S. Nikomarov, I. M. Khalatnikov. *Investigation of the cosmological evolution of viscoelastic matter with causal thermodynamics*. Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, Vol. 50, No. 2, p. 21 (1979). A. Lichnerowicz. *Théories Relativistes de la Gravitation et de l’Électromagnétism*, Masson et Cie, Paris (1955). M. M. Disconzi, T. W. Kephart, R. J. Scherrer. *A new approach to cosmological bulk viscosity*. Physical Review D, 91:043532 (2015). M. M. Disconzi, T. W. Kephart, R. J. Scherrer. *On a viable first order formulation of relativistic viscous fluids and its applications to cosmology*. arXiv:1510.07187 \[gr-qc\] (2015). M. Czubak, M. M. Disconzi. *On the well-posedness of relativistic viscous fluids with non-zero vorticity*, J.Math.Phys. 57 (2016) 042501 (2014). M. M. Disconzi. *On the well-posedness of relativistic viscous fluids*. Nonlinearity, 27(8):1915–1935 (2014). L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz. *The Classical Theory of Fields*, Volume 2 of A Course of Theoretical Physics, Pergamon Press (1971). C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler. *Gravitation*, W H Freeman & Co (Sd) (1973). A. A. Kirillov, G. Montani. *Quasi-isotropization of the inhomogeneous mixmaster universe induced by an inflationary process*. Physical Review D 66, p. 064010 (2002). V. A. Belinskii, I. M. Khalatnikov. *Viscosity effects in isotropic cosmologies*. Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 45, pp. 1–9 (1977). N. Carlevaro, G. Montani. *Bulk viscosity effects on the early universe stability*. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 1729 (2005). E. W. Kolb, M. S. Turner. *The Early Universe*. Westview Press (1994).
[^1]: Details about the dynamical study of the asymptotic solutions in the Eckart representation can be found in [@BK_Bianchi].
[^2]: We remind the reader that the isotropic Bianchi I model actually is the flat Robertson-Walker Universe
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a consistent derivation of the recently proposed 5D anisotropic standing wave braneworld generated by gravity coupled to a phantom-like scalar field. We explicitly solve the corresponding junction conditions, a fact that enables us to give a physical interpretation to the anisotropic energy-momentum tensor components on the brane. So matter on the brane represents an oscillating fluid which emits anisotropic waves into the bulk. We also analyze the Sturm-Liouville problem associated to the correct localization condition of the transverse to the brane metric and scalar fields. It is shown that this condition restricts the physically meaningful space of solutions for the localization of the fluctuations of the model.'
address:
- |
$^1$Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, 6 Tamarashvili St., Tbilisi 0177, Georgia &\
Javakhishvili State University, 3 Chavchavadze Ave., Tbilisi 0128, Georgia
- '$^{2}$Instituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Edificio C–3, Ciudad Universitaria, C.P. 58040, Morelia, Michoacán, México'
- '$^{3}$Centro de Estudios en Física y Matemáticas Básicas y Aplicadas, Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas, Calle 4a Oriente Norte 1428, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, México'
author:
- 'Merab Gogberashvili$^1$, Alfredo Herrera–Aguilar$^{2,3}$ and Dagoberto Malagón–Morejón$^2$'
title: 'An anisotropic standing wave braneworld and associated Sturm–Liouville problem'
---
Introduction
============
Since the early proposals of braneworld models involving large extra dimensions and 4D delta-function sources with both positive and negative tensions [@Hi; @brane] there has been a lot of activity in this area with the aim of solving several open questions in modern physics (see [@reviews; @maartenskoyama] for reviews). Most of these models were realized as time independent field configurations. However, quite soon, mostly within cosmological approaches, there have appeared several braneworlds that assumed time-dependent metrics and fields in an attempt to address several open problems in astrophysics and cosmology [@S]-[@vartensions]. In general, these braneworld models have a series of remarkable features: they develop a novel geometrical mechanism of dimensional reduction based on a curved extra dimension, provide a realization of the AdS/CFT correspondence to lowest order, take into account the self-gravity on the brane through its tension, can trap various matter fields (except for gauge bosons) inside the brane, recast the hierarchy problem into a higher dimensional viewpoint, and also lead to cosmological backgrounds with consistent dynamics that recover general relativity results under suitable restrictions on their parameters. All these facts provide a complex but interesting interplay between gravity, particle physics and geometry [@maartenskoyama].
However, there are still several open relevant questions which deserve attention: construction of the simplest realistic solution for an astrophysical black hole on the brane and study its physical properties like staticity and Hawking radiation, development of realistic approximation schemes and numerical codes to study cosmological perturbations on all scales, computation of the CMB anisotropies and large scale structure to confront their predictions with high-precision observations [@maartenskoyama].
One of the main drawbacks of the delta–function braneworld models from the gravitational viewpoint is related to their singularities at the positions of the branes, a fact that gets worse in models with more than six dimensions due to the stronger self-gravity of the brane. In an attempt to heal this problem, several authors smooth out the brane tensions [@Csaki] or introduced single [@gremm] or several scalars [@intscalars], and phantom [@phantom] or tachyon [@tachyon] fields as sources (for a recent review see [@thickreview]), and even considered modified gravity braneworlds [@LiufR]. However, scalar field thick brane configurations with 4D Poincaré symmetry also develop naked singularities at the boundaries of the bulk manifold if a mass gap is required to be present in the graviton spectrum of Kaluza-Klein fluctuations (see [@gremm; @hammmln], for instance). An alternative model without such a drawback is provided by a recently proposed de Sitter braneworld model purely generated by 4D and 5D cosmological constants [@cuco].
In this sense, it is important to consider new generalizations that attempt to make more realistic the original braneworld models, or explore other aspects of higher-dimensional gravity which are not probed or approached by these simple models.
In this paper we shall consider the braneworld generated by 5D anisotropic standing gravitational waves coupled to a phantom-like scalar field in the bulk as it was recently proposed in [@Gog1]. It turns out that standing wave configurations can provide a natural alternative mechanism for localizing 4D gravity as well as for trapping matter fields (for scalar and fermion fields see [@gmmscalar] and [@gmmfermion], respectively), including gauge bosons [@gmmboson], which usually are not localized on thin braneworlds. A peculiarity of this anisotropic braneworld scenario is that it possesses non-stationary metric coefficients in the 4D part of the line element. We further impose $Z_2$-symmetry along the extra dimension, a fact that gives rise to the need of introducing as well an anisotropic brane energy-momentum tensor for the self-consistency of the model. When the corresponding junction conditions are solved, this fact allows us to give a physical interpretation to the components of the anisotropic energy-momentum tensor of the brane. Then the localization of transverse scalar and metric fields are treated through the associated Sturm-Liouville method that restricts the physically meaningful parameter space of the solution. Some final remarks are given at the end of the paper.
The model
=========
In this section we briefly recall the 5D standing wave braneworld model proposed in [@Gog1], which is generated by gravity coupled to a non self-interacting scalar phantom-like field [@phantom; @thickreview] which depends on time and propagates in the bulk, and is given by the action: $$\label{action}
S_b = \int d^5x \sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{16 \pi G_5} \left( R - 2\Lambda_{5}\right)+
\frac{1}{2}\left(\nabla \phi\right)^2\right]~,$$ where $G_5$ and $\Lambda _5$ are 5D Newton and cosmological constants, respectively. It is worth noticing that in order to avoid the well-known problems of stability which occur with ghost fields, the phantom-like scalar field does not couple to ordinary matter in the model.
The Einstein equations for the action (\[action\]) read: $$\label{field-eqns}
R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R = 8\pi G_5 T_{\mu \nu} - \Lambda _5 g_{\mu \nu}~,$$ where Greek indices run from $0$ to $5$, labeling the 5D space-time, and $T_{\mu \nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor for the scalar field $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EMT}
T_{\mu \nu} = -\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi + \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}\partial_{\rho}\phi
\partial^{\rho}\phi~.\end{aligned}$$
Following [@Gog1], we use the anisotropic metric [*ansatz*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metricA}
ds^2 = e^{2A(r)}\left( dt^2 - e^{u(t,r)}dx^2 - e^{u(t,r)}dy^2 - e^{-2u(t,r)}dz^2 \right) - dr^2~,\end{aligned}$$ where Latin indices stand for the 4D space-time coordinates ($x^0=t$, $x^i$ ,with $i=1,2,3,$ are the spatial coordinates $x,y,z$, respectively) and the extra dimension is denoted as $x^5=r$. This metric generalizes straightforwardly the thin brane metric [*ansatz*]{} [@brane], where $A(r)
\sim |r|$, which is recovered in the limit when $u(t,r)$ vanishes. The warp factor here $A(r)$ is an arbitrary function of the extra coordinate $r$ and, in principle, may model a thick brane configuration in the spirit of [@gremm].
This braneworld constitutes a generalization of the thin brane model with the peculiarity that now the brane possesses anisotropic oscillations on it, which send a wave into the bulk (as in [@gms]), i.e. the brane is warped along the spatial coordinates $x, y, z$ through the factor $e^{u(t,r)}$, depending on time $t$ and the extra coordinate $r$. Several anisotropic braneworld models have been previously considered in the literature [@kasnerads]-[@GK] when addressing relevant cosmological issues like anisotropy dissipation during inflation [@anisotbwinfl], braneworld isotropization with the aid of magnetic fields [@bwisotropization] and localization of test particles [@GK]. Moreover, as a general feature it has been established that anisotropic metrics on the brane prevent the bulk from being static [@bcosmoanisotbulk; @bwisotropization].
The phantom-like scalar field $\phi (t,r)$ obeys the Klein-Gordon equation on the background space-time given by (\[metricA\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}~\partial_\mu (\sqrt{-g} g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu \phi) =
\Box\phi = e^{-2A(r)}\ddot \phi - \phi'' - 4 A' \phi' = 0 ~,\end{aligned}$$ where overdots mean time derivatives and primes stand for derivatives with respect to the extra coordinate $r$.
We further write the Einstein equations in the form: $$\label{field-eqns1}
R_{\mu \nu} = - \partial_\mu \sigma\partial_\nu \sigma + \frac{2}{3} g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda _5~,$$ where the gravitational constant has been absorbed in the definition of the scalar field: $$\label{sigma} \sigma = \sqrt{8 \pi G_5} ~ \phi ~,$$ and we have used the reduced form of the energy-momentum tensor of the phantom-like scalar field $$\label{Tmnbar}
\overline{T}_{\mu\nu} \equiv T_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{3}g_{\mu\nu}T
=-\nabla_{\mu}\sigma\nabla_{\nu}\sigma~,$$ and $T\equiv g^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}$.
It turns out that from the $05$-component of the Einstein equations (\[field-eqns1\]), it follows that the fields $\sigma$ and $u$ are related by [@Gog1], $$\label{sigma=u}
\sigma (t,r) = \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}~u(t,r)~,$$ up to an additive constant that can be absorbed into a redefinition of the 4D spatial coordinates in (\[metricA\]).
On the other hand, by combining the $22$- and $33$-components of the Einstein equations (\[field-eqns1\]), and comparing the result to the corresponding $55$-component, one gets a quite strong restriction on the function $A(r)$: $$\label{A''=0}
A'' = 0~,$$ whose solution is linear in $r$, but corresponds to divergent warp factors. Another interesting fact that follows from the same analysis is that this condition also implies a sort of fine tuning, where the 5D cosmological constant is related to $A(r)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L=a2}
\Lambda_5 = 6 {A'}^2~.\end{aligned}$$ It is worth noticing that the relation (\[sigma=u\]) remains valid even if we include a self-interaction potential for the scalar field.
In order to get an asymptotically vanishing warp factor and to study a more interesting braneworld with the above ($A'' = 0$) behavior on the bulk, we modify the initial model by imposing $Z_2$-symmetry along the extra dimension and by introducing a thin brane at $r=0$, which, for consistency with (\[metricA\]), must be supported by an anisotropic energy-momentum tensor. This implies that the warp factor of the metric (\[metricA\]) adopts the known form, similar to [@brane]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metric1}
ds^2 = e^{2a|r|}\left( dt^2 - e^{u}dx^2 - e^{u}dy^2 - e^{-2u}dz^2\right) - dr^2~,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is an arbitrary constant. The non-zero components of the Ricci tensor for this metric read: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ricci}
R_{tt} &=& e^{2a|r|} \left[-\frac {3}{2} e^{-2a|r|} \dot u ^2 + 4a^2 + 2a\delta(r)\right]~, \nonumber \\
R_{xx}&=&R_{yy}=e^{2a|r|+u}\left[ \frac {1}{2} e^{-2a|r|}\ddot u -
4a^2 - 2a \epsilon(r) u' - 2a\delta(r)-\frac {1}{2} u'' \right]~, \nonumber \\
R_{zz} &=& e^{2a|r|-2u}\left[ - e^{-2a|r|}\ddot u - 4a^2 + 4a\epsilon(r)u' -2a\delta(r) + u''\right]~, \\
R_{rr} &=& -\frac 32 u'^2 - 4a^2 - 8a\delta(r)~, \nonumber\\
R_{rt} &=& -\frac 32 \dot uu' ~, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon(r)$ is the sign function. The presence of terms proportional to $\delta(r)$ in the Ricci tensor, together with the anisotropy of the metric, forces us to define an anisotropic energy-momentum tensor on the brane $\tau^{\mu}_{\nu}$ with different stresses along different directions. The simplest way to accomplish this is by proposing: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensormixto}
\tau^{\mu}_{\nu}=\delta{(r)}~\mbox{\rm diag}[\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2, \lambda_3,0]~, ~~~~~
\lambda_1 = \lambda_2~.\end{aligned}$$ The above energy–momentum tensor can be interpreted as certain ’anisotropic effective fluid’ which constitutes a mixture of a vacuum fluid (which is characterized just by a brane tension) and an anisotropic matter fluid (see [@maartenskoyama] and references therein for a complete decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor induced on the brane).
The parameter $\lambda_0$ is the energy density of the ’effective fluid’ and $\lambda_m$ ($m=1,2,3$) are the stresses along the $m$ directions (see below). In general these quantities depend only on time. A similar energy-momentum tensor was implemented in the context of Eötvös braneworlds with variable (time-dependent) tensions in analogy with fluid membranes in [@vartensions].
By taking into account the above considerations, the field equations (\[field-eqns1\]) change as follows: $$\label{field-eqnsDELTA}
R_{\mu\nu} = - \partial_{\mu} \sigma\partial_{\nu} \sigma +
\frac{2}{3} g_{\mu\nu} \Lambda _5 + 8 \pi G_5 \bar{\tau}_{\mu\nu}~,$$ where the reduced energy-momentum tensor, $$\bar{\tau}_{\mu\nu} = \tau_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu}\tau~,$$ corresponds to the matter content on the brane and takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reduced}
\bar{\tau}_{\mu\nu}&=&\frac{1}{3}\delta{(r)}~\mbox{\rm diag}
\left[(2\lambda_0-2\lambda_1-\lambda_3 ),
(\lambda_0-\lambda_1+\lambda_3)e^{u},\right.\\
&\,&\left.(\lambda_0-\lambda_1+\lambda_3)e^{u},
(\lambda_0+2\lambda_1-2\lambda_3)e^{-2u},
(\lambda_0+2\lambda_1+\lambda_3)\right]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By making use of (\[metric1\]), (\[field-eqnsDELTA\]) and (\[reduced\]) one can show that the relation (\[sigma=u\]) between the scalar field and the metric function is satisfied as well. The relation (\[L=a2\]) computed with the aid of the metric (\[metric1\]) adopts the following form: $$\label{L=a} \Lambda_ 5=6 a^2~.$$ Therefore, the system of Einstein and field equations reduces to a single ordinary differential equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqntou}
\label{field-eqnbulk} e^{-2a|r|}~\ddot u - u'' - 4a\epsilon(r)u' = 0~.\end{aligned}$$
In addition to the latter, the existence of the thin brane in our setup gives rise to a relationship between the jump of the first derivative of the function $u$ at $r=0$ (denoted by $[u']$) the stresses $\lambda_m$ and the parameter $a$. A way to derive these relationships consists in integrating (\[field-eqnsDELTA\]) with respect to $r$ in the range $[-\varepsilon,
\varepsilon]$ and then making $\varepsilon$ tend to zero, yielding the following junction conditions for the stresses $\lambda_m$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\, a=\frac{4\pi G_5}{3}\left( 2\lambda_0 -2\lambda_1-\lambda_3\right)~, \nonumber \\
&[u']= \frac{16\pi G_5}{3}\left(-\lambda_0+\lambda_1-\lambda_3 \right)-4a~, \nonumber \\
&[u']= \frac{8\pi G_5}{3}\left(\ \lambda_0+2\lambda_1-2\lambda_3\right)+ 2a~, \label{match} \\
&\, a=-\frac{\pi G_5}{3}\left(
\lambda_0+2\lambda_1+\lambda_3\right)~. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Although the above system seems to be overdetermined since we have four equations for just three variables $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_3$, it is possible to show that only three equations are independent.
We then construct a standing wave solution to (\[eqntou\]) by implementing the [*ansatz*]{}: $$\label{separation}
u(t,r) = C \sin (\omega t) f(r)~,$$ where $C$ and $\omega$ are some constants. In [@Gog1] it was argued that a standing wave configuration in the bulk would in principle provide an alternative mechanism for localizing gravity and binding matter fields (through an anisotropic force which drives the matter fields/particles toward the nodes), including light (see [@gmmscalar]-[@gmmboson] for recent results).
The equation for the radial function $f(r)$ from (\[separation\]) reads, $$\label{f}
f'' + 4 a\epsilon(r) f' + \omega^2 e^{-2 a |r|}f = 0 ~.$$ The general solution of this equation adopts the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fsol} f(r) = e^{-2a|r|} \left[{\cal A}~J_2\left(
\frac{\omega}{|a|} e^{-a|r|} \right) + {\cal B}~Y_2\left( \frac{\omega}{|a|} e^{-a|r|}
\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal A},{\cal B}$ are arbitrary constants and $J_2$ and $Y_2$ are $2^{nd}$ order Bessel functions of the first and second kind, respectively. It is worth noticing that although the $Y_2$ Bessel function is singular as $r \longrightarrow \infty$ for $a > 0$, the whole function (\[fsol\]) vanishes in this limit since its behaviour is dominated by the $e^{-2a|r|}$ factor.
As pointed out in [@Gog1], along with the solution (\[fsol\]), we impose the ghost-like field to be unobservable on the position of the thin brane, since it oscillates together with the gravitational field (see (\[sigma=u\])). A way to accomplish this consists in setting a boundary condition that nullifies the ghost-like field at the position of the brane $r=0$, a condition that quantizes the oscillation frequency, $\omega$, of the standing wave: $$\label{quantize}
\frac{\omega}{|a|} = X_{n}~,$$ where $X_{n}$ is the $n^{th}$ zero of the $2^{nd}$ order Bessel function $J_2$ or $Y_2$ depending on whether one takes ${\cal A}=0$ or ${\cal B}=0$ in (\[fsol\]), since the zeros of $J_2$ and $Y_2$ do not coincide. For an increasing ($a > 0$)/decreasing ($a < 0$) warp factor, the ghost-like field $\sigma (t,r)$ and the metric function $u(t,r)$ vanish at a finite/infinite number of points $r_m$ along the extra dimension in the bulk (nodes), forming 4D space-time ‘islands’ at these nodes, where the matter particles are assumed to be bound.
The induced 4D Einstein space-time is locally $AdS_4$ (in a vicinity of the positions of the island universes $r_m$ along the extra dimension) if: $$^{4}R_{ab} = \alpha(r_m) q_{ab}~, ~~~~~ a,b=0,1,2,3$$ where $^{4}\!R_{ab}$ and $q_{ab}$ are the induced 4D Ricci and metric tensors, respectively, and $\alpha(r_m) > 0$ is a constant depending on the position of the island $r_m$.
By computing the 4D induced metric on the brane islands we can write down the components of the 4D induced Ricci tensor as functions of the induced metric tensor and its first two derivatives, i.e. as functions of $u(t,r)$ and its first two partial derivatives with respect to time and the extra coordinate. By looking for a proportionality between the induced metric and Ricci tensors on the island universes, i.e. when $u(t,r_m) = 0$ (however, the derivatives of $u$ at $r_m$ do not vanish), we see that the $AdS_4$ effective character of the 4D island universes can be reached only in two distinct cases:
i\) by restricting the amplitude of the anisotropic oscillations to be very small, more precisely when $AC << 1$, for the islands which are located at finite $r_m$.
ii\) asymptotically along the fifth dimension ($r_m \longrightarrow \infty$).
Thus, even when at the $r_m$ points where the island universes are located we have $u(t,r_m)=0$ and the metric (\[metric1\]) reduces to the standard 5D thin braneworld metric of [@brane], whereas the setup (\[action\]) simplifies to an action describing 5D gravity with a cosmological constant, plus a delta-function brane as in [@brane], leading to the known Randall-Sundrum braneworld which is an $AdS_5$ slice, in general, the metric in the islands (i.e. for each particular node $r_m$) is not locally $AdS_4$, but just in the above referred two cases.
Returning to the problem of junction conditions (\[match\]), if we use (\[separation\]) and (\[fsol\]) to solve them, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensions}
\lambda_0&=&-\frac{3a}{4\pi G_5}~, \nonumber \\
\lambda_1&=& \lambda_2 ~ = \frac{AC\omega\,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)}
{16 \pi G_5}\left( J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|}-
\frac{3a}{4 \pi G_5}~, \nonumber \\
\lambda_3&=& -\frac{AC\omega\,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)}{8 \pi G_5}
\left( J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|}-
\frac{3a}{4 \pi G_5}~, \label{match1} \\
\,[u']&=& \frac{16 \pi G_5}{3}(\lambda_1-\lambda_3)=AC\omega \,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)\left(
J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|}~. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From these relations it can be seen that $\lambda_0 = \rho$ is constant, and it can be interpreted as the energy density of the ’effective fluid’ as mentioned above, while the stresses oscillate in the $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions with the same frequency as the function $u$ does, as it was expected since it is precisely along these directions that the metric coefficients do oscillate in the bulk. On the other hand, the spatial components of the energy–momentum tensor on the brane can be consistently interpreted following a systematic covariant analysis developed from the viewpoint of a brane-bound observer [@Maartens; @KG].
Let us decompose the tension components (\[tensions\]) as follows: $$\lambda_i =-p+ \pi_i~, ~~~~~ (i=1,2,3)$$ where the quantity $p$ represents a constant isotropic pressure and the $\pi_i$ are the components of the anisotropic stress that oscillate along the spatial direction $x^i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{anisotropic_t}
p&=&\frac{3a}{4 \pi G_5}~, \nonumber \\
\pi_1&=& \pi_2 ~ = \frac{AC\omega\,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)}{16 \pi G_5}
\left( J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|}~, \\
\pi_3&=& -2\pi_1 = -\frac{AC\omega\,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)}{8 \pi G_5}
\left( J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|}~. \label{match1} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By taking into account that in the solution for the junctions conditions (\[tensions\]) the parameter $\omega /|a|$ is a zero of $J_2$, but not of $J_1$ and $J_3$, in general the anisotropic stresses are different from zero. Furthermore, the stresses along the directions $x$ and $y$ are equal, whereas the stress in the $z-$direction $\pi_3$ is twice in amplitude and possesses opposite phase with respect to $\pi_1$. This is a direct consequence of the symmetry of the metric under the exchange $x\longleftrightarrow y,$ on the one hand, and the differences in amplitude and phase in the argument of the exponential metric coefficients, on the other hand.
Let us compare the isotropic and the anisotropic parts of (\[tensormixto\]). In order to do that we shall consider the following physically interesting limits:
**a)** The first case is $\omega / |a| \approx 1$, and depending on the amplitudes $A$ and $C$ in the expressions for the components $\lambda_i$, the dominant term can be the oscillatory or the constant one ($3a /4 \pi G_5$), or both terms can be of the same order.
**1a)** If $\omega/|a| \approx 1$ and $AC \ll 1$ the constant term dominates and $\lambda_i
\approx \lambda_0 = - 3a/4\pi G_5$. Then the oscillatory terms in $\lambda_i$ can be neglected compared to the contribution given by the constant terms and the thin brane becomes “isotropic”, recovering the standard thin brane case [@brane], where the state equation is $p=-\rho$. Thus, the energy-momentum tensor on the brane only has a relevant contribution coming from the tension of the brane.
**2a)** If $\omega/|a| \approx 1$ and $AC\gg 1$ the oscillatory terms are dominant in $\lambda_i$ and $\mbox{max}(\lambda_i) \gg \lambda_0$, implying that the energy-momentum tensor of the thin brane describes a kind of exotic matter given by the following expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau^{\mu}_{\nu} \approx \delta{(r)}~\mbox{\rm diag}
[\lambda_0,\tilde{\lambda}_1+\lambda_0,\tilde{\lambda}_2+\lambda_0, \tilde{\lambda}_3+\lambda_0,0]~,
~~~~~ \tilde{\lambda}_1=\tilde{\lambda}_2~,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\lambda}_{1}&=& \frac{AC\omega\,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)}{16 \pi G_5}
\left( J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|},\nonumber \\
\tilde{\lambda}_{3}&=&- \frac{AC\omega\,\epsilon(a)\sin(\omega t)}{8 \pi G_5}
\left( J_3-J_1\right)|_{\omega /|a|}.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the matter is highly anisotropic because the amplitude of the stationary wave is large.
**3a)** If $\omega/|a| \approx 1$ and $AC \approx 1$, the oscillatory and constant terms are of the same order and $\lambda_i \sim \lambda_0 \sim a$. Due to this fact, in this case there is no way to highlight an interesting physical situation, in contrast to cases **1a)** and **2a)**.
**b)** The second interesting limit takes place when the stationary wave that propagates in the bulk oscillates in the high frequency regime ($\omega /|a| \gg 1$); in this case we have again three situations:
**1b)** If $\omega /|a| \gg 1$ and $AC \ll 1$ with $ACX_{n}\rightarrow C_1,$ where $C_1$ is a finite constant, we have the same result as in the case **3a)**. Thus, the oscillatory and constant terms are of the same order.
**2b)** If $\omega /|a| \gg 1$ and $AC \approx 1$ we have the same result as in the case **2a)**: the matter fluid is highly anisotropic. But in contrast to **2a)** in this case it is because the frequency of the stationary wave is large, therefore, it contributes to the growth of the anisotropic part of the energy-momentum tensor.
**3b)** If $\omega /|a| \gg 1$ and $AC\gg 1$ we have the same result as in **2a)**: an oscillatory energy-momentum tensor of the thin brane which describes a kind of exotic matter. In this case this fact takes place because the frequency and amplitude of the stationary wave are large.
Note that since $\omega /|a|$ is a zero of $J_2$ the quantity $\omega/|a|>1$ and the third case $\omega /|a| \ll 1$ is excluded from our analysis.
In summary, the two most relevant limits are:
I\) when the matter on the brane hardly oscillates due to the small amplitude of the anisotropies compared to the brane’s tension, leading to a quasi-isotropic brane. This limit mimics the Randall-Sundrum model.
II\) when the matter on the brane is highly anisotropic and a stationary wave propagates through the bulk. In this case we are far from the Randall-Sundrum limit.
It would be interesting to study a braneworld isotropization mechanism for our brane universe similar to those proposed in [@anisotbwinfl; @bwisotropization]. In the latter model, the brane anisotropic energy leaks into the bulk as it evolves, a phenomenon that can also be interpreted from a completely 4D point of view in the framework of the AdS/CFT correspondence as particle production in the CFT, where energy is drawn from the anisotropy to fuel the process, leading to an isotropic brane over time. In principle, this study could be carried out for our anisotropic braneworld model since we have completely solved the 5D Einstein equations, a necessary requirement for the computation of the projection of the Weyl tensor into the brane.
Localization of transverse scalar and metric fields
===================================================
In the original paper [@Gog1] it was shown that near the nodes $r_m$, where $u(r,t)\approx 0,$ the metric (\[metric1\]) adopts the usual thin brane form of [@brane] and one recovers localized 4D gravity on the island universes in the usual way through a massless mode solution for the equation that governs the dynamics of transverse traceless metric fluctuations.
Here we shall consider the localization of small perturbations of a real massless scalar field defined by the action: $$\label{Sphi}
S_{\varphi}= -\frac{1}{2} \int \sqrt{g} dx^{4}dr \ g^{\mu \nu}\partial_{\mu}\varphi
\partial_{\nu}\varphi~.
\label{actionphim0}$$ We consider a massless scalar field since it is important to get an oscillating solution in our model, otherwise there will be no standing wave since the solution for the scalar field $\varphi$ will be dissipative (as in the case of including a mass term, for instance). It is necessary to mention that unlike [@Gog1] we study the localization of scalar field in the system formed by the thin brane located in $r=0$ and all the island universes. This will be seen below from the fact that the norm of fluctuations is defined on the whole domain of the extra dimension $r$, thus, if it is finite for the entire domain, it will also be finite for single islands or a set of island-universes.
The scalar field equation corresponding to the action (\[Sphi\]) is: $$\label{fieq}
\ddot\varphi - e^{-u}(\varphi_{xx}+\varphi_{yy}) - e^{2u}\varphi_{zz} - e^{2 a |r|}
\left[4 a \epsilon(r)\varphi' +
\varphi''\right] = 0~,$$ where the subscripts $xx$, $yy$ and $zz$ denote second differentiation with respect to $x$, $y$ and $z$, respectively. Let us propose the following [*ansatz*]{} for the scalar field, $$\varphi=L(r,t)P_1(x)P_2(y)P_3(z)~,$$ which transforms the previous equation into, $$\label{fieq2}
\frac{\ddot L}{L} - e^{-u}\left( \frac{1}{P_1}\frac{d^2P_1}{dx^2}+
\frac{1}{P_2}\frac{d^2P_2}{dy^2}\right) -
\frac{e^{2u}}{P_3}\frac{d^2P_3}{dz^2} - e^{2 a |r|}
\frac{\left[4 a \epsilon(r)L' + L''\right]}{L} = 0 ~.$$ Let us also set $$\label{eqsP}
\frac{d^2P_i}{dx^2_i} = -k_i^2P_i~, ~~~~~ (i=1,2,3.)$$ The parameters $k_i$ can be physically regarded as the momenta along the $i$ direction of the brane without considering the anisotropic character of the background metric.
By taking into account (\[eqsP\]), we get: $$\label{fieq3}
\ddot L - e^{2 a |r|}\left[ 4 a \epsilon(r)L' + L''\right]= -\left[ (k^2_1+k^2_2)e^{-u}
+k^2_3e^{2u}\right] L ~.$$ In the limit $u \rightarrow 0$ this equation has the well known solution: $$L \sim e^{ik_0t}~, ~~~~~ k_0^2 - k_i^2 = 0~,$$ corresponding to the 4D massless scalar mode, which can be localized on the thin brane located at $r=0$ by the warp factor $e^{2a|r|}$ if $a<0$ (see, for example, [@local]).
In this paper we want to consider a simple case of transverse fluctuations to the island universes, i.e. when $k_i\approx 0$. In this case the equation (\[fieq3\]) takes the form: $$\label{eqL} \ddot L - e^{2 a |r|}\left[4 a \epsilon(r)L' + L''\right] = 0 ~.$$ By proposing a similar to (\[separation\]) oscillatory [*ansatz*]{}: $$\label{L}
L(r,t)=K\sin(\Omega t)g(r)~,$$ where $\Omega$ and $K$ are some constants, we obtain, $$\label{g} g'' + 4 a \epsilon(r) g' + \Omega^2 e^{-2 a |r|}g = 0~,$$ which is the same equation as (\[f\]) for the metric function $f(r)$, and thus, possesses the solution: $$\label{gsol}
g(r) = e^{-2a|r|} \left[D~J_2\left( \frac{\Omega}{|a|} e^{-a|r|}
\right) + E~Y_2\left( \frac{\Omega}{|a|} e^{-a|r|} \right)\right],$$ where $D,E$ are integration constants. In contrast with the frequency of the ghost-like field, $\omega$, the parameter $\Omega$ in (\[gsol\]) is not quantized since in general $\Omega \neq
\omega$.
In order to analyze the proper way of normalization of $g(r)$, we rewrite (\[g\]) as: $$\label{eqf}
-\left(e^{4a|r|}g'\right)'=\Omega^2 e^{2 a |r|} g ~.$$
Now we recall the Sturm–Liouville method associating to the equation, $$\label{STp}
-\left[p(r)y'\right]'+q(r)y=\lambda s(r)y~,$$ of a variable $y(r)$, the norm, $$\label{norm}
||y||^2_s=\int_b^c |y(r)|^2s(r)dr~,$$ where $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue parameter, while $b$ and $c$ are arbitrary real constants. By comparing (\[STp\]) with (\[eqf\]) we see that $y(r)=g(r)$, $q(r)=0$, $s(r)=e^{2 a |r|}$, $\lambda=\Omega^2$, $p(r)=e^{4 a |r|}$ and the correct norm for (\[g\]) is given by, $$\label{normg}
\int_b^c |g(r)|^2e^{2a|r|}dr~,$$ where $b=0$ and $c=\infty$. Thus $g(r)$ belongs to the Hilbert space $H_s$ consisting of all such functions for which (\[normg\]) is finite [@stakgold].
Another way of looking at this problem consists of considering the action for the scalar field (\[actionphim0\]) and taking into account (\[metricA\]) and the expression for $\sqrt{g}$, in order to show that its nontrivial part (the kinetic term) is, $$S_{\varphi}\sim \int dx^{4}dr e^{2a|r|} \dot{L}^{2} + \cdots~,$$ where the dots denote the 5D contribution of the scalar field. If we further make use of the relation (\[L\]), then the normalization condition along the extra coordinate reads: $$\label{localization}
S_{\varphi} \sim \int dr |g(r)|^{2}e^{2a|r|}~,$$ which precisely coincides with relation (\[normg\]). Thus, if we want to have a localized transverse 5D scalar field on the brane (and due to relation (\[sigma=u\]), the gravitational waves $u$ as well) the integral over $r$ in (\[localization\]) must be finite.
It should be pointed out here that the finiteness of the above obtained norm (\[normg\]) is exactly the same for the phantom-like scalar field ($\phi$, or $\sigma$), which indeed, vanishes at the island branes. Therefore, the latter field will be localized as well if the expression (\[localization\]) constitutes a finite quantity.
By considering the change of variable $v=\Omega e^{-a|r|}/|a|$ for the case $a>0$ we have the following integrating limits $v_1 = \Omega /|a|$ and $v_2 = 0$. Alternatively, for $a<0,$ we get $v_1 =\Omega/|a|$, while $v_2 =\infty$.
In the language of this new coordinate, the integral (\[localization\]) adopts the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{besseljy}
S_{\varphi} \sim -\int _{v_1}^{v_2} v \left[|D|^2~ |J_2(v)|^2+
D\overline{E}~J_2(v)\overline{Y_2(v)} \right. + \nonumber \\
+ \left. \overline{D}E~\overline{J_2(v)}Y_2(v) + |E|^2~
|Y_2(v)|^2\right]dv~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{X}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $X$. It is easy to get the behavior of the integral (\[besseljy\]) by direct computation. It turns out that only in the case $E=0$ and $a>0$ this integral is finite. Therefore the massless scalar field $\varphi$ is localized on the brane at $r=0$, as well as in all the island branes of the model since in this latter case one should just change the integration limits $v_1$ and $v_2$, getting a finite value for each island-universe or for a set of them.
It should be mentioned that if one compares our result to the result obtained in [@Gog1; @local], it seems that they are in an apparent contradiction, because the scalar field is localized for $a>0$ in our case, while in their papers this field is localized for $a < 0$. However, the point here is that we are investigating the transverse modes and not the modes along the brane. Also in our work $\Omega\neq 0$ in the *ansatz* (\[L\]), otherwise $L\equiv 0$ and the scalar field $\varphi$ would be trivial. A way of avoiding this trouble consists in extending the *ansatz* (\[L\]) to contain a nonzero constant phase $\alpha \neq 2\pi n$ with $n \in Z$ in the argument of the sinus function, i.e. $$L = K\sin\left(\Omega t+\alpha\right)g(r)~.$$ In this case the $\Omega=0$ value corresponds to the lowest frequency of oscillation of the nontrivial mode of the scalar field $\varphi$, which indeed adopts a constant value along the fifth dimension (as well as $g$). Then this field is localized for $a < 0$ like in [@Gog1; @local] according to the normalization condition (\[normg\]).
Now let us roughly analyze the gravitational sector from this localizing point of view. The Ricci scalar for the metric (\[metric1\]) reads: $$\label{ricci5}
R_{5}= -\frac{3}{2} e^{-2a|r|}\dot{u}^{2} +\frac{3}{2}u'^{2}+20a^{2}+16a\delta(r)~.$$ Thus, the gravitational 5D action is: $$S_{g}=\int \sqrt{g} dx^{5} R_{5} \sim - \frac{3}{2} \int dx^{5} e^{2a|r|}\dot{u}^{2} + \cdots~,$$ where dots denote 5D contributions. Due to the relation (\[sigma=u\]) between the phantom-like scalar field $\sigma$ and the gravitational field $u$, it turns out (as expected) that localization properties of these fields are similar. Thus the gravitational field $u$ is also localized if we choose $E=0$ and $a>0 $ in the solution (\[gsol\]) under the [*ansatz*]{} (\[L\]).
Final Remarks
=============
In this paper we presented a consistent derivation of the 5D anisotropic standing wave braneworld proposed in [@Gog1] by initially assuming a $Z_2$–symmetric factor and introducing a simple anisotropic energy-momentum tensor with different stresses along different space-time directions on the $3$-brane. We also derived and explicitly solved the corresponding junction conditions for the braneworld model and obtained analytical expressions for the (oscillating) stresses of the $3$-brane along the 4D spatial directions.
By carefully looking at the energy-momentum tensor of the $3$-brane proposed in (\[tensormixto\]) we can infer from (\[tensions\]) that it corresponds to an anisotropic effective fluid which is a mixture of a vacuum fluid characterized by its tension and an anisotropic oscillating matter fluid. We can also conclude that the 4D matter corresponding to this source has an exotic nature because it violates the weak energy condition for increasing warp factors and satisfies it for decreasing warp factors ($a<0$). It is worth mentioning here that this condition is also violated in the thin brane models [@brane]. Besides, it violates as well the dominant energy condition since it is an oscillating fluid which emits anisotropic waves into the bulk with different amplitudes (which change sign over time and eventually disappear) and phases along the directions $x$, $y$ and $z$. Nevertheless, one can look for an alternative mechanism that could lead to a more physical picture and eventually heal this drawback related to the anisotropy of the metric [*ansatz*]{} (\[metric1\]), like proposing a more involved energy-momentum tensor or add some matter fields on the $3$-brane. An interesting situation takes place when the amplitude of the anisotropies is small with respect to the tension on the brane (quasi-isotropic limit), since in this case the braneworld is effectively isotropic. Moreover, within the framework of the model presented here it is possible to study the braneworld isotropization in which anisotropies dissipate via inflation [@anisotbwinfl] or leakage of thermal graviton radiation into the bulk [@bwisotropization], a relevant phenomenon from the brane cosmological viewpoint that deserves more attention.
We showed as well the correct way of defining the norm for the transverse scalar field $\varphi$ through the Sturm-Liouville method, a fact that leads to the localization of this field just when $a>0$ and $E=0$ in the solution (\[gsol\]). However, it should be pointed out that this localization approach involves all the island brane universes as well as the thin brane located at $r=0$. While the approach taken in [@Gog1] considers the gravity localization on each of the island universes and is related to the massless modes of the transverse traceless metric fluctuations of the system, i.e. to the 4D gravitons that live in each $3$-brane. Our results seem to agree with recent results obtained in [@GK], where localization of massive test particles about a thick braneworld with a time dependent extra dimension arises just for increasing warp factors due to an oscillatory behaviour in time–like geodesics. Further work must be done in order to get localization mechanisms of matter fields with decreasing warp factors, since these are useful in solving the hierarchy problem. We also would like to point out that further investigations towards the localization of three generations of fermion fields in this model, both at the thin brane located at $r=0$ and at the island universes located at $r_m$, are in progress and will be published elsewhere.
We finally would like to point out that in order to avoid the instabilities related to the ghost-like scalar field of this braneworld we can appeal to an alternative approach of interpreting the phantom–like scalar field $\phi$ as the geometrical scalar field of a 5D Weyl integrable manifold [@Weyl1; @Weyl2], where a scalar appears through the definition of the covariant derivative of the metric tensor, $$\label{D}
D_{\gamma} g_{\alpha\beta} = g_{\alpha\beta}\partial_\gamma \phi ~.$$ This is a generalization of the Riemannian geometry, in which the covariant derivative of the metric tensor obeys the metricity condition, i.e. it vanishes $$\label{DR}
D_{\gamma} g_{\alpha\beta} =0 ~.$$ On the other hand, this relation indicates that the Weylian affine connections are not metric compatible since they also involve the scalar field in their definition: $$\label{affconnect} \Gamma_{\mu\nu}^\rho=\{_{\mu\nu}^{\;\rho}\}-\frac{1}{2}\left(
\phi_{,\mu}\delta_\nu^\rho+\phi_{,\nu}\delta_\mu^\rho-g_{\mu\nu}\phi^{,\rho}\right)~,$$ where $\{_{\mu\nu}^{\;\rho}\}$ are the Christoffel symbols. As a consequence, in an integrable Weyl manifold specified by the pair $(g_{\mu\nu},\phi)$, the non-metricity condition (\[D\]) implies that the length of a vector is altered by parallel transport.
The 5D Weyl action can be written as $$\label{Waction} S_5^W =\int_{M_5^W}\frac{d^5x\sqrt{|g|}}{16\pi
G_5}e^{-\frac{3}{2}\phi}\left[R+3\tilde{\xi}\left(\nabla\phi\right)^2-2U(\phi)\right]~,$$ where $M_5^W$ is a Weylian integrable manifold, $\tilde{\xi}$ is an arbitrary coupling parameter and $U(\phi)$ is a self-interaction potential for the scalar field $\phi$. From the formalism itself it becomes clear that this action is of pure geometrical nature since the scalar field that couples non-minimally to gravity is precisely the scalar $\phi$ that enters the definition of the affine connections of the Weyl manifold (\[affconnect\]) and the non-metricity condition (\[D\]) and, thus, cannot be neglected at all in our setup.
By performing the conformal transformation, $$\label{conftransf} \widehat{g}_{\mu\nu}=e^{-\phi}g_{\mu\nu}~,$$ we map the Weylian action (\[Waction\]) into the Einstein frame: $$\label{confaction} S_5^R=\int_{M_5^R}\frac{d^5x\sqrt{|\widehat
g|}}{16\pi G_5}\left[\widehat R+3{\xi}\left(\widehat\nabla\phi\right)^2-2\Lambda_5\right]~,$$ where all hatted magnitudes and operators are defined in the Riemann manifold, $\xi=\tilde{\xi}-1$, $\ \widehat U(\phi)=e^{-\phi} U(\phi)=\Lambda_5$ and we have set $U(\phi)=\Lambda_5e^{\phi}$ in (\[Waction\]) in order to get a 5D cosmological constant in (\[confaction\]) as in (\[action\]). In this frame we have a theory which describes 5D gravity minimally coupled to a scalar field plus a cosmological constant, the affine connections become the Christoffel symbols, the metricity condition is recovered and Weyl’s scalar field in (\[confaction\]) imitates a massless scalar field (either an ordinary scalar or a ghost-like scalar depending on the sign of $\xi$ [@Weyl1; @Weyl2]).
In the alternative approach mentioned above we can start with the action (\[Waction\]) which does correspond to a conventional scalar field in the Einstein frame’s action (\[confaction\]) under the conformal transformation (\[conftransf\]). Then we can compute the corresponding field equations under the metric (\[metric1\]) (which will be different from (\[field-eqnsDELTA\]) since the affine connections involve the scalar field) and solve them in the Weyl frame. We further can set $\phi_{,\mu}=0$ on the brane in the solution of the field equations (which also will be different from the solution in the Riemann manifold). Thus, in this way we can recover an effective 4D universe in the Einstein frame at the brane (and possibly at the island universes if our solution possess the same structure as the braneworld obtained in [@Gog1]) completely free of ghost instabilities since the Weyl scalar corresponds to a conventional real scalar field. This scenario still has to be investigated in full detail, a direction which is currently under research.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank P. Midodashvili and U. Nucamendi for reading the manuscript and giving us their comments. This research was supported by grants CIC-4.16 and CONACYT 60060-J. DMM acknowledges a PhD grant from CONACYT. AHA thanks SNI for support. MG was supported by the grant of Rustaveli National Science Foundation $ST~09.798.4-100$ and by the research project CONACYT 60060–J as well.
References
==========
[99]{}
Arkani-Hamed N, Dimopoulos S and Dvali G 1998 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**429**]{} 263 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/9803315);\
Antoniadis I, Arkani-Hamed N, Dimopoulos S and Dvali G 1998 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**436**]{} 257 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/9804398)
Gogberashvili M 2002 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} D [**11**]{} 1635 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/9812296);\
Gogberashvili M 1999 [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} A [**14**]{} 2025 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/9904383);\
Randall L and Sundrum R 1999 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 3370 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/9905221);\
Randall L and Sundrum R 1999 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 4690 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/9906064)
Rubakov,V A 2001 [*Phys. Usp.*]{} [**44**]{} 871; (2001 [*Usp. Fiz. Nauk*]{} [**171**]{} 913);\
Langlois D 2003 [*Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.*]{} [**148**]{} 181 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0209261);\
Mannheim P D 2005 [*Brane-localized Gravity*]{} (Singapore: World Scientific)
Maartens R and Koyama K 2010 [*Living Rev. Rel.*]{} [**13**]{} 5 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1004.3962 \[hep-th\])
Gutperle M and Strominger A 2002 [*JHEP*]{} [**0204**]{} 018 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0202210);\
Chen C M, Gal’tsov D V and Gutperle M 2002 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**66**]{} 024043 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0204071);\
Kruczenski M, Myers R C and Peet A W 2002 [*JHEP*]{} [**0205**]{} 039 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0204144);\
Ivashchuk V D and Singleton D 2004 [*JHEP*]{} [**0410**]{} 061 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0407224);\
Burgess C P, Quevedo F, Rabadan R, Tasinato G and Zavala I 2004 [*JCAP*]{} [**0402**]{} 008 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0310122);\
Midodashvili P and Midodashvili L 2010 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1010.3853 \[hep-th\])
Frolov A V 2001 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**514**]{} 213 ([*Preprint*]{} gr-qc/0102064)
Campos A, Maartens R, Matravers D and Sopuerta C F 2003 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**68**]{} 103520 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0308158)
Maartens R, Sahni V and Saini T D 2001 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**63**]{} 063509 ([*Preprint*]{} gr-qc/0011105)
Fabbri A, Langlois D, Steer D A and Zegers R 2004 [*JHEP*]{} [**0409**]{} 025 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0407262)
Niz G, Padilla A and Kunduri H K 2008 [*JCAP*]{} [**0804**]{} 012 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:0801.3462 \[hep-th\])
Ghosh S, Kar S and Nandan H 2010 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**82**]{} 024040 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:0904.2321 \[gr-qc\]);\
Ghosh S, Dasgupta A and Kar S 2011 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**83**]{} 084001 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1008.5008 \[gr-qc\])
Gergely L A 2003 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**68**]{} 124011 ([*Preprint*]{} gr-qc/0308072);\
Gergely L A 2008 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**78**]{} 084006 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0806.3857 \[gr-qc\]);\
Abdalla M C B, Hoff da Silva J M and da Rocha R 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**80**]{} 046003 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:0907.1321 \[hep-th\])
Csaki C, Erlich J, Hollowood T J, Shirman Y 2000 [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**581**]{} 309 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0001033);\
Arkani-Hamed N and Schmaltz M 2000 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D[**61**]{} 033005 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/9903417);\
Gogberashvili M and Singleton D 2004 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**582**]{} 95 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0310048);\
Gogberashvili M and Singleton D 2004 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**69**]{} 026004 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0305241);\
Gogberashvili M, Midodashvili P and Singleton D 2007 [*JHEP*]{} [**0708**]{} 033 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0706.0676 \[hep-th\])
Gremm M 2000 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**478**]{} 434 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/9912060);\
De Wolfe O, Freedman D Z, Gubser S S and Karch A 2000 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{} 046008 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/9909134);\
Barbosa-Cendejas N, Herrera-Aguilar A, Kanakoglou K, Nucamendi U and Quiros I 2007 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:0712.3098 \[hep-th\];\
Farakos K, Koutsoumbas G and Pasipoularides P 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**76**]{} 064025 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0705.2364 \[hep-th\])
Dzhunushaliev V, Folomeev V, Singleton D and Aguilar-Rudametkin S 2008 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**77**]{} 044006 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0703043)
Bronnikov K 1973 [*Acta. Phys. Pol.*]{} B [**4**]{} 251;\
Ellis H 1973 [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**14**]{} 104;\
Caldwell R R 2002 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**545**]{} 23 ([*Preprint*]{} astro-ph/9908168)
Maity D, SenGupta S and Sur S 2006 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**643**]{} 348 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0604195);\
Pospelov M 2008 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} A [**23**]{} 881 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-ph/0412280);\
Das A, Kar S and SenGupta S 2009 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} A [**24**]{} 4457 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0804.1757 \[hep-th\])
Dzhunushaliev V, Folomeev V and Minamitsuji M 2010 [*Rept. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{} 066901 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0904.1775 \[gr-qc\])
Zhong Y, Liu Y-X, and Yang K 2011 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**699**]{} 398 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 1010.3478 \[hep-th\])
Herrera-Aguilar A, Malagón-Morejón D, Mora-Luna R R and Nucamendi U 2010 [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} A [**25**]{} 2089 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0910.0363 \[hep-th\]);\
Guo H, Liu Y-X, Wei S-W and Fu C-E 2010 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 1008.3686 \[hep-th\])
Herrera-Aguilar A, Malagón-Morejón D and Mora-Luna R R 2010 [*JHEP*]{} [**1011**]{} 015 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 1009.1684 \[hep-th\])
Gogberashvili M and Singleton D 2010 [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} A [**25**]{} 2131 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0904.2828 \[hep-th\])
Gogberashvili M, Midodashvili P and Midodashvili L 2011 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**702**]{} 276 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1105.1701 \[hep-th\])
Gogberashvili M, Midodashvili P and Midodashvili L 2011 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1109.3758 \[hep-th\])
Gogberashvili M, Midodashvili P and Midodashvili L 2011 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1105.1866 \[hep-th\]). To appear in [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B
Gogberashvili M, Myrzakul S and Singleton D 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**80**]{} 024040 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0904.1851 \[gr-qc\])
Maartens R 2000 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{} 084023 ([*Preprint*]{} hep-th/0004166)
Gergely G A and Keresztes Z 2010 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**27**]{} 105009 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0909.0490 \[gr-qc\])
Bajc B and Gabadadze G 2000 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**474**]{} 282 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: hep-th/9912232);\
Oda I 2000 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**62**]{} 126009 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: hep-th/0008012)
Stakgold I 1998 [*Green’s functions and boundary value problems*]{} (New York: John Wiley & Sons)
Salim J M and Sauti S L 1996 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**13**]{} 353;\
Arias O, Cardenas R and Quiros I 2002 [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**643**]{} 187 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: hep-th/0202130);\
Barbosa-Cendejas N and Herrera-Aguilar A 2005 [*JHEP*]{} [**0510**]{} 101 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: hep-th/0511050);\
Barbosa-Cendejas N and Herrera-Aguilar A 2006 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**73**]{} 084022; Erratum-ibid 2008 [**77**]{} 049901 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: hep-th/0603184)
Barbosa-Cendejas N, Herrera-Aguilar A, Reyes Santos M A and Schubert C 2008 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**77**]{} 126013 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0709.3552 \[hep-th\]);\
Madriz Aguilar J E and Romero C 2009 [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**39**]{} 1205 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0809.2547 \[math-ph\]);\
Madriz Aguilar J E and Romero C 2009 [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} A [**24**]{} 1505 ([*Preprint*]{} arXiv: 0906.1613 \[gr-qc\])
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report results on $J/\psi$-hadron azimuthal angular correlations in 200 GeV [$p$+$p$ ]{}collision in the STAR experiment at RHIC. The extracted $B$-hadron feed-down contribution to inclusive [$J/\psi$ ]{}yield is found to be 10-25% in $4<p_T<12 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$ and has no significant center-of-mass energy dependence from RHIC to LHC. The [$p_T$ ]{}spectrum of charged hadron associated with high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}triggers on the away side is found to be consistent with that from di-hadron correlations. [$J/\psi$ ]{}signal from partially produced [Au+Au ]{}39 GeV data will also be presented to demonstrate STAR’s [$J/\psi$ ]{}capability at RHIC low energy run.'
address:
- 'Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, 96 Jinzhai Road, Hefei, Anhui, China 230026'
- 'Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA'
author:
- 'Zebo Tang (for the STAR Collaboration)'
bibliography:
- 'HP2010\_ZeboTang.bib'
title: 'J/$\psi$ production at high $p_T$ at STAR'
---
=1
[$J/\psi$ ]{},high [$p_T$ ]{},color screening ,correlation
Introduction
============
The dissociation of [$J/\psi$ ]{}due to color-screening of their constituent quarks in a Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) is a classic signature for deconfinement in relativistic heavy-ion collisions [@colorscreen]. Results from the PHENIX experiment at RHIC show that the suppression of [$J/\psi$ ]{}as a function of centrality (the number of participants) is similar to that observed by NA50 and NA60 at the CERN-SPS, even though the temperature and energy density reached in these collisions is significantly lower than at RHIC [@RHICSPS]. This indicates that additional mechanisms, such as recombination of charm quarks in the later stage of the collision and/or suppression of feed-down contribution from charmonium excited states or $B$-hadrons, may play an important role; they will need to be studied systematically before conclusion from the observed suppression pattern can be drawn. Recently, the STAR experiment has extended [$J/\psi$ ]{}suppression measurement to high [$p_T$ ]{}in [Cu+Cu ]{}collisions and found that the [$J/\psi$ ]{}nuclear modification factor [$R_{AA}$ ]{}is consistent with no [$J/\psi$ ]{}suppression at $p_T>5~\textrm{GeV}/c$, in contrast to the prediction from a theoretical model of quarkonium dissociation in a strongly coupled liquid using an AdS/CFT approach [@starHighPtJpsiPaper; @adscft]. The project is not yet complete and we need to increase the statistics, investigate the meachanism of [$J/\psi$ ]{}formation, and perform the same measurement with a larger system (Au+Au). On the other hand, measurements from CDF shows that the contribution of $B$-hadrons relative to the inclusive [$J/\psi$ ]{}yield in $p+\bar{p}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV significantly increases with increasing $p_T$. The same measurement at RHIC energy will be also essentially needed to disentangle the physics origin of the high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}suppression measurements [@JpsiSpectra_CDFII].
$B$ was rarely studied at RHIC in the past ten years. The $B\rightarrow J/\psi$ measurements in heavy-ion collisions at STAR are still difficult without a precise vertex detector. But it can be done in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions through $J/\psi$-hadron correlations, originally proposed and studied by UA1 [@UA1Simulation]. Furthermore, $J/\psi$-hadron correlations can be also used to study the hadronic activity produced in association with a high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}to investigate its production mechanism which is still poorly understood more than 30 years after the discovery of $J/\psi$.
In this paper we present the measurement of the correlation between high-[$p_T$ ]{}$J/\psi$’s and charged hadrons at mid-rapidity with the STAR experiment in $p+p$ collisions at [$\sqrt{s}$ ]{}$=200
~\textrm{GeV}$ in RHIC year 2009 high luminosity run. We also report the status of measurement of [$J/\psi$ ]{}in [Au+Au ]{}collisions at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}$=39~\textrm{GeV}$ (an energy between CERN-SPS and RHIC top energies) at STAR with newly fully-installed Time-Of-Flight (TOF) detector [@starTOF1; @starTOF2; @starTOF3].
high-$p_T$ [$J/\psi$ ]{}production in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions at 200 GeV
=======================================================================
![$J/\psi$-hadron azimuthal angular correlations in the [$J/\psi$ ]{}[$p_T$ ]{}range of $8 <p_T<12 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$ at mid-rapidity ($|y|<1$) in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}=200 GeV.[]{data-label="fig:corrFit"}](fig1a.pdf){height="98.00000%"}
![$J/\psi$-hadron azimuthal angular correlations in the [$J/\psi$ ]{}[$p_T$ ]{}range of $8 <p_T<12 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$ at mid-rapidity ($|y|<1$) in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}=200 GeV.[]{data-label="fig:corrFit"}](fig1b.pdf){height="98.00000%"}
In this analysis, the [$J/\psi$ ]{}is reconstructed through its decay into electron-position pairs, $J/\psi \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ (Branching ratio (B) = 5.9%). The data sample used was triggered at level-0 by the STAR Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter (BEMC) by requiring the transverse energy deposited in any tower ($\Delta
\eta \times \Delta \phi = 0.05 \times 0.05$) above a given high-energy threshold to enrich high-[$p_T$ ]{}electrons. This effectively enriches high-[$p_T$ ]{}$J/\psi$ with limited data acquisition rate. The integrated luminosity is 1.8 $pb^{-1}$, 3.2 $pb^{-1}$ and 23.1 $pb^{-1}$ with transverse energy threshold $2.6
~\textrm{GeV}<E_T<4.3 ~\textrm{GeV}$, $E_T>4.3 ~\textrm{GeV}$ and $E_T>6.0 ~\textrm{GeV}$ respectively. The reconstruction method is similar as what we used in year 2005 and year 2006 data. We tightened the $dE/dx$ cut slightly to enhance the signal-to-background (S/B) ratio for the correlation study [@starHighPtJpsiPaper; @zeboThesis]. In year 2009, STAR installed 72% TOF trays at mid-rapidity ($|\eta|<0.9$). This detector combined with the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) can clearly identify electrons from low to high $p_T$ by rejecting hadrons at low and intermediate [$p_T$ ]{}range. To further improve the S/B ratio of $J/\psi$, we also require the electron which does not trigger the BEMC to have 1/$\beta$ measured by TOF within 0.97-1.03 when its [$p_T$ ]{}is less than 1 GeV/$c$ [@starTOFelectron]. Figure \[fig:invmass\] shows the invariant mass distribution for unlike-sign (solid circles) and like-sign (shaded band) electron pairs. We reconstructed 376 [$J/\psi$ ]{}with $3.0 < M < 3.2 ~\textrm{GeV}/c^2$ at $p_T > 4
~\textrm{GeV}/c$. The S/B ratio in this range is 22. Such high S/B ratio is very suitable for the $J/\psi$-hadron correlation study. We do the correlation in 3 [$J/\psi$ ]{}[$p_T$ ]{}slices: $4 - 6
~\textrm{GeV}/c$, $6 - 8 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$ and $8 - 12
~\textrm{GeV}/c$. Figure \[fig:corrFit\] shows the azimuthal angle correlations between high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}of $8 - 12
~\textrm{GeV}/c$ and charged hadrons. The correlated yield on the near-side is not as significant at that in the di-hadron correlation measurements [@STAR_diHadron]. The lines show the results of a PYTHIA calculation. The dot-dashed line exhibits a strong near-side correlation compared to the away-side dominantly from the decay $B \rightarrow J/\psi + X$. The solid line shows a $\chi^2$ fit with the two simulated components to extract the relative contribution of $B$-hadron feed-down to the inclusive [$J/\psi$ ]{}yield. This ratio is 10%-25% in the measured [$p_T$ ]{}range, shown in Fig. \[fig:B2Jpsi\] in red solid circles, increases with increasing $p_T$. The results are consistent with STAR’s previous measurement (solid star symbol), but with better precision [@starHighPtJpsiPaper]. The same ratios measured by UA1 in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions at 630 GeV, by D0 (CDF) in $p+\bar{p}$ collisions at 1.8 (1.96) TeV and by CMS in $p+p$ collisions at 7 TeV in various rapidity ranges are also shown for comparison [@JpsiSpectra_CDFII; @UA1Simulation; @D0Jpsi; @CMSJpsi]. They are consistent with each other even though the center-of-mass energies differ by an order of magnitude. The ATLAS and LHCb collaborations also observed a similar behavior [@LHCB2Jpsi; @ATLASB2Jpsi]. The physics origin of this consistency is still unclear. With such an amount of $B$-hadron feed-down fraction, combined with this $J/\psi$-hadron correlation study, further study of [$J/\psi$ ]{}cross-section will allow us to constrain the $B$ cross-section substantially in the future.
Figure \[fig:corrPt\] shows the associated charged hadron [$p_T$ ]{}distribution on the away side with respect to high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}triggers and high-[$p_T$ ]{}charged hadron triggers. The [$p_T$ ]{}spectra of charged hadron associated with high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}are consistent from different runs, but year 2009 results have a better precision. To compare the results with those from di-hadron correlation, we require [$J/\psi$ ]{}triggers in year 2009 run within the same [$p_T$ ]{}window as charged hadron triggers: $4 - 6 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$. The [$p_T$ ]{}spectra of the associated charged hadrons with respect to both kinds of triggers are consistent with each other, which indicates that the hadrons on the away side of [$J/\psi$ ]{}triggers are dominantly from light quark or gluon fragmentation, instead of heavy quark fragmentation.
[$J/\psi$ ]{}production in [Au+Au ]{}collisions at 39 GeV
=========================================================
![Invariant mass distribution of electron pairs in BEMC triggered (left) and minimum-bias (right) triggered [Au+Au ]{}events at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}=39 GeV. The solid and dashed histograms represent background reproduced using like-sign and mixed-event technique respectively.[]{data-label="fig:invmassAuAu"}](fig5.pdf){height="98.00000%"}
![Invariant mass distribution of electron pairs in BEMC triggered (left) and minimum-bias (right) triggered [Au+Au ]{}events at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}=39 GeV. The solid and dashed histograms represent background reproduced using like-sign and mixed-event technique respectively.[]{data-label="fig:invmassAuAu"}](fig6.pdf){height="98.00000%"}
The consistency of [$J/\psi$ ]{}[$R_{AA}$ ]{}at midrapidity at RHIC and SPS top energies is still a puzzle. Two kinds of models with very different physics origins (recombination models and sequential dissociation models) can qualitatively explain this feature. The measurements of [$R_{AA}$ ]{}in heavy-ion collisions at a center-of-mass energy between RHIC and SPS top energies are crucial to test these models. The RHIC Beam Energy Scan (BES) program enables such measurements (the reference data for [$R_{AA}$ ]{}determination already exist). STAR has recorded hundreds of million [Au+Au ]{}events at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}= 39, 62 and 200 GeV respectively during year 2010 run. Figure \[fig:invmassAuAu\] shows [$J/\psi$ ]{}signal from partially produced 39 GeV [Au+Au ]{}data to demonstrate STAR’s [$J/\psi$ ]{}capability at RHIC low energy run.
The left panel of Fig. \[fig:invmassAuAu\] shows the invariant mass distributions for electron pairs in BEMC triggered events. The electron identification and [$J/\psi$ ]{}reconstruction is similar as what we used in year 2009 [$p$+$p$ ]{}data. The S/B ratio is lower than that in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions as expected, but still very high. To improve the statistics, we also reproduce the combinatorial background using mixed-event technique. It is consistent with that from like-sign technique in the mass range shown in the figure. We observed $82 \pm 13$ (6 $\sigma$) [$J/\psi$ ]{}from this dataset, mainly at $p_T>2$ GeV/$c$. To study [$J/\psi$ ]{}production at low $p_T$, we also analyzed minimum-bias (MB) triggered data. In this analysis, we excluded BEMC from electron identification due to its inefficiency at low $p_T$. The signal is shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:invmassAuAu\]. $91 \pm 22$ (4 $\sigma$) [$J/\psi$ ]{}were observed from this 9% of full dataset, 52 in [$p_T$ ]{}range 0-2 GeV/$c$ and 39 in [$p_T$ ]{}range 2-4 GeV/$c$. We expect $\sim 1000$ (13 $\sigma$) [$J/\psi$ ]{}signal from the full MB dataset. Our projection shows STAR even has the capability to measure [$J/\psi$ ]{}at 27 and 18 GeV with 1-2 weeks beam time in RHIC year 2011 run.
Summary
=======
In summary, we reported results on $J/\psi$-hadron correlation in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions at [$\sqrt{s}$ ]{}=200 GeV and [$J/\psi$ ]{}signal in [Au+Au ]{}collisions at [$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$ ]{}=39 GeV from the STAR experiment at RHIC. The fraction of $B$-hadron feed-down contribution to inclusive [$J/\psi$ ]{}yield in [$p$+$p$ ]{}collisions was extracted from the $J/\psi$-hadron correlation and found to be 10-25% in $4<p_T<12 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$, with no significant dependence on center-of-mass energy. The [$p_T$ ]{}spectra of charged hadron associated with both high-[$p_T$ ]{}[$J/\psi$ ]{}triggers and high-[$p_T$ ]{}charged hadron triggers on the away side were found to be consistent, which indicates the hadron production on the away side is not dominantly from heavy quark fragmentation. STAR observed 6 $\sigma$ [$J/\psi$ ]{}signal (mainly at $p_T>2 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$) in BEMC triggered 39 GeV [Au+Au ]{}events, and 4 $\sigma$ signal in 9% produced MB 39 GeV [Au+Au ]{}events.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11005103 and the China Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper studies the problem of multi-stage placement of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations with incremental EV penetration rates. A nested logit model is employed to analyze the charging preference of the individual consumer (EV owner), and predict the aggregated charging demand at the charging stations. The EV charging industry is modeled as an oligopoly where the entire market is dominated by a few charging service providers (oligopolists). At the beginning of each planning stage, an optimal placement policy for each service provider is obtained through analyzing strategic interactions in a Bayesian game. To derive the optimal placement policy, we consider both the transportation network graph and the electric power network graph. A simulation software—The EV Virtual City 1.0—is developed using Java to investigate the interactions among the consumers (EV owner), the transportation network graph, the electric power network graph, and the charging stations. Through a series of experiments using the geographic and demographic data from the city of San Pedro District of Los Angeles, we show that the charging station placement is highly consistent with the heatmap of the traffic flow. In addition, we observe a spatial economic phenomenon that service providers prefer clustering instead of separation in the EV charging market.'
author:
- 'Chao Luo, Yih-Fang Huang, and Vijay Gupta, [^1]. [^2]'
title: 'Placement of EV Charging Stations—Balancing Benefits among Multiple Entities'
---
Electric vehicle, charging station placement, consumer behavior, nested logit model, Bayesian game, oligopoly.
Introduction
============
The continued technological innovations in battery and electric drivetrain have made electric vehicles (EVs) a viable solution for a sustainable transportation system. Currently, most EV charging is done either at residences, or for free at some public charging infrastructure provided by municipalities, office buildings, etc. As the EV industry continues to grow, commercial charging stations will need to be strategically added and placed. Development of effective management and regulation of EV charging infrastructure needs to consider the benefits of multiple constituencies—consumers, charging station owners, power grid operators, local government, etc. In this paper, we concentrate on striking a balance among the profits of charging station owners, consumer satisfaction, and power grid’s reliability.
Our work is motivated by the desire of service providers to make a forward-looking decision on charging station placement to obtain a good return on their investment. We use the most up-to-date information (i.e., travel pattern, traffic flow, road network, power grid, etc.) to make the best-effort decisions on charging station placement, hoping that service providers will have a good chance to profit over the next few years. In this paper, we do not consider factors such as uncertainties in fuel prices, climate change, population migration etc., which are random and unpredictable. Instead, we assume that some revenue management techniques (i.e., real-time pricing) may be applied to deal with the potential effects of these factors.
We assume that the service providers aim to strike a balance between the competing goals of maximizing their profits and minimizing the disturbance to the electric power network due to large-scale EV charging. Accordingly, we construct a utility function that incorporates both of these aims. Each charging service provider attempts to maximize his/her own expected utility function while satisfying the Quality-of-Service (QoS) constraints through choosing the optimal locations of charging stations that s/he owns. The nested logit model is used to analyze and predict the charging preference of EV owners. At the beginning of each stage, the service providers predict the charging demand of each charging station candidate using the nested logit model. The optimal placement strategy is obtained through a Bayesian game. As the EV penetration rate increases, the existing charging stations may no longer satisfy the QoS constraints and a new stage shall be initiated to place more charging stations.
There is a growing literature addressing the issues relevant to EV charging station placement. [@Shaoyun]-[@Zonggen] formulated charging station placement as an optimization problem. However, they did not take into account the overall consumer satisfaction and the impact of EV charging on the electric power network in their works. Besides, their optimization models were formulated from the perspective of a central urban planner rather than that of service providers in a free competitive market. In [@cite8], the authors presented a strategy to deploy charging stations by analyzing the patterns of residential EV ownership and driving activities. In their work, they deploy the new charging stations either randomly with no weight or only based on the weights of population. They did not consider the mobility of EVs and the overall consumer experience. In [@cite9], Bernardo *et al.* proposed a discrete choice model (DCM) based framework to study the optimal locations for fast charging stations. They treat each charging station as a player in a noncooperative game. However, the underlying assumption in their work is that each player has complete information about other players, which may be overly restrictive and infeasible in a practical competitive market. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian game framework that does not require the complete information of other players.
The main contributions of our work are: (1) A multi-stage charging station placement strategy with incremental EV penetration rates is first formulated, which takes into account the interactions among EVs, road network, and the electric power grid; (2) The nested logit model is then employed to characterize the overall consumer satisfaction and predict the aggregated charging demand, which provides insights into the preferences and decision-making processes of EV owners; (3) An oligopolistic market model of EV charging service providers is studied and a Bayesian game framework is applied to analyze the strategic interactions among service providers. (4) A simulation software has been developed to analyze the interplay among EV owners, road network, power grid, urban infrastructure and charging stations [^3].
The paper is organized as follows: Section [slowromancap2@]{} presents the problem formulation. Section [slowromancap3@]{} discusses the nested logit model and how charging demand is calculated. In Section [slowromancap4@]{}, we describe the impact of EV charging on the power grid. In Section [slowromancap5@]{}, a Bayesian game is used to characterize the competition among service providers, and the optimal station placement policy is obtained. Section [slowromancap6@]{} shows the architecture and applications of the simulation software and discusses a case study in San Pedro District. Conclusions are given in Section [slowromancap7@]{}. Table [slowromancap1@]{} provides a full description of parameters and symbols used in the paper.
Problem Formulation
===================
Parameter Description Unit
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------
$L$ Total Candidate Locations -
$N$ Total EVs -
$\psi_{j,k}^n$ Charging Demand kWh
$s_{j,k}$ Placement Indicator -
$F_{j,k}$ Setup Cost \$
$R_k$ Total Revenue \$
$c_{j,k}$ Locational Marginal Price \$
$\Pi_k$ Total Profit \$
$U_k$ Overall utility \$
w Coef. of EV Charging Penalty -
$\Upsilon_k$ Average Service Probability -
$\Xi_k$ Average Service Coverage -
$t_k$ Average Charging Time min
$p_k$ Retail Charging Price \$/kWh
$i_n$ Income of the $n$th EV owner \$
$d_{j,k}^n$ Deviating distance km
$z_{j,k}^n$ Indicator of Destination -
$d_{th}$ Distance threshold km
$r_{j,k}$ Indicator of Restaurant -
$g_{j,k}$ Indicator of Shopcenter -
$m_{j,k}$ Indicator of Supermarket -
$\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}$ Active power vector without EV -
$\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}$ Active power vector with EV -
$\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}$ Reactive power vector without EV -
$\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}$ Reactive power vector with EV -
$v_i$ Voltage at bus $i$ Volts
$\phi_{ik}$ Voltage angle between bus $i$, $k$ Radian
$\alpha$ Coef. of $t_k$ -
$\beta$ Coef. of $p_k/i_n$ -
$\mu_k$ Coef. of $d_{j,k}$ -
$\eta_k$ Coef. of $z_{j,k}$ -
$\gamma_k$ Coef. of $r_{j,k}$ -
$\lambda_k$ Coef. of $g_{j,k}$ -
$\delta_k$ Coef. of $m_{j,k}$ -
: Parameter Description
In this paper, we postulate the problem of EV charging with an oligopolistic market structure that has multiple charging service providers (oligopolists). The service providers aim to maximize their expected utility while satisfying the QoS constraints by selecting optimal station placements.
In particular, we consider the case of three service providers that offer three EV charging services [@specification], namely, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 (see Table \[ta1\] for details). Level 1 and Level 2 are AC charging. Level 3 charging is DC Fast charging. Let $\mathcal{O}=\{1,2,3\}$ denote the set of charging service providers. Moreover, we assume that service provider 1 offers Level 1 charging, service provider 2 offers Level 2 charging, and service provider 3 offers Level 3 charging. The three charging levels represent three charging services, which have different charging voltages and currents, charging times, and charging experiences. In economic terms, they are imperfect substitutes to each other. In our model, we are interested in investigating how the different charging services compete with each other in choosing locations and prices. Each service provider can run multiple charging stations. At each planning stage, service providers select some charging stations from a given set of candidates, denoted as $\mathcal{I}=\{1,2,3\cdots,L\}$. The set of EVs is denoted as $\mathcal{E}=\{1,2,3,\cdots,N\}$.
The Profit of EV Charging
-------------------------
Charging Method Nominal Supply Voltage(Volts) Max Current (Amps) Time from fully depleted to fully charged
----------------- ------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------
Level 1 120 vac, 1-phase 12 A 16-18 hours
Level 2 208 to 240 vac, 1-phase 32 A 3-8 hours
Level 3 600 vdc maximum 400 A maximum less than 30 minutes
We assume that service providers run the charging stations like “chain stores", so that charging stations affiliated with the same service provider have the same retail charging price. The charging stations purchase the electricity from the wholesale market at the locational marginal price (LMP). In a deregulated electricity market (like PJM, NYISO, NEISO, MISO, ERCOT, California ISO in USA, the New Zealand and Singapore markets), LMP is computed at every node (bus) by the market coordinator. LMP primarily consists of three components: system energy price, transmission congestion cost, and cost of marginal losses [@PJM]. Let $p_k$ represent the retail charging price of provider $k\;(k=1,2,3)$, and $p_{-k}$ be the retail charging prices of the other two service providers except $k$. Let $c_{j,k}$ be the LMP of the $j$th charging station candidate of service provider $k$, and $\psi_{j,k}$ be the predicted charging demand at the $j$th charging station candidate of service provider $k$. The vector $S_k=[s_{1,k},s_{2,k},\cdots, s_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$ represents the placement policy of service provider $k$, where $s_{j,k}\in\{0,1\}$ is an indicator with $s_{j,k}=1$ implying that service provider $k$ will place the $j$th charging station. Let $S_{-k}$ represent the placement policies of the other two service providers, $\theta_{j,k}$ be the placement cost of the $j$th charging station. The total profit of service provider $k$ is given by
$$\Pi_k=p_k\Psi_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k-\textrm{diag}[C_k]\Psi_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k
-\Theta_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k,$$
and the total revenue of service provider $k$ is, $$\label{revenue}
R_k=p_k\Psi_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k-\textrm{diag}[C_k]\Psi_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k,$$ where $\Psi_k=[\psi_{1,k},\psi_{2,k},\psi_{3,k},\cdots,\psi_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$, $C_k=[c_{1,k},c_{2,k},\cdots,c_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$ and $\Theta_k=[\theta_{1,k},\theta_{2,k},\cdots,\theta_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$. The notation $\textrm{diag}[.]$ is an operator to create a diagonal matrix using the underlying vector, and $[.]^{\textrm{T}}$ is the transpose operation. In Equation (\[revenue\]), the total revenue from the sales is $p_k\Psi_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k$, the cost of purchasing electricity is $\textrm{diag}[C_k]\Psi_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k$, and the placement cost is $\Theta_k^{\textrm{T}}S_k$.
The Disturbance on Power Grid Due to EV Charging
------------------------------------------------
It is conceivable that the simultaneous large-scale EV charging can disrupt the normal operation of the power grid in terms of frequency variation, voltage imbalance, voltage variation, power loss, etc [@impact1]-[@impact3]. In a conventional power grid, the generators will be incentivized to cooperatively control the output of real power and reactive power to maintain system stability, perform frequency regulation and voltage regulation. The charging service providers typically cannot participate in such market. Instead, we assume that they are fined in proportion to the “disturbance" they impose on the grid. Thus, the providers must optimally place the charging stations to mitigate the “disturbance" to the power grid. Accordingly, the overall utility function of service provider can be defined as:
$$\label{omega}
U_k=\Pi_k-wB_k,$$
where $\Pi_k$ is the total profits from EV charging. $B_k$ characterizes the penalty arising from large-scale EV charging. The variable $w$ is a weighting coefficient, reflecting the tolerance to the penalty. In the following section, we will further discuss how to develop a proper metric to evaluate the penalty $B_k$. We should note that the weighting factor $w$ in Equation (\[omega\]) offers a mechanism for the charging service providers to strike a balance between their own profit and the “stress" their charging adds to the power system. If $w=0$, the impact of EV charging on the grid is not considered at all, and a non-zero value of $w$ implies some impact on the grid—the larger $w$ is, the larger the impact is. Generally, if the focus is on the charging provider’s profit, a small $w$ is used. In practice, the value of $w$ needs to be determined, e.g., with the help of heuristic and empirical data.
Quality-of-Service Constraints
------------------------------
We use two quality-of-service (QoS) metrics for the service provider: (1) the average service delay probability $\Upsilon_k$, and (2) the average service coverage $\Xi_k,\;(k=1,2,3)$.
$$\Upsilon_k=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\upsilon_{i,k},$$
$$\Xi_k=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\xi_{i,k},$$
where $\upsilon_{i,k}$ is the average service delay probability for the $i$-th EV owner getting the EV charged at service provider $k$. For the $i$th EV owner, $\upsilon_{i,k}$ is defined as the ratio of the number of delayed charging to the total number of charging attempts; $\xi_{i,k}$ is the average number of accessible Level $k$ charging stations along the route from origin to destination. Notice that $\upsilon_{i,k}$ and $\xi_{i,k}$ are random variables that depend on the travel patterns of all EVs, the urban road network and the charging stations. It is, thus, difficult to use a simple formula to compute them. Instead, we employ Mento Carlo method to estimate those two values.
Multi-stage Charging Station Planning Scheme
--------------------------------------------
At each planning stage, the service providers aim at solving the following fundamental problem to obtain the optimal placement policy subjected to the QoS constraints.
$$\label{obj}
\begin{aligned}
&[S_k^T|S_1^{T-1},S_2^{T-1},S_3^{T-1}]=\\
&\operatorname*{argmax}_{\substack{{s_{1,k},\cdots,s_{L,k}}\\{s_{j,k}\in\{0,1\}}}}\left\{\mathbb{E}_{S_{-k}}[U_k]|S_1^{T-1},
S_2^{T-1},S_3^{T-1}\right\},
\end{aligned}$$
subject to $$\Upsilon_k\leq\Upsilon^0,$$ $$\Xi_k\leq\Xi^0,$$ where $\mathbb{E}_{S_{-k}}[.]$ denotes the expectation over $S_{-k}$, and $S_k^T$ is the placement policy at stage $T$. The variables $\Upsilon^0$ and $\Xi^0$ are the predetermined QoS constraints.
To solve this problem, we are confronted with three principal questions: (1) How to predict the aggregated charging demand $\psi_{j,k}$ at each charging station candidate? (2) How to find an appropriate metric to characterize the impacts of EV charging on the power grid? (3) How to derive the optimal placement policy in a tractable way? For the first question, we assume that the service providers estimate the charging demand using a nested logit model. In Section [slowromancap3@]{}, we will describe the nested logit model and elaborate on how to use this model to analyze consumer behavior and estimate the charging demand. In Section [slowromancap4@]{}, we will discuss how the EV charging may impact the power grid, and propose a metric to assess the impacts of EV charging. For the last question, notice that the optimization problem formulated by Equation (\[obj\]) is intractable since the optimal placement decision for every service provider also depends on the decisions taken by other service providers. To this end, we employ a Bayesian game model to characterize the strategic interaction and price competition among the service providers. We will calculate the optimal placement strategies and prices in Section [slowromancap5@]{}.
Charging Demand of EV Charging Station
======================================
In this paper, the aggregated charging demand at a charging station candidate is defined as the sum of the product of the probability that EV owners choose that particular charging station and the electricity required to charge the EVs. The charging behaviors of the EV owners may be influenced by many factors that include the charging price, travel cost, amenities at or near the charging station, the travel purpose, EV owner’s income, and so on. We use the nested logit model to characterize the attractiveness of a charging station.
Nested Logit Model And Probability of Choice
--------------------------------------------
The nested logit model is widely used in the analysis and prediction of a consumer’s choice from a finite set of choice alternatives [@cite11]. The main idea of nested logit model is that a consumer is a utility maximizer. The consumer will choose the product which brings him/her the maximum utility.
In our problem, the utility that the $n$-th EV owner can obtain from choosing charging station $j\;(j=1,2,\cdots,L)$ of service provider $k\;(k=1,2,3)$ is denoted as $U_{j,k}^n=\overline{U}_{j,k}^n+\epsilon_{j,k}^n$, where $\overline{U}_{j,k}^n$ is the observable utility and $\epsilon_{j,k}^n$ is the unobservable utility. The vector of unobservable utility $\epsilon^n=[\epsilon_{1,1}^n,\cdots,\epsilon_{L,1}^n,\epsilon_{1,2}^n,\cdots,\epsilon_{L,2}^n, \epsilon_{1,3}^n,\cdots,\epsilon_{L,3}^n]^{\textrm{T}}$ is assumed to have a generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution with cumulative distribution function (CDF) [@cite11]
$$\label{cdf}
F(\epsilon^n)=\exp\left(-\sum_{k=1}^3\left(\sum_{l=1}^Le^{-\epsilon_{l,k}^n/\sigma_k}\right)^{\sigma_k}\right),$$
where $\sigma_k$ is a measure of the degree of independence in the unobservable utility among the charging stations owned by service provider $k$. For the nested logit model, $\epsilon_{j,k}$ is correlated within each charging level, and uncorrelated across different charging levels.
We can decompose the observable utility $\overline{U}_{j,k}^n$ into two components—the utility of choosing service provider $k$ and the utility of choosing a charging station $j$. In addition, we assume home charging is the “outside good" in this market [@outside1]-[@outside2]. Thus, $\overline{U}_{j,k}^n$ for EV owner $n$ can be expressed as
$$\overline{U}_{j,k}^n=\overline{W}_{k}^n+\overline{V}_{j,k}^n,$$
where $\overline{W}_{k}^n$ is the observable utility of choosing service provider $k$ (choosing nest $k$), and $\overline{V}_{j,k}^n$ is the observable utility of choosing charging station $j$ given that service provider $k$ has been chosen; $\overline{W}_{k}^n$ and $\overline{V}_{j,k}$ are linear weighted combinations of attributes of the charging stations and the EV owner.
Note that the retail charging price and the charging time are two factors differentiating the three charging services. In addition, we assume the income of EV owners will also play a role in choosing charging services. In contrast to our previous work [@mywork], we use a different formula to calculate $\overline{W}_k^n$ here.
$$\overline {W}_k^n =\alpha \frac{1}{t_k}+\beta \frac{p_k}{i_n},$$
where $t_k$, $p_k$ and $i_n$ represent, respectively, the average charging time, the retail charging price, and the income of the $n$-th EV owner; and $\alpha, \beta$ are the corresponding weighting coefficients. This model is similar to Ben-Akiva and Lerman’s utility model in their study of public transportation mode [@transmode]. The value of $\alpha$ is positive because shorter charging time implies a better charging service experience; therefore, leading to higher utility. The value of $\beta$ is negative because a higher retail charging price results in less utility. However, the retail charging price is divided by the income, which reflects that the retail charging price for the EV owners becomes less important as their income increases. As an “outside good", the utility of home charging is normalized, i.e. $\overline{W}_0^n=0$.
Furthermore, we define $\overline{V}_{j,k}^n$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{V}_{j,k}^n=&
\mu_kd_{j,k}^n+\eta_kz_{j,k}^n+\gamma_kr_{j,k}+\lambda_kg_{j,k}+\delta_km_{j,k},
\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{j,k}^n$ is the destination indicator. If the $j$th charging station is near the EV owner’s travel destination (within a threshold distance $d_{th}$), $z_{j,k}^n=1$, otherwise, $z_{j,k}^n=0$. The term $d_{j,k}^n$ is the deviating distance due to EV charging. We use Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm [@Algorithm] to calculate the travel route for each EV owner from his/her origin to destination. If an EV owner needs to go to charging station $j$ halfway, we define the deviating distance $d_{j,k}^n$ as the route length of this new route minus the route length of the original route. Additionally, each candidate charging station has a vector of characteristics $[r_{j,k}, g_{j,k}, m_{j,k}]^{\mathrm{T}}$, which characterizes the attractiveness of this charging station in terms of those amenities. For instance, if there exists a restaurant near location $j$, we may set $r_{j,k} = 1$, otherwise we may set $r_{j,k} = 0$. Similarly, $g_{j,k}$ and $m_{j,k}$ are the indicators for shopping center and supermarket, respectively. The corresponding weighting coefficients are $\mu_k,\eta_k,\gamma_k,\lambda_k,\delta_k$.
The EV owner’s choice is not deterministic due to the random unobservable utility. However, we can derive the average probability that s/he will choose a certain charging station by taking the expectation over the unobservable utilities defined in Equation (\[cdf\]). The probability that the $n$-th EV owner will choose the $j$-th charging station of service provider $k$ is [@cite11]
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{j,k}^n&=\mathbf{Prob}\left(\overline{U}_{j,k}^n+\epsilon_{j,k}^n > \overline{U}_{i,l}^n + \epsilon_{i,l}^n, \forall i \neq j, \textrm{or } l \neq k \right)\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}F_{j,k}(\overline{U}_{j,k}^n-\overline{U}_{1,1}^n+\epsilon_{j,k}^n,\overline{U}_{j,k}^n-\overline{U}_{2,1}^n+\epsilon_{j,k}^n,\\
&\cdots,\epsilon_{j,k}^n,\cdots,\overline{U}_{j,k}^n-\overline{U}_{L,3}^n+\epsilon_{j,k}^n)d\epsilon_{j,k}^n,
\end{aligned}$$
where $F_{j,k}$ denotes the derivative of $F$ with respect to $\epsilon_{j,k}^n$, i.e. $F_{j,k}=\partial F/\partial \epsilon_{j,k}^n$. Evaluating this integral with the above assumptions, we obtain
$$\Phi_{j,k}^n=\frac{e^{\overline{U}_{j,k}^n/\sigma_k}\left(\sum_{l=1}^Le^{\overline{U}_{l,k}^n/\sigma_k}\right)^{\sigma_k-1}}
{\sum_{t=1}^3\left(\sum_{l=1}^Le^{\overline{U}_{l,t}^n/\sigma_t}\right)^{\sigma_t}}.$$
Charging Demand Estimation
--------------------------
Once the EV owners’ choice probability is computed, we can predict the charging demand at any charging station. Let $q_n\;(n=1,2,\cdots,N)$ denote the total electricity (measured in kWh) that the $n$-th EV owner purchases from the charging station. Further, let $q_n$ be a random variable uniformly distributed in the range $[Q_a, Q_b]$, where $Q_a$ and $Q_b$ are, respectively, the lower and upper limit of charging demand for all EVs. The total predicted charging demand of charging station $j$ of service provider $k$ is modeled as $$\psi_{j,k}=\sum_{n=1}^Nq_n\Phi_{j,k}^n.$$
All coefficients in the nested logit model can be estimated and calibrated from preference survey data. The nested logit model enables us to compute the probability that an EV owner will go to a certain charging station, even though, an EV owner’s decision may not always comply with the calculated probabilities. An individual EV owner may go to a fixed charging station at his/her discretion. However, employing the nested logit model provides a statistically meaningful prediction for the charging demand based on ensemble averages.
The Impact of EV Integration on Power Grid
==========================================
The main function of the power grid is to deliver electricity to users reliably and economically. However, large-scale EV integration can potentially disrupt the normal operation of power grid in terms of system stability, severe power loss, frequency variation, voltage imbalance, etc. Generally, the variations in voltage and frequency of electricity are considered as the major factors to characterize the power quality.
Assume that the power system has $M$ generators and $D$ buses (substations), and the power flow study approach [@powerflow] is applied to solve the voltage, real power, and reactive power in the power system. Consider the node power equations, which can be written as real and reactive power for each bus.
$$\label{networkflow1}
0=-P_i+\sum_{k=1}^N|v_i||v_k|(G_{ik}\cos\phi_{ik}+B_{ik}\sin\phi_{ik}),$$
$$\label{networkflow2}
0=-Q_i+\sum_{k=1}^N|v_i||v_k|(G_{ik}\sin\phi_{ik}-B_{ik}\cos\phi_{ik}),$$
where $P_i$ and $Q_i$ are, respectively, the injected real power and reactive power at bus $i$. The variable $G_{ik}$ is the real part of the element in the bus admittance matrix corresponding to the $i$-th row and $k$-th column, and $B_{ik}$ is the imaginary part of the element. In Equations (\[networkflow1\]) and (\[networkflow2\]), $\phi_{ik}$ is the voltage angle between the $i$-th bus and the $k$-th bus, while $|v_i|$ and $|v_k|$ are the voltage magnitudes at bus $i$ and bus $k$, respectively. The stress on the voltage and frequency imposed by concentrated charging at EV charging station is expected to be significant. However, good models to calculate and penalize this stress are not yet considered.
In [@tong]-[@eric], the authors have proposed different frameworks to coordinate EV charging to ensure stable and economical operation of power grid. In this work, we will consider how to alleviate the “stress" added to the power grid by EV charging when determining the optimal charging station deployment.
Note that the voltage and system frequency are the two important factors of power quality in the power grid. The imbalance of the active power will lead to frequency drift, while the imbalance of the reactive power will cause the voltage variation [@powerstability]. Specifically, if the active power needed by the loads exceeds the generation, the extra active power is supplied by decreasing the generator’s rotation speed, which results in a downward drift in frequency [@regulation]. On the other hand, the balance of the reactive power can influence the voltage stability. The excess of reactive power will lead to voltage increase, while the insufficiency of reactive power will lead to voltage decrease [@reactivepower]. Therefore, the demand and supply of both active power and reactive power should always be balanced.
Generally, the system operator schedules the power plants by estimating the load. If the load fluctuates significantly around the predefined value, the power plants are incentivized to ramp up and ramp down. However, this results in low efficiency and high cost from committing spinning reserves [@spinningreserve]. Therefore, the fluctuation of the active power and reactive power at the generators with and without EV charging can be used as a metric to evaluate the stress that the charging stations impose on the grid. In particular, we use the 2-norm deviation of generating power (real power and reactive power) of all generators in the power system to calculate the impacts of EV charging.
$$B={\left\lVert\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}-\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}\right\rVert}^2_2+
{\left\lVert\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}-\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}\right\rVert}^2_2,$$
where $\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}=[P_1^{\textrm{base}},P_2^{\textrm{base}},\cdots,P_M^{\textrm{base}}]$ is a vector representing the active power generated by the $M$ generators under the base power load scenario (without EV charging), and $\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}=[P_1^{\textrm{EV}},P_2^{\textrm{EV}},\cdots,P_M^{\textrm{EV}}]$ is the vector of active power with EV charging (i.e., base power load superposed by EV charging load). Similarly, $\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}=[Q_1^{\textrm{base}},Q_2^{\textrm{base}},\cdots,Q_M^{\textrm{base}}]$ is the vector of reactive power of the base load, and $\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}=[Q_1^{\textrm{EV}},Q_2^{\textrm{EV}},\cdots,Q_M^{\textrm{EV}}]$ is the vector of reactive power with EV charging. For a specific power system, $\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}},\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}},\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{base}}$, and $\mathbf{Q}_{\textrm{g}}^{\textrm{EV}}$ can be calculated through solving the global power flow equations.
Spatial Competition and Optimal Placement in A Bayesian Game
============================================================
It is pivotal for firms to choose the right location and product to compete with rivals in the same industry. Business locations will affect business competition, and conversely intensive competition will affect how firms choose the appropriate locations. One question arises naturally is whether or not firms from the same industry like to cluster their stores. There are some classical literature on spatial competition, e.g. Hotelling’s location model [@hotelling] and Salop’s circle model [@outside2]. Firms have incentives for both clustering and separation. On one hand, firms prefer clustering so that they can learn from each other on how to improve manufacturing and research productivity [@glaeser]-[@shaver], and learn demand from each other to reduce the cost of searching for the optimal location. Firms also cluster for the labor pool and supplies. In addition, firms can benefit from the spinoffs that are located near parent firms. On the other hand, the fear of intensive price competition due to clustering may motivate the firms to separate locations from each other.
The EV charging service providers face the similar dilemma. Therefore, we need to investigate how the service providers will interact with each other in choosing their charging station locations and setting the retail charging prices. In practice, the exact placement costs and utility functions of the competing service providers may not be known to the service provider *a priori*. We thus formulate the problem as a Bayesian game [@bayesian] among the service providers at each planning stage.
For notational simplicity, we omit the stage superscript in the following definitions since the Bayesian game has the same mechanism at each stage. The main components of a Bayesian game include the set of players $\mathcal{I}$, the strategy space $S_k$, the type space $\Theta_k$, the payoff function $u_k$, and the joint probability of the types $f(\Theta_1,\Theta_2,\Theta_3)$. $S_k=[s_{1,k},s_{2,k},\cdots, s_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$ accounts for all possible placement policies for player $k$. $S_{-k}$ is the placement policies of the competing players. Denote $f(S_{-k})$ as probability mass function (PMF) of the placement policies of the other players. The type space $\Theta_k=[\theta_{1,k},\theta_{2,k},\cdots,\theta_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$ corresponds to the placement costs of all charging station candidates of service provider $k$. In this paper, we assume that a service provider knows its own type, but not the types of the other two competing players.
Let $\theta_{j,k}$ denote the placement cost for $j$-th charging station candidate of service provider $k$, which includes the charging equipment cost, installation fee, construction cost, land rental cost, etc. $\theta_{j,k}$ has i.i.d. uniform distribution.
Before proceeding to analyze the Bayesian game, we need the following assumptions.
$\mathbf{Assumption\;1}$: $f(S_{-k})$ is binomially distributed with parameter 0.5, *i.e.* $S_{-k}\backsim \textrm{Binomial}(2L, 0.5)$.
$\mathbf{Remark\;1}$: The distribution of $S_{-k}$ reflects player $k$’s conjecture on how other players will act during the game. Each player can form their conjectures about other players according to their beliefs about the competitors. For instance, a player may be risk neutral, risk aversion or risk seeking. For simplicity, we assume that $S_{-k}$ has a binomial distribution with parameter 0.5. However, the theoretical analysis can be applied to any other distribution of $S_{-k}$.
$\mathbf{Assumption\;2}$: All service providers in the market are Bertrand competitors.
$\mathbf{Remark\;2}$: Bertrand competitors are players that do not cooperate with each other. Their goal is to maximize their own utility. They will not form any type of “coalition" to manipulate the market.
For each player, the Bayesian Nash Equilibirum (BNE) of placement policy can be derived from Equation (\[obj\]). To solve Equation (\[obj\]), we need to know the retail charging prices of all the service providers. In a Bertrand competition, the retail prices for every combination of the charging station placement policies are determined by the first order of conditions (FOC): $$\label{eq1}
\frac{\partial\Pi_1}{\partial p_1}=\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^{L}q_ns_{j,1}\left[\Phi_{j,1}^n+(p_1-c_{j,1})\frac{\partial\Phi_{j,1}^n}{\partial p_1}\right]=0$$ $$\label{eq2}
\frac{\partial\Pi_2}{\partial p_2}=\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^{L}q_ns_{j,2}\left[\Phi_{j,2}^n+(p_2-c_{j,2})\frac{\partial\Phi_{j,2}^n}{\partial p_2}\right]=0$$ $$\label{eq3}
\frac{\partial\Pi_3}{\partial p_3}=\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^{L}q_ns_{j,3}\left[\Phi_{j,3}^n+(p_3-c_{j,3})\frac{\partial\Phi_{j,3}^n}{\partial p_3}\right]=0$$ where $c_{j,1},c_{j,2},$ and $c_{j,3}$ represent the LMP at each charging station candidate.
$\mathbf{Remark\;3}$: For simulation simplicity, we assume the charging stations affiliated to the same service provider have the same retail charging prices ($p_1, p_2, \textrm{ and } p_3$). However, our analysis can be easily generalized to the case where each charging station sets its own retail price. Note that those retail prices obtained from Equations (\[eq1\])-(\[eq3\]) may not be the real-time prices used in practice. They are only the equilibrium prices in this market under the assumption of Bertrand competition. They can be interpreted as the averaged charging prices of the service providers over a long period of time. In practice, the service providers take turns to set the retail price in response to the prices of the competitors. Additionally, if some of the other factors change (i.e. consumer’s preference, crude oil price soaring, etc.), the existing equilibrium breaks and a new equilibrium must be computed using the same procedure.
$\mathbf{Theorem\;1}$ \[Strategy Decision Condition\]: Service provider $k$ will choose placement policy $l(l=1,2,3,\cdots,2^L)$ if the type space $\Theta_k$ falls into the hypervolume specified by $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{H}(l)=\\
&\{\Theta_k\in \mathbb{R}_+^L:\Theta_k^{\textrm{T}}\left(S_{k,j}-S_{k,l}\right)-(\mathbb{E}R_{k,j}-\mathbb{E}R_{k,l})\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;+w(B_{k,j}-B_{k,l})>0;\forall j \neq l\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{k,j}$ and $S_{k,l}$ denote the placement strategy $j$ and $l$, respectively. $\mathbb{E}R_{k,j}$ and $\mathbb{E}R_{k,l}$ denote the expected total revenue with deployment strategy $j$ and $l$, respectively.
Each service provider has $L$ location candidates, so there are $2^L$ different placement policies. The type space can be seen as an $L$-dimensional space, and $\Theta_k=[\theta_{1,k},\theta_{2,k},\cdots,\theta_{L,k}]^{\textrm{T}}$ represents a point in this space.
By Equation (\[obj\]), strategy $l$ is optimal if $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}[R_{k,l}]-\Theta_{k}^{\textrm{T}}S_{k,l}-wB_{k,l}>\mathbb{E}[R_{k,j}]-\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\Theta_{k}^{\textrm{T}}S_{k,j}-wB_{k,j};(j=1,2,\cdots,2^L, j \neq l).
\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging the terms, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\Theta_k^{\textrm{T}}\left(S_{k,j}-S_{k,l}\right)-(\mathbb{E}R_{k,j}-\mathbb{E}R_{k,l})+\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;w(B_{k,j}-B_{k,l})>0;(j=1,2,\cdots,2^L, j \neq l),
\end{aligned}$$ where each inequality represents a hyperplane and the intersection of all the inequalities defines a hypervolume in the type space.
Simulation Platform and Case Study
==================================
We have developed a general-purpose simulation software—The EV Virtual City 1.0 using Repast [@Repast]. Our simulation software is designed to construct a virtual digital city by integrating a variety of data and information, such as geographic information, demographic information, spatial infrastructure data, urban road network graph, electric power network graph, travel pattern, diurnal variation in traffic flow, seasonal fluctuation of driving activities, social interaction, etc. The platform is flexible in that one can include or exclude many modules to satisfy different simulation needs. See Fig. \[architecture\] for the architecture of the simulation software.
![The Architecture of The EV Virtual City 1.0[]{data-label="architecture"}](EVcity2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="2.8in"}
In this paper, we conduct a case study using the data of San Pedro District of Los Angeles. We import the shapefiles of zip code tabulation area (ZCTA) and road network data from the U.S. Census Bureau into our simulation software. In addition, we calculate the centroids of locations of residence, restaurants, supermarkets, shopping centers and workplaces using Google Maps, see Fig. \[road\].
![Roads and Buildings of San Pedro District[]{data-label="road"}](p13-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="2.8in"}
From the California Energy Commission website, we obtained the maps of transmission line and substations of San Pedro District. This area has 107 substations in total. Thus we use the IEEE 118-bus power system test case in our simulation. For each charging station placement policy, we used MATPOWER [@matpower] to calculate the LMP of each bus and the output power of each generator with and without EV charging.
The service providers must also satisfy the QoS constraints when planning the charging stations at each new stage. In the simulations, we consider four stages with 5000 EVs, 10000 EVs, 15000 EVs, and 20000 EVs. Since travel pattern also plays a significant role in analysing the charging behavior of EV owners, it is necessary to have a thorough study on the statistics of travel pattern. From the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (2009 NHTS) [@cite14], we obtained the travel pattern statistics. See Fig. \[statistic\].
[The Simulation Algorithm]{}\[Algorithm1\]
- [*Initialization:*]{} Initialize road network, spatial infrastructure data, travel pattern statistics.
- [*EV Movement:*]{} For $1\leq j \leq N$ (total number of EVs), randomly assign a destination $Des(j)$ to EV $j$; calculate a route $Route(j)$ from $Home(j)$ to $Des(j)$ using Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm.
- [*Bayesian Game Solution:*]{}
1. [*Prices and Revenue Calculation:*]{} For $1 \leq i \leq M$ (total number of deployment strategies), calculate retail charging prices $p_1,p_2,\textrm{and } p_3$. Calculate $R_{1,i}, R_{2,i},\textrm{and},R_{3,i}$.
2. [*Optimal Deployment Strategy Search:*]{} Find the strategy for each service provider $k(k=1,2,3)$ $$S_k^*=l^*=\operatorname*{argmax}_{l\in\{1,2,\cdots,M\}}\left\{R_{k,l}-\Theta_k^{\textrm{T}}S_{k,l}\right\}$$
- [*Report:*]{} $S_1^*,S_2^*,S_3^*,p_1^*,p_2^*,p_3^*$
![The Statistics of Travel Patterns[]{data-label="statistic"}](statistic-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="2.8in"}
![A Snapshot of EVs Movement[]{data-label="movement"}](p33-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="2.8in"}
A snapshot of the moving EVs is shown in Fig. \[movement\]. Each red star represents an EV owner. The traffic flow heatmap of EV owners is also plotted in this figure. The simulation results are summarized in Table \[ta9\]. Figs. \[stage1\] to \[stage4\] correspond to the charging station placement for stages 1 to 4, respectively. Fig. \[overview\] is an overview of charging station placement by superposing Figs. \[stage1\] to \[stage4\]. Fig. \[line\] shows how the number of charging station increases as the EV penetration rate increases.
{width="2.7in"}
{width="2.7in"}
{width="2.7in"}
{width="2.7in"}
{width="2.7in"}
{width="2.5in"}
Stage Level Delay prob. Coverage Newly Built Stations Total \# of Stations
-------------------------- ------- ------------- ---------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Stage 1 1 0.29 1.7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 13
(Penetration Rate 0.32%, 2 0.17 1.6 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 9
5000 EVs) 3 0.04 0.8 2, 4, 7, 12 4
Stage 2 1 0.28 2.5 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 20
(Penetration Rate 0.64%, 2 0.17 2.3 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 15
10000 EVs) 3 0.10 1.15 18, 22, 23, 25 8
Stage 3 1 0.29 3.6 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32 26
(Penetration Rate 0.96%, 2 0.18 3.1 26, 27, 28, 31, 32 20
15000 EVs) 3 0.08 1.9 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 13
Stage 4 1 0.22 4.6 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 31
(Penetration Rate 1.28%, 2 0.16 3.9 33, 37, 38, 39, 44 25
20000 EVs) 3 0.10 2.9 36, 38, 40, 41, 44 18
From the simulation results, we can make the following observations:
- The optimal charging station deployment is consistent with the EV traffic flow heatmap. This suggests that our model can adequately capture the mobility of EVs and provide EV owners with convenient charging services.
- As for the number of charging stations, Level 1 charging station is predominant over Level 2 and Level 3. Level 3 has the least number of charging stations. Notice that it takes a much longer time to finish charging for Level 1, so Level 1 service provider must place more charging stations to meet the average delay probability constraint. The difference in quantity also reveals that the service providers have different marketing strategies. Service provider 1 tries to place the charging stations evenly across the entire area, while service provider 3 is more likely to place the charging stations at some “hot" locations.
- The number of charging stations grows almost linearly with the number of EVs except for the initial stage. At the initial stage, Level 1 and Level 2 service providers tend to place more charging stations than the next stages. This is because service providers must place more charging stations to meet the average service coverage constraints. As the number of charging stations increases, however, the service coverage constraint is less of a concern for the service providers.
- Service providers prefer clustering instead of spatial separation. The three service providers have segmented the EV charging market by providing three different products (different charging level services) in terms of voltage, current, charging speed and charging price. Due to product differentiation, they significantly soften the price competition so that they do not need to spatially separate from each other to further relax competition. This observation supports the opinions in [@Competition]-[@chargingstation] that firms do not have to maximize differentiation in every characteristic of the product. In general, differentiation in one dominant characteristic is sufficient to soften price competition.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have proposed a solution to the placement of EV charging stations which balances the benefits of EV owner, charging station owner, and power grid operator. We formulate the competition among charging stations as a Bayesian game. Solving the game renders the optimal placement policies for the service providers. In addition, we develop a simulation software—The EV Virtual City 1.0 on Repast, and conduct a case study of San Pedro District of Los Angeles. The simulation illustrates that charging station placement is highly consistent with the traffic flow of EVs, and the service providers prefer clustering to separating the charging stations.
[9]{}
Michael J North, Nicholson T Collier, Jonathan Ozik, Eric R Tatara, Charles M Macal, Mark Bragen, and Pam Sydelko, “Complex adaptive systems modeling with Repast Simphony," Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling, Springer, Heidelberg, FRG (2013).
Shaoyun Ge, Liang Feng, and Hong Liu, “The Planning of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Based on Grid Partition Method," in *Proc. 2011 International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE)*, 2011, pp. 2726-2730.
Sara Mehar, and Sidi Mohammed Senouci, “An Optimization Location Scheme for Electric Charging Stations," in *Proc. 2013 International Conference on Smart Communications in Network Technologies (SaCoNeT)*, 2013, pp. 1-5.
Ines Frade, Anabela Ribeiro, Goncalo Goncalves, and Antonio Pais Antunes, “Optimal location of charging stations for electric vehicles in a neighborhood in lisbon, portugal," In *Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board*, vol. 2252, no.12, pp. 91-98, Feb. 2011.
Zonggen Yi , and Peter H. Bauer, “Energy Consumption Model and Charging Station Placement for Electric Vehicles," In *Proc. 3rd International Conference on Smart Grids and Green IT Systems (SMARTGREENS)*, 2014.
Timothy M. Sweda, and Diego Klabjan, “An Agent-Based Decision Support System for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment," in *Proc. 2011 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC)* , 2011, pp. 1-5.
Valeria Bernardo, Joan-Ramon Borrell, and Jordi Perdiguero, “Fast Charging Stations: Network Planning versus Free Entry," *Available online: http: //www.cemfi.es/ftp/pdf/papers/wshop/version\_3.pdf*, (accessed on 27 March, 2014)
Craig B. Toepfer, *SAE Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler, SAE J1772, REV. MONTH01 (DOC)*, California Air Resources Board, 2009.
Ezra Hausman, Robert Fagan, David White, Kenji Takahashi, and Alice Napoleon, “LMP Electricity Markets: Market Operations, Market Power, and Value for Consumers" (online), *available at: https://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/SynapseLMPElectricityMarkets 013107.pdf*, (accessed on February 5, 2006)
Lopes, J.A.P. , Soares, F.J., and Almeida, P.M.R., “Integration of Electric Vehicles in the Electric Power System", *Proceedings of the IEEE*, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 168 - 183, Jan. 2011.
M. Kinter-Meyer, K. Schneider, and R. Pratt, “Impacts assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on electric utilities and regional U.S. power grids. Part I–Technical analysis", Pacific North West National Lab., Richland, WA, PNNL-SA-61669, Jan. 2007.
M. J. Scott, M. Kintner-Meyer, D. Elliott, and W. Warwick, “Economic assessment and impacts assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles on electric utilities and regional U.S. power grids. Part II", Pacific North West National Lab., Richland, WA, PNNL-SA-61687, Jan. 2007.
Kenneth Train, *Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 2003.
Steven T. Berry, “Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation", *Rand Journal Of Economics*, vol. 25(2), pp.242-262, 1994.
Steven C. Salop, “Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods", *The Bell Journal of Economics*, vol. 10(1), pp.141-156, 1979.
Chao Luo, Yih-Fang Huang, and Vijay Gupta, “A Consumer Behavior Based Approach to Multi-stage EV Charging Station Placement", accepted by *IEEE 81st Vehicular Technology Conference*, 2015.
Moshe E. Ben-Akiva and Steven R. Lerman, *Discrete choice analysis : theory and application to travel demand*, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massahusetts, 1985.
Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein, *Introduction to Algorithms* Third Edition, The MIT Press, 2009.
John Grainger, and William Stevenson, *Power system analysis*, New York : McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Shiyao Chen, and Lang Tong, “iEMS for Large Scale Charging of Electric Vehicles: Architecture and Optimal Online Scheduling", *2012 SmartGridComm*, Nov. 2012.
Michael Caramanis, and Justin M. Foster, “Management of Electric Vehicle Charging to Mitigate Renewable Generation Intermittency and Distribution Network Congestion", in *Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*, pp. 4717¨C4722, Dec. 2009.
Lingwen Gan, Ufuk Topcu, and Steven H. Low, “Optimal Decentralized Protocol for Electric Vehicle Charging", *IEEE Trans. on Power System*, vol. 28, no. 2, May 2013.
Somayeh Sojoudi, and Steven H. Low, “Optimal Charging of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Smart Grids", in *Proc. IEEE PES General Meeting*, 2011.
Eric Sortomme, Mohammad M. Hindi, S. D. James MacPherson, and S. S. Venkata, “Coordinated Charging of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles to Minimize Distribution System Losses", *IEEE Trans. on Smartt Grid* vol. 2, no. 1, March 2011.
Prabha Kundur, *Power System Stability and Control (1st edition)*, McGraw-Hill Education, January 22, 1994.
RENAC Online Academy, “ReGrid: Frequency and voltage regulation in electrical grids" (online), *Available at: http://docplayer.net/6038884-Regrid-frequency-and-voltage-regulation-in-electrical-grids.html*, (accessed on October, 2015).
Tore Petersson, “Reactive Power Compensation", ABB Power Systems AB, Sweden, 1993.
Y. Rebours, and D. Kirschen, “What is spinning reserve?", Available at: *http:http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/real/Library/Reports/What\_is \_spinning\_reserve.pdf*, (accessed on September, 2005).
Harold Hotelling, “Stability in Competition", *The Economic Journal*, vol. 39, no. 153, pp. 41-57, March 1929.
Edward L. Glaeser, Heddi D. Kallal, Jose A. Scheinkman, and Andrei Shleifer, “Growth in cities", *Journal of Political Economy*, vol. 100(6), pp.1126-1152, 1992.
J. Myles Shaver, and Fredrick Flyer, “Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States", *Strategic Management Journal*, vol. 21(12), pp.1175-1193, , 2000.
John Harsanyi, “Games with incomplete information played by Bayesian players, I-III", *Management Science*, vol. 14, no. 3, Nov. 1967.
R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sanchez, and R. J. Thomas, “MATPOWER: Steady-State Operations, Planning, and Analysis Tools for Power Systems Research and Education", *Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on*, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12-19, Feb. 2011.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “2009 National Household Travel Survey," (online), *Available at: http://nhts.ornl.gov*, (accessed on October, 2009).
Andreas Irmen, and Jacques-Francois Thisse, “Competition in Multi-characteristics Spaces: Hotelling Was Almost Right," *Journal of economic theory*, vol.78 iss.1 pp. 76 -102, 1998.
Joel A. C. Baum and Heather A. Haveman, “Love Thy Neighbor? Differentiation and Agglomeration in the Manhattan Hotel Industry", *Administrative Science Quarterly*, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 304-338, 1997.
[Chao Luo]{} received the B.Eng degree with distinction in Communication Engineering from Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), China, in 2012. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in the University of Notre Dame, USA. Chao’s research interests include electric vehicle (EV) integration into power grid, network protocol design of smart grid, and electricity market.
[Yih-Fang Huang]{} is Professor of Department of Electrical Engineering and Senior Associate Dean of College of Engineering at University of Notre Dame. Dr. Huang received his BSEE degree from National Taiwan University, MSEE degree from University of Notre Dame and Ph.D. from Princeton University. He served as chair of the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Notre Dame from 1998 to 2006. His research interests focus on theory and applications of statistical signal detection and estimation, and adaptive signal processing.
In Spring 1993, Dr. Huang received the Toshiba Fellowship and was Toshiba Visiting Professor at Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. From April to July 2007, he was a visiting professor at the Munich University of Technology, Germany. In Fall, 2007, Dr. Huang was awarded the Fulbright-Nokia scholarship for lectures/research at Helsinki University of Technology in Finland (which is now Aalto University).
Dr. Huang received the Golden Jubilee Medal of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society in 1999, served as Vice President in 1997-98 and was a Distinguished Lecturer for the same society in 2000-2001. At the University of Notre Dame, he received Presidential Award in 2003, the Electrical Engineering department’s Outstanding Teacher Award in 1994 and in 2011, the Rev. Edmund P. Joyce, CSC Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching in 2011, and the College of Engineering’s Teacher of the Year Award in 2013. Dr. Huang is a Fellow of the IEEE.
[Vijay Gupta]{} is an Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Notre Dame. He received his B. Tech degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the California Institute of Technology, all in Electrical Engineering. Prior to joining Notre Dame, he also served as a research associate in the Institute for Systems Research at the University of Maryland, College Park. He received the NSF CAREER award in 2009, and the Donald P. Eckman Award from the American Automatic Control Council in 2013. His research interests include cyber-physical systems, distributed estimation, detection and control, and, in general, the interaction of communication, computation and control.
[^1]: C. Luo, Y.-F. Huang, and V. Gupta are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556 USA e-mail: {cluo1, huang, vgupta2}@nd.edu
[^2]: This paper was presented, in part, at the 2015 IEEE 81st Vehicular Technology Conference. This work has been partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grants CNS-1239224 and ECCS-0846631.
[^3]: The EV Virtual City 1.0 simulator can be downloaded from https://github.com/chaoluond/EVVirtualCity
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.